Glenn Beck, David Barton, and Alan Dershowitz dissect explosive claims regarding the Obama administration's alleged manipulation of intelligence via the Steele dossier to target Trump. Barton defends the Ten Commandments in classrooms by citing historical textbook usage and over 300 court cases, arguing their removal hollows American culture. Dershowitz analyzes the Epstein case, proposing Ghislaine Maxwell as the key to unlocking truth while criticizing accusers for false claims and noting her harsh sentence stemmed from Epstein's death. Ultimately, the episode challenges narratives on election interference, religious education, and high-profile criminal justice, urging listeners to verify sources against official documents. [Automatically generated summary]
Hey, on the podcast, how one document that Tulsi Gabbard released today, right before we recorded the podcast, links everything, the raid on Mar-a-Lago to the fake steel dossier and Obama and Hillary's connections, plus Hillary's health.
All of it is exposed, and you can see the documents now at Glennbeck.com and understand it by listening to today's podcast.
Tonight, I'm also doing a chalkboard special on tying us all together so you can really understand it.
Also, Alan Dershowitz on Epstein and David Barton on the Ten Commandments and why they matter.
Everyone talks about the importance of keeping moving, staying active, stay busy, stay engaged.
Good advice until your body decides, you know, to file a formal complaint.
It's hard to keep moving when your knees, your back, your shoulders are all sending you the same message.
Yeah.
No, not today.
And that's the truth about pain.
It doesn't just slow down your body.
It slows down your spirit.
It shrinks your world.
But that's what there is to love about Relief Factor.
It opens it back up.
It's not some magic pill.
It's a daily supplement that is designed to fight pain at the source.
And it helps your body do it naturally.
Inflammation.
Thousands of people have found relief in Relief Factor.
Helps them move easier and put pain where it belongs in the rearview mirror.
It's not about chasing youth or anything like that.
It's about just living well now, being able to work in the yard, you know, play with the kids or the grandkids.
Do the things that matter to you the most without pain calling the shots.
Give their three-week quick start a try for only $19.95.
Visit relieffactor.com.
That's relieffactor.com or call 800 the number for relief.
800, the number 4 relief.
It's relieffactor.com.
Hello, America.
You know we've been fighting every single day.
We push back against the lies, the censorship, the nonsense of the mainstream media that they're trying to feed you.
We work tirelessly to bring you the unfiltered truth because you deserve it.
But to keep this fight going, we need you right now.
Would you take a moment and rate and review the Glenn Beck podcast?
Give us five stars and lead a comment because every single review helps us break through big tech's algorithm to reach more Americans who need to hear the truth.
This isn't a podcast.
This is a movement and you're part of it, a big part of it.
So if you believe in what we're doing, you want more people to wake up, help us push this podcast to the top.
Rate, review, share.
Together, we'll make a difference.
And thanks for standing with us.
Now let's get to work.
You're listening to The Best of the Glenn Beck Program.
The Embargoed Gabbard Document00:13:32
I received a what's called embargoed document early this morning.
And it was embargoed until about two hours ago.
And so we've spent the last two hours trying to go through it and understand what it says.
And it's from Tulsi Gabbard.
And it is an explosive document.
And you're going to understand how important this document is in just a minute.
And I'm going to show you tonight on chalkboard.
I'll lay all of this out on a chalkboard tonight because it's hard to follow just by talking about it.
Yeah, it's going to be, it would be helpful to have the chalkboard.
And by the way, you can also get the exact documents onlineglenbeck.com right now.
So before you go on to the new information, though, I'm trying to see if I trace this back correctly.
So before the election, Trump is, there are these accusations against Trump, which are in the Steel dossier, that everyone has inside the government, and they have already said there's nothing here, right?
These are discredited.
They then have a very surprise election result.
So they were not planning on necessarily using this.
They didn't think they had to.
Yes.
But then they lose the election.
And now afterward, they are trying to think about how to thwart Donald Trump as he becomes president.
Get him out of office or at least just shut him down.
Shut him down.
They are planning on releasing a PDB to the president, which would be on record to everybody, including Trump and Flynn.
Yes.
That says nothing there with the Russians.
There's nothing there.
Electronically.
Electronically.
Nothing there.
And they then are before that comes out.
Obama or that he said, look, let's delay.
Let's have a meeting first.
Don't put that in writing.
Okay.
They have some meeting.
They decide in that meeting that they are going to present this instead as actually the Russians are trying to help Trump.
And the evidence for this is the Steele dossier.
Correct.
