Alan Dershowitz and Rob Roos dissect the Trump indictment, with Dershowitz arguing it lacks a "slam-dunk" case due to compromised attorney-client privilege and misuse of the Espionage Act, while asserting Trump can still run for president. Roos joins to warn against top-down agendas like Agenda 2030 and CBDCs, claiming they threaten Western freedom by controlling spending and forcing farmers out of business. Ultimately, the episode suggests that unchecked bureaucratic overreach and biased media narratives pose a greater threat to democracy than current legal challenges. [Automatically generated summary]
All right, today's podcast, there's a lot, a lot to learn.
First hour, we take you through history and compare then and now.
What are the seeds that we're seeing not only planted, but beginning to bear fruit that not really good, not really good fruit?
Don't eat the fruit.
Don't eat the fruit.
I think somebody else said that.
Oh yeah, it was God.
Don't eat the fruit.
Unfortunately, they went on and did.
The next hour is a fascinating hour with a guy from the Netherlands, Sweden, Czechoslovakia.
I don't know.
Finland.
He's from Norway, and I don't know what that can take.
He's from...
No, he's not from Norway.
Just say it's from overseas.
Oh, yeah.
The Netherlands.
The Netherlands.
That's where he's from.
I thought you were kidding.
You don't really, really don't remember where he's from.
Yeah, no, I really.
I know he's in the general cold region that everybody avoids.
Anyway, so he was on, he's an outspoken EU member of parliament who is, he knows his business on food, on energy, and everything else that is going on in the world.
He's got quite a warning and a plea as well to Americans.
And then we take on the Donald Trump case and we look at both sides.
Or at least we thought somebody who was very strong for the case on Donald Trump saying, no, it's no big deal.
And we thought somebody, because we listened to the media, was saying, no, this one is serious.
This one really could do some damage and he might go to jail.
Alan Dershowitz.
We find out in this interview, that's not what he said.
And he addresses that.
It's a very frank interview with Alan Dershowitz, all on today's podcast.
Brought to you by Jace Medical.
Jace Medical is, I mean, I think they're a godsend.
For anybody who will take them up on this, I think you will not regret it.
Doesn't have to be catastrophic failure and, you know, pigs and dogs making out at porno clubs.
It doesn't have to be that.
Well, that'll happen soon.
Oh, it'll happen.
Anyway, Jace Medical has introduced JACE Daily.
Now, this is for, let's say, we have a shortage of drugs.
Oh, that'll never happen.
Let's say we have a shortage of medication.
Let's say we have another, you know, supply chain breakdown.
All of these things could happen.
What happens to all of those people who are on high cholesterol drugs, diabetes drugs, blood pressure, mental health?
What happens to those people if they can't get any of those medications for a month, two months?
Medication Shortages and Supply Chains00:14:37
How many people are alive, including me, that probably shouldn't be alive, but through pharmaceuticals, you're reducing your blood pressure and everything else, and you're still alive.
Jace Medical has put together Jace Daily, which will allow you to get a prescription supply service to get 12 months' backup supply of your prescription medication just in case of an emergency.
Be prepared.
JaceMedical.com.
Enter the promo code Beck at checkout for a discount on your order.
That's promo code Beck.
Jace, J-A-S-E, JaceMedical.com.
jasemedical.com promo code Beck. You're listening to the best of the Glenn Beck Program.
Rob Rose is a member of the European Parliament.
He is Dutch and he is with us now.
And we were just talking off the air a little bit about your history.
Tell me, what did you do before you got into politics?
I was an entrepreneur.
I founded a couple of companies, I bought companies, I merged them.
And in 2016, I sold most of my companies.
And well, that was at the moment.
No, it was starting earlier.
I thought it's not going very well in the Netherlands with our politicians and the way we are heading.
You have the new Green Deal.
We have the Green Deal.
I had an engineering, I'm an electrical engineer.
That's my background.
And I had an engineering company in energy.
So I know pretty much about that.
And also in telecom.
But in 2016, I sold the most of it.
And, well, I had some extra time by then.
And I started helping a new political party in the Netherlands.
You weren't a member of any party.
No, I sponsored them, but I was not even, I didn't become a member of that party because it was a very intelligent young guy and he was very enthusiastic.
And I said, I'm so happy that someone is picking up the gloves to do this.
And, well, but to make a long story short, I ended up in the European Parliament.
And it's incredible what I see there.
It's all about gender.
It's all about climate.
And I thought that politics was meant to be to make people's lives better and not more expensive and more complicated.
I am amazed that people all over the world have put up with what they have already gone through.
We are being told to disregard what we see, disregard common sense, scientific method.