Which they all knew had been discredited or it would have been released earlier.
CIA and FBI have problems with this.
They express those issues in writing and say, hey, this is what new information.
What new information do we have?
In writing, Brennan says, we don't have any new information.
We're moving forward anyway.
This is what the president wants.
Correct.
That new briefing finds its way into the New York Times the next day from quote-unquote intelligence sources.
Probably lays the groundwork for everything that happens after.
Correct.
Okay.
So now Obama says yesterday that, you know, there's nothing here.
There's nothing new.
Apples and oranges.
You're comparing different things.
Okay.
Well, that all falls apart when you see what they didn't put in.
Remember, what they did was they said Russia was in the bag for Donald Trump and he's going to be a puppet because they have so much dirt on him as found in the Steele dossier.
Okay.
But here's what we did have.
And this is the released memo.
You have to read just for history.
You have to just look at it because there's probably only 25 people in the world that had seen this document.
Okay.
Before today.
Before today.
This document, there are only five paper copies.
It is so top secret that it was not allowed to be put on any kind of digital format.
And it was all kept in the highest level safe.
Okay.
Donald Trump saw it at the end of his administration.
This is the document that he said, I want that released.
And then they didn't release it.
Remember?
On his last day, he's like, I want this.
I declassify it and I want it released.
And then after he left office, they didn't declassify it and they didn't release it.
And it is also most likely the document that they were looking for when they went to Mar-Lago because that Mar-Lago raid made no sense.
Made no sense.
This happens all the time.
Every president, as you saw with Joe Biden, what, three days later, he had stuff in his garage that was top secret.
They were looking for something in particular.
And what they were looking for is this document.
This document now is at Glenbeck.com, released two hours ago.
This is the highest level of top secret we have.
So what's in the document?
The document details SVR, which is the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service, and the reports from 2016 from Russia about the hacking of the DNC.
Remember, they were hacked, and nobody could figure out who hacked them.
And there was never anything about it.
And everybody was like, what?
That's no big deal.
No big deal.
Why was that no big deal?
Do you remember that?
And nobody seemed to care about it.
It was like, really, no big deal.
Well, in this report, it shows it was a very big deal because out of that hacking, the Russian Foreign Service, at least this is the information they got from Intel on the Russian Foreign Service, that they had the intel now that Obama and the Democratic leaders were, and I'm quoting, extraordinarily alarmed about Clinton's health, calling it a potential serious negative impact on her chances.
Type 2 diabetes, ischemic heart disease, deep vein thrombosis, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
Plus, listen to this, I'm quoting, intensified psycho-emotional problems, uncontrolled fits of anger, aggression, and cheerfulness.
That last one is, I mean, I would have said this has no credibility at all.
I've never seen her cheerful.
She was also, according to the intelligence that they got from the Russians based on the DNC hacks, she was allegedly also on heavy tranquilizers every day, obsessed with power and afraid of losing.
Russia also knew about the alleged secret meetings where Clinton allegedly offered State Department favors to religious groups for campaign support.
Ethical standards, ethical scandals, galore, including pressure on the FBI over her email probe via high-ranking DOJ official.
Russia had all of this, all of this.
And then we had the steel dossier from a discredited FBI source that said Russia has pictures of him giving golden showers.
Now, they are saying the steel dossier, which they had already discredited.
Obama says, go back.
They said, we have no new information.
Go back and use this and show that Russia was trying to get Trump to win.
He was trying to help Hillary Clinton lose because he had all this dirt on Donald Trump so he could be a puppet.
But the facts show the exact opposite.
Now, does this sound familiar?
This is what the left always does.
Whatever they're accusing us of doing, they're doing.
The Russians actually had all the dirt from the DNC hacking, or at least we believed they had it from this official Russian report, that they had all the dirt on Hillary Clinton.
Now, if Putin was really trying to win, why wouldn't he drop these nukes?
Why wouldn't he have pushed these things out?
Instead, they seek milder stuff.
And they are trying to undermine democracy overall.
They're trying to split us.
They're not electing Trump.
They're trying to divide us.
They don't, they think Hillary Clinton is going to win and they think that this is going to be good for them because they have all of this stuff.
They're also, according to sources, they're also kind of afraid of her because she seems unstable.
Okay.
So what does Obama do?
He says that Russian actions showed they have a clear preference for Trump, but they admit all of the reports from Putin's advisors warning a Trump win could mean a Republican Congress hostile to Russia.
Remember we said Donald Trump is more, he's stronger on Russia than any president has been since maybe Reagan.
What are you talking about?
He likes Russia.
He's really strong against Russia and compared to anybody else.
Remember, Hillary Clinton was like, I'm going to do a reset.
The Steele dossier is then shoehorning, being shoehorned into this document as additional reporting on Putin's intentions.
Despite the CIA vets who are going into Brennan's office on the record, we have documents proving that they went to and said, you can't do this.
This is DNC opposition research, unverifiable hearsay, fabricated claims, regurgitated media stories.
You can't do this.
Steele has been fired from the FBI because he was lying to the FBI.
And you're going to misrepresent it as legitimate intel from an FBI source with a layered network and admit all bias, all the payments, all of the subsources that are unknown and unvetted.
And we are going to also not include the stuff that we know they have from the DNC hack about Hillary Clinton?
Brennan's response to his team is, yeah, but on Donald Trump, doesn't that ring true?
That's not facts.
That's an opinion.
That's advocacy.
Doesn't that ring true?
That's not the way.
And they point this out.
That's not the way.
That's a violation of how we do intel.
So Obama orders the new guidance, limited coordination, no broad peer review at all, and to publish before Trump takes office.
This is a coup.
This is a lie.
This was all manufactured.
Now, Obama denies all of it, but today, only five copies existed, only in paper, and they were all in the most confidential safe of the United States government and released two hours ago that show all of this.
So why hide the part about Clinton?
If you were actually doing something, you could say, we have this from the Steele dossier, but we also have this that we know Russia has on Hillary Clinton.
But they don't do that.
Instead, they say Trump's a Russia puppet and completely leave out that what they're really wanting is to to be the puppeteer of Hillary Clinton.
It's all released today.
You tell me, does this matter?
Does the president, the former president of the United States, instructing the CIA to change course to allow them and encourage them to leave out really important facts,
use something that had already been discredited, and then within a few hours, before any of this had been done, start a whisper campaign and leak to the New York Times that CIA officials are now looking into some pretty serious charges about Donald Trump.
This was planned and coordinated, and it goes all the way to Mar-a-Lago because this is the document they thought he might have.
They had to get rid of this document.
They did not want him to release this document.
But don't worry, if we get it out of his hands, which he didn't have, if we get it out of his hands, well, we'll put him in jail.
Jesus, Commandments, and Culture00:12:37
So he'll never be able to tell this story anyway.
And DNI, Tulsi Gabbard, comes out today and releases this document.
It's all at Glennbeck.com, and we'll have the full chalkboard on this tonight at 9 o'clock, only on Blaze TV.
You know, back in the old days, we didn't do the whole non-lethal thing when it came to protecting yourself and a property.
Some two-bit snake comes along or rustles your cattle, you shoot them in the head.
Some whippersnapper starts to pick a fight in a saloon, you shoot him dead.
Some greenhorn cowboy steals your spurs, you shoot him dead.
Sometimes I wish I lived in the old west, although I don't know I would have lived very long.
Simpler time, mess around, find out.
These days, we're a little more civilized.
And if you live in one of the really, really more civilized states like California and you can't carry a gun, you should carry a Burna launcher.
It's a non-lethal self-defense tool that fires high-velocity pepper rounds enough to stop an attacker in their tracks without crossing that line into deadly force.
And for everyday carry, they have now a compact launcher.
It is really effective, easier to handle, and small enough to fit in your life without weighing you down.
No permits, legal in all 50 states, looks like a firearm, works like a firearm, but gives you options.
It's burna.com.
Get yours today.
Use their retail store locator to find the nearest location offering live demonstrations, including select sportsmen's warehouse stores, Burna Retail Stores, Burna.com.
Now back to the podcast.
This is the best of the Glenn Beck program.
And don't forget, rate us on iTunes.
David, welcome.
Hey, Glenn, good to be with you.
Good to be with you.
Okay.
So you were speaking in front of the House here in Texas.
And there was one representative, Democrat, who is, some people say is going to be the reason if Texas ever goes blue, it'll be because of this guy.
And he was just arguing that you are just a religious zealot and that you don't know what you're talking about.
You're just trying to indoctrinate our children into your religion by having the Ten Commandments posted in classrooms.
You know, that's a great way to get off the subject is to start attacking personalities, which is what they do because they can't win on the subject.
Okay.
On the subject matter itself.
And it's James Talaferos who you're talking about.
So he said this is unconstitutional and un-American.
Two things.
Un-American.
Sorry.
The very first textbook ever used in American schools has 40 questions for first graders on the Ten Commandments.
And that was used all the way through the 1930s.