None of it makes any sense and yet we're still kind of taking it.
You seeing a difference in that's why I'm here in the United States to create an alliance because our Western way of life is in danger.
And in the European Parliament, I'm the vice president of the European Conservatives and Reformists.
And that's one of the groups in the but it's it's common sense.
It's what President Trump said.
It's call me a conservative, call me a classic liberal.
For me it's just common sense and I have exactly the same.
There is no common sense anymore.
What they are doing is we're heading in a certain direction and that certain direction that means that democracy is moving away from people.
It's all top-down that the things are coming in like Agenda 2030, this gender policy, also this climate policy.
Hang on just a second.
Do you have your phone on you?
Yes.
Can we remove it from the studio or turn it off?
It's just creating a little interface.
But go ahead.
Sorry about that.
No, no.
So democracy is moving away from the people.
It's not what people ask for, and it's all top-down.
For example, Agenda 2030, I was one of the negotiators on that file in the European Parliament, and it was welcomed by most of all my colleagues with a big applause.
But if you look at this 17 Sustainable Development Goals, it's not helping the people.
For example, zero hunger, no poverty.
That's not possible.
Well, it is possible, but I'm from the Netherlands, and we have the Netherlands is 16 times smaller than Texas.
We are a very tiny country.
And I will say, you're a wonderful country.
Yes.
And I love the way you look at things and the system works for you.
But you're not the United States of America.
We are the most diverse society ever.
And now with the diversity that is coming into the Netherlands, it's getting dicey.
Isn't it?
And we have a lot of the same problems.
But making my point about this zero hunger, we are the second largest food producer of the world after the United States.
I didn't know that until recently.
It is astounding.
But now they want to get rid of 50% of the cuddle, our government, because we have a nitrogen problem.
It's too stupid to explain because if I tell this story, you cannot believe it.
But also, we have to get rid of 3,000 of our farmers.
But if you want zero hunger, you have to produce food.
We need more farmers.
But our farmers are very, very efficient.
And also, yes, huge innovation.
And they are doing so well.
So it doesn't make sense.
Because if you look, they say we have to save the planet, but we have to produce that food somewhere else.
I mean, I don't know if they've noticed this, but a lot of people live where you can't grow food.
That's the point.
You know what I mean?
And so when you talk about in one of the sustainable ideas is to get rid of shipping.
Get rid of shipping.
Yes, yes.
Where are the people that live in the actual food deserts going to get their food?
And if you're the second largest producer, because they are putting the, they're just grinding the farmer here in America and the rancher into the ground.
Exactly the same.
But you guys are ahead.
Yes, you guys are ahead.
We are the first, but we see this also.
Have you seen that in Ireland?
60,000 cows they get rid of.
And it's also happening in France and in Spain already.
And I had a very wonderful discussion with Commissioner Sid Miller.
And he said it's also happening now in the United States.
He had an example of a family.
They had a farm for centuries, generation on generation, 17,000 acres, and they had a problem with the fence.
So they tried to repair it, but there was still one nail not right.
So they took off this 17,000 acres of this farmer here in the United States also.
And so they...
They're making it impossible.
Yes, but it's also with the climate.
The climate policy.
We have created our own energy problems.
In 2010, Europe was energy exporting, like the United States was energy exporting under President Trump.
Now we depend on, let's call them, not the most friendly and reliable and freedom-loving.
That's the point.
So we can produce our own energy very easily, but we make ourselves depend on Russians.
What is it going to take for people in your country, in our country, to wake up to this?
Well, this is the problem.
For me, it's the fight for freedom.
That's why I went into politics.
And what I discovered is this fight for freedom is not for scary people.
You have to speak out.
But most of the people are captured in a system.
That's what I call it.
They can lose the jobs.
They need a job because they need an income to survive, to live.
And when you speak out, that was also during COVID.
Whatever you think about that, but these restrictions were ridiculous.
But people kept silence.
Even the people in my own political party said, Rob, you should not speak about this because there is no political advantage in doing that.
I said, but you called yourself a classical liberal and you're not fighting for freedom?
Yeah.
So what are you doing here?
Correct.
Classical liberalism is really, truly, I think, what could unite all of us again.
But it's a little frightening to be in the same position that the world has been in before.
I mean, China said, hey, we're going to farm everything differently.
And that was, what, 11 million deaths?
Or was that 20 million deaths in their five-year plan?
Then you had Russia do the same, killing millions, but they knew better, and they'd replace the farmers.
We're doing all of these things over and over again.
When these things have happened in the past in the United States, but I think we're different now and not in a good way.
The United States always had the Bill of Rights, and so we had an understanding of what we were fighting for.