So we're talking two and a half centuries of Ten Commandments in first grade classrooms, and it's un-American?
I don't think so.
And by the way, here is that little book.
This is the 1777 version.
And it went all the way to the 1930s, yeah.
That's strange.
That's the progressive era, isn't that strange?
Yeah, it's strange.
So the questions there start with like 41.
Question 41, you go up through question 8.
The preface to the Ten Commandments is in their words, I am the Lord thy God, which has brought thou out of the land of Egypt and out of the land of bondage.
What did the preface to that commandment teach us?
This is a first grader.
This is the first grade.
This is first grade.
This is first grade for a couple of centuries.
Dude, for answer the first grader question.
So that one.
What did the preface teach you?
Come on.
Come on, first grader.
So much.
So much.
It's crazy.
It's crazy.
Here's your next one.
That's McGuffey's readers, 120 million sold across two and a half centuries, Ten Commandments and McGuffey's readers.
This is a second reader.
So now we're in second grade, and we're having the Ten Commandments on that.
Did it marked in there?
I don't have it marked in there.
But it's the same kind of stuff.
It's the same thing.
It's all the way through.
And so book after book after book, and here is a… But wait, did they have to memorize the date the Ten Commandments were passed?
Yeah.
Yeah, exactly.
Memorize this date on the Ten Commandments.
Forget about the Ten Commandments, but it was found on this date.
Gosh, we used to get the core things right.
I know.
That's why we taught it for school.
So to say it's un-American, sorry, that doesn't hold up.
Unconstitutional, you know, we had that debate with him that night in the legislature, and it clearly is the opposite direction.
The Supreme Court came back and said, look, we went through 50 years of getting things wrong on religion.
We're back to what they call the history and tradition test.
If you can show something is historical and traditional, the court said, we're going to assume that it's constitutional.
There's not many things you can show to be more traditional and historical than Ten Commandments.
This honestly makes sense because the guys who wrote the Constitution, you know what I mean?
They, for generations, were putting this into their classrooms.
That's right.
They were teaching this.
I think it's so important to not look at this as a religious document.
I mean, it is, but not to look at this as a religious document, but just as a document of society.
If you don't have, you know, thou shalt not have other gods before thee, before me, that means, you know, that could be your car.
That could be your job.
That means don't worship anything except for a real truth.
You know what I mean?
Truth.
Don't worship, you know, people or anything else.
That's a good safety tip.
It's good, and it is interesting, even looking back at Founding Fathers House, and they talked about the Ten Commandments, the basis of our culture.
And you have to have a common morality for any nation to exist.
And so here's one from John Adams.
He says, if thou shalt not covet and thou shalt not steal, two of the Ten Commandments, were not the commandments of heaven, they must be made the inviable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.
If you don't live by these precepts, you can't be a free society.
And so we have that from so many founding fathers, James Wilson.
And you know what?
We see this now.
Thou shalt not covet.
That means don't say, look at those rich people over there.
Look what they have.
Take it.
That's what this stops.
Well, it stops a lot more.
We actually have 300 court cases that cite the Ten Commandments as the reason for our laws.
And the one you just said, don't covet, that was actually cited by federal courts as the reason the takings clause was put in the Constitution.
The taking, you can't take it.
You can't just take it without paying for it.
Without paying for it.
Because that's all based on, I covet that.
I want that.
I'm going to take that.
Even the government can't take it unless it pays for it.
And so the government's to be bound by the Ten Commandments as well.
It's a case after court case saying that?
Oh, yeah.
We have just kind of quick things.
Here's 300 court cases, but California, this is a court in California.
The laws against defamation come out of the Ten Commandments.
Here's a court in West Virginia.
The laws against election fraud are based on the Ten Commandments.
How?
Because you're stealing.
You're not supposed to steal, and you're taking somebody else's votes.
And so you're not supposed to be stealing.
And that's what election fraud is, is stealing.
Then you have the takings clause.
We talked about that one.
Here's one in Florida, white-collar crime.
They say the laws against white-collar crime and embezzlement.
Is that stealing again?
Stealing.
And they even say the modern forms of cattle rustling are laws against cattle wrestling on the books about stealing.
So there's so, I mean, 300 court cases cite the Ten Commandments, and somehow we're not going to let kids see what's been cited over 300 times in the courts as the basis of our laws.
He said to you that this was idolatrous.
I can't say it.
Idolatrous.
Idolatrous, exclusionary, and arrogant.
And he referenced Matthew 6, 5, which, if I'm not mistaken, Matthew 6, 5 is like, hey, when you pray, pray in your closet.
Keep it on the down low.
How does Matthew 6, 5 apply to putting the Ten Commandments in your classroom?
Well, let's go back to the first part, too, because it's idolatrous.
This is back to Are You Smarter Than the First Grader?
Remember that book you had a minute ago?
So the first grade, it points out that the first and second commandment prohibit idolatry.
So how is the 10th Commandment idolatrous if it prohibits idolatry?
I mean, that's kind of- Well, maybe because you're making a graven image of these things.
I don't know.
Who knows what progressive thinking is because it's not logical.
But within that framework, it clearly is.
All right, let's take the thing you just mentioned, go into your closet to pray.
How come Jesus prayed so often in open and did miracles in open and did his teachings in the open?
Because it's all about motives.
Don't pray to be seen.
And Jesus didn't do what he did to be seen, but he was not private in what he did.
His whole ministry was public.
And you can't, you know, you could say the same thing about, you know, their religion of progressivism.
You know, why do they do that?
It's not because they're doing anything other than they believe that you have to teach these things.
You have to teach them.
So, kids, you know, these ideas are not just passed on naturally.
You have to teach the right things or teach the wrong things.
But that comes from teaching.
You can't just hide these and expect the society just to get it.
Oh, you can't.
And I think it's interesting that, you know, as Talafera was quoting that one verse from Jesus, in Matthew 19, Jesus told the civil ruler, the rich young ruler, to keep the commandments.
So there's an instruction to the civil area, keep the commandments.
And so that came from Jesus.
And so where Tal Farrell tries to say religion is on one side and government's on the other and the two should never meet.
And he gets into something where he talks about you need parental consent for this kind of stuff.
So my question is, do we need parental consent to read George Washington's farewell address?
Because it's pretty religious.
Do we need parental consent to read the Mayflower Compact?
Because it's pretty religious.
Do I need print on consent to do Patrick Henry's Give Me Liberty, Give Me Death?
Because it's really religious.
How about Franklin's speeches at the Convention?
Really religious.
This is crazy stuff.
This is why communists always snuff out the religion first.
Communists and fascists snuff the religion out because those are the people that will stand for principles.
That's right.
Because they believe it comes from God, a higher purpose, and they have a responsibility.
And you can do what you want to them, but a lot of them end up standing and saying, you're going to have to kill me because I know who I serve.
You know, even the story you were covering earlier with all the stuff that's come out now about what was happening in Russia.
I'm going to go back to the Ten Commandments on that because if you're God conscious, it changes your behavior.
It does.
You and I know that we're going to stand before God and answer for what we do.
And we're not going to do the stuff that they did because it doesn't matter what the FBI gets us.
It's God that's going to get us on that.
And so it changes behavior.
And you have a much more civilized nation when you have that.
It's interesting that in the timeframe when we were teaching the Ten Commandments for all those centuries, if you go back to New York and James Kent, founding father, he was in charge of the courts of New York.
He talks about how just disappointed he was on how much crime was in New York.
Over a 16-year period, they had eight murders over a 16-year-old murder every other year.
And that's a crime wave back then.
You know, think about how different the culture was.
Man, you get 16 murders in a weekend easy on one street corner pretty much in New York City.
And it's so different.
And that God consciousness makes a real difference in people's behavior.
The farther we get from God, the more hollowed out our children have become.
That's right.
There's no purpose in life.
If you take away God, you really take away purpose.
And you can fill it with, I got to save the planet.
But that all rings hollow.
That all rings hollow.
Epstein Deal and False Accusations00:14:35
You're streaming the best of Glenn Beck.
To hear more of this interview and others, download the full show podcasts wherever you get podcasts.
Alan Dershowitz, professor emeritus of the Harvard Law School, host of the Dirse Show, and the author of a new book called The Preventative State.
We got to do a podcast with him on this.
It's a really great book, Preventative State.
Alan, welcome to the program.
How are you?
Good.
Always a pleasure to be on with you.
Thank you.
So I heard you the other day say Jelaine Maxwell is the Rosetta Stone.
What do you mean by that?
She's known him longer than anybody.
She was his girlfriend.
Him with everybody.
She traveled the world with him.
She made all the arrangements for people to come visit him, to fly on his plane, to go to the island, to go to his home in New Mexico, to go to his home in New York and Paris.
She has records that will show who he was with.
She knows everything.
She knows more than anybody.
I probably know.
After her, I probably know as much as anybody else because I was his lawyer and I told him he had to tell me the truth about everything