We weren't fighting for freedom.
We were fighting for universal rights that were clearly spelled out and opportunity to be who we want to be and pursue our own happiness.
In Europe, you don't have, your left and right can be fascism and communism.
And the sane people try to just play in the middle there a little bit.
Keep both of those things away.
What does it mean to be a conservative in Europe?
Because I'm afraid of nationalism and fascism rearing its ugly head again here in my country, but also in Europe.
Yeah, I think we have a lot of things in common.
We have a shared past, and I also believe that we have a shared future.
Because the Western society, in 1950, we were 30% of the population on this planet.
Now we are only 14%.
So the Western society is shrinking.
And we have, of course, external threat.
You meant China already.
But I think the most important threat is our cultural war.
And you name it left and right, but I call it, let's say, the globalist and the sovereignist.
I agree.
And the fight to, yeah, I call it the fight for freedom because what we see is free speech is under attack, the fight of disinformation.
I'm doing a lot of legislation.
I'm in the Environmental Committee and I'm also in the Energy Committee.
And we see the central bank digital currencies coming up.
The digital identity.
If you combine those two, you have a perfect way to control people.
Okay, will you explain that?
I think this audience, for the most part, understands that, but a lot don't.
And I think it was only 20%, if I saw a poll, only 25% even know what a CBDC is.
And they confuse it with Bitcoin.
It is absolutely not Bitcoin.
So let me take a one-minute break, and then we'll come back and have you explain what you just said.
What does that mean?
This is the best of the Glenbeck program.
And don't forget, rate us on iTunes.
We're with Rob Rose.
He is a member of the European Parliament from the Netherlands.
So explain to somebody who really doesn't understand what CBDC is and how it will control every aspect of your life.
I can explain that in a very simple way.
It's not money.
It's a coupon.
It's a what?
A coupon.
A coupon.
It's a coupon and you can, if, if.
Explain that.
Yes, I will explain that.
It's a coupon because they can, if it's programmable, and that's the discussion now, they can say, okay, we put your money on the central bank digital currency, and you can use that money in that time of period, and you can spend it on that and that and that item.
So you're, boy, this is a brilliant way to explain it.
I never heard anybody say that.
It's a coupon, which at the bottom of the coupon, it always says, some restrictions do apply, expires at this date.
The Espionage Case Debate00:15:25
Yes.
That's how you could, you can't, and there's no way to withdraw from the system.
Can you imagine that we had this problem in Europe with this Swiss bank, but also here in the United States with SVB.
Yes.
And of course, if things getting out of hand and there is a bank run, then things get nasty.
Yeah.
But if you have a central bank digital currency, it's not a problem anymore because you switch off the system.
No one can do anything.
Correct.
They are in complete control.
You know, what's crazy is I've said this.
I don't know if you know who Ray Kurzweil is, but he is a guy I've read for decades.
He's a futurist and he's part of this transhumanism kind of stuff.
Oh, yes, yes, yes.
And he was talking to me about, this is 15 years ago, about the things that were coming and how we're going to be able to implant things and you're going to have the two-way connection.
All of it's horrible.
And I said, Ray, if you are keeping me alive by the things that I'm transmitting and you're putting into me, what happens if I fall out of favor and you just turn me off?
His response was, oh, we would never do that.
Yes.
I didn't feel comfortable with that.
And Amazon just shut down here in Americas, somebody's smart home, just shut them down for a week because an Amazon deliverer said that they had made a racist comment, which the tape shows didn't happen.
But Amazon didn't even call.
They just shut them down.
You're no longer a part of this.
If they say we should never, no, we will never do that.
Our system is not based on trust.
Our system is based on checks and balances and oversight.
So we, and if you look at history, we can learn the best of the Glenn Beck program.
Welcome to the Glenn Beck program.
So when Trump was indicted last week, I was on vacation and I was not paying attention to the news.
And I mentioned it on Monday when I came back, but I told you I wanted to really get the best minds on both sides and talk to them.
And because there's people who like, have defended Trump and may like Trump, but one of those, who I think is very credible on this, because he has defended Trump time and time and time and time again, written books about it, now says this is real trouble.
And his name is Alan Dershowitz.
So I just had this is no big deal.
We can win this.
And he says there's real trouble.
So let's get the real trouble side now from Alan Dershowitz.
Hi, Alan.
How are you?
Hey, how are you?
There's real trouble, but that doesn't mean that it can't be won.
This is a very, very serious charge.
You know, in my book, Get Trump, I predicted all of this.
I also predicted the indictment of Hunter Biden on minimal charges in order to demonstrate the claim that there's equal justice.
But the problem with Donald Trump is illustrated by that plaque that some people have in their homes with a stuffed fish on it that says, if I had only kept my mouth shut, I'd still be swimming.
All of Trump's problems come from his own statements.
What he said, the most serious one, is what he said to a writer who was writing a book on meadows in which he allegedly showed him some classified material.
He says it wasn't.
He said it's just newspapers you hear on the tape, apparently rustling.
And I don't know what the facts are.
And saying I could have declassified this, but I didn't.
So it's still secret.
That seems like the government will use it as an admission that he didn't declassify everything.
If he hadn't said that, his claim of declassification would be very strong.
Then he spoke to his lawyers.
Now, I don't think those statements should ever be admissible.
Those were lawyer-client privilege statements from viewers where I would be fighting like hell to keep those out because I can't talk to my clients anymore as a result of that ruling.
So I watched enough Perry Mason, and I know that's not actual law.
But if you break the bond of attorney-client privilege, sometimes you're working with a dummy like me, and I'm like, I don't know what happens if we don't give him to them.
Well, I'm asking for your legal opinion.
What if you tell it to a priest?
What if you say to a priest, you know, I know this would be a sin, but I'm thinking perhaps maybe of not giving it over.
And the priest says, no, you must give it over.
Or you talk to your doctor.
All these privileges are now at risk as a result of this terrible decision made by judges who are handpicked by the special prosecutor.
Remember, the case is in Florida, but this special prosecutor brought these legal motions to compel the lawyers to speak in D.C. where he knew he'd get a more favorable court.
So he was judge shopping, and then he got his favorable rulings, and then he takes the case to Florida.
Wow.
And I would hope the Florida court would look at that in a very, very critical light because, as I say, I have to tell my clients now, don't ask me any questions because I may have to disclose them.
I'm not taking notes anymore with clients.
I'm not turning over anything that my clients tell me in confidence just because some court says, you know, and then there's this absurd thing of a tank team where if you say something's lawyer-client privilege, the government says, all right, we'll pick some government lawyers who have lunch every day with the prosecutors and who stand next to them in the urinal every day, and we will allow them to look at the lawyer-client privilege material, read them, and, oh,
they promise they won't with a week or not say anything to the prosecution.
That's what's happening now.
And Judge Cannon had the courage to write a decision saying, no, she was going to appoint an independent judge, a former judge, a great judge in New York to look over the lawyer-client classified materials.
And the court said, no, no, no, no, that's special treatment for Trump.
No, that's what everybody should get.
So the crime fraud exception to attorney client privilege, you don't buy into that here?
I buy into it in general, but I have to tell you, I've done 250 cases involving criminal defendants.
I would say in half of them, the conversation included some reference to maybe if I went to Brazil, I couldn't get caught.
No, you can't do that.
You'll get caught.
But, you know, the client raises all kinds of questions.
That's why it's confidential.
Correct.
It's the same as the anything they want.
Isn't it the same reason why we have the presidential confidentiality when you're talking to the president in the oval and you're brainstorming?
People don't want to say things that maybe are unpopular or will say things that are maybe crazy in hindsight, but you're brainstorming.
I don't want that on the record.
I want to be able to have a private conversation.
If you can't have that, you don't really have anything.
No, I agree with you.
Look, when I taught at Harvard for 50 years, I would say to my students, what you say in this class is confidential.
And you can be as speculative as you want.
You can say any wild thing about criminal law.
You can make statements that you would be ashamed to have made public.
This is for a Socratic discussion.
And in Socratic discussions, anything goes.
The indictment doesn't ever mention the Presidential Records Act.
Or the word espionage.
Or the word espionage.
That's being thrown around all over the place.
Yeah?
So where is, I mean, because I have gathered from what I've read from you that this serious charge, and he's going to have a hard time.
Why?
It sounds like there's a lot of other legal issues to really go after.
There are.
And that's why it's not a slammed-down case.
That's why the case should never have been brought.
I said that you don't bring a case against a man.
Forget about former president.
Don't bring a case against the man who's running to become the president against the incumbent head of your party unless you have a slam-dunk case.
Now, I think they have a case, but it's not a slam-dunk case.
There are these legal issues involving lawyer-client privilege.
The government doesn't have the piece of paper that was waived allegedly in front of this writer, so they have a hard time proving that.
They have to deal with the classification issue.
It's a winnable case, but it's also a losable case.
Whereas the case in New York is absurd.
Case in New York, the prosecutor should be disciplined for bringing it.
In 60 years of this, doing this business, I've never seen a weaker indictment than New York.
I cannot say that about the Florida case.
That doesn't mean it's going to end up with Trump being convicted, particularly since the trial is in a fair district, unlike Manhattan.
I love Manhattan.
I live in Manhattan, but you can't get a fair trial with Donald Trump in Manhattan.
Maybe you can in Palm Beach County.
Okay, so let me take you through the crazy scenario that he goes to trial in the middle of an election season.
He's convicted, sentenced.
What does this look like?
We've never, we didn't do this with Nixon.
We've never done this before.
What does this look like?
Hope we'll never do it again.
Nobody knows what it looks like.
The only thing we know for sure is he can run for president even if he's in prison.
Eugene V. Debs ran for president when he was in prison.
Curly became mayor of Boston while he was in prison.
The Constitution specifies only several criteria, and the Constitution means what it says.
So you can run.
You can even serve as president while in prison.
That's not going to happen.
Judge is not going to sentence him to prison.
So these crimes, these crimes did not endanger national security.
They are not espionage.
The media is throwing around the term espionage.
The first thing that has to happen is this trial must be on television.
We, the American people, do not trust the media to tell us the truth about the trial.
If you watch MSNBC and CNN and read the New York Times, you're going to think it's an open and shut case of guilt.
And if you see other networks, you're going to see it's an open and shut case of innocence.
You know, I was a lawyer in the O.J. Simpson case.
There was a poll that showed that people who actually watched the trial on television were not surprised at the murder.
But people who read about it in the newspapers were shocked beyond belief.
So we have to be able to see this trial.
And the word espionage should not be allowed to be used in the trial by the prosecutor.
And if he does use it, there should be a mistrial with prejudice.
Why is espionage?
Where did they even get that?
It's the name of the statute.
It's as if Congress passed a statute entitled the Child Molestation and Insider Trading Act.
And they indict somebody for insider trading, and they go in front of the jury and say, this man has been indicted under the child molestation insider trading action.
Wow.
That's the name of the statute.
It was passed in 1917 to go after war resistors, mostly religious people who had a conscientious objection about going to the First World War.
And Woodrow Wilson passed the Espionage Act, which had very little to do with espionage.
It had mostly to do with dissent and whistleblowing.
And all of the whistleblowers have been indicted under the Espionage Act.
I've defended many anti-war protesters and other dissenters under the Espionage Act.
And the government loves to use the word espionage, but there's no allegation here that went to foreign enemies.
Real quick, I've only got about two minutes.
We're talking to Alan Dershowitz, host of the Dir Show.
It's podcast.
It's great.
Also, the author of Get Trump.
Tell me your thoughts on Hunter Biden and what's just happened.
What's happened is we don't know.
If he just did the three things he was indicted for, then it's a fair plea bargain.
Most people who are late in their taxes don't even get indicted.
I do think that filing a gun license application if you're a cocaine addict and not disclosing that is actually a more serious crime.
But that's a fair result.
But what about what he wasn't indicted for?
What about the investigations that are going on about Barisma, about those alleged 17 tape recordings, including two with the president?
What about the other information that we have, the laptop, a laptop top?
We don't have anything about that.
And therefore, I think there's a special obligation on this prosecutor to issue a report.
He has to issue a report to Garland, but then Garland should make it public.
So we should know whether there was an adequate investigation from what he was charged with.
The sentencing seems correct.
But if there was information that we don't know about that would incriminate on these other things.
Why would this thing take four years?
Four years.
I can't imagine the resources that they spent for misdemeanors.
Well, the only explanation is that they did look into Barisma.
They did look into the laptop.
And they found nothing.
And they found nothing.
But I want to know that.
I want to see that with my own eyes.
I don't want to read that in the New York Times or MSNBC or CNN.
I don't believe them.
I want to see it with my own eyes.
I want to hear that tape with my own ears.
And I want to see the trial of Donald Trump on television.
So I can make a judgment, and you can make a judgment for ourselves.
We will believe our eyes, not what we read in the papers.
I will tell you that you are a great example of that.
Just now, I had a different opinion of what you had said on Donald Trump than I do walking away.
Of course.
My wife had the same thing.
My wife came to me and said, oh, my God, did you see what they say you said about Donald Trump?
I said, that's the headline.
Read the article.
Read the actual quotes.
And she reads the actual quotes and said, oh, my God, you didn't say anything like that.
Unbelievable.
CNN did that to me.
They doctored a tape of what I said on the floor of the Senate and made me say, which I didn't say, that a president could commit murder and not be impeached.
They just doctored a tape, and the Times believed it, and other newspapers believed it.
Now there's a lawsuit.
So you've got to see it with your own eyes more today than ever before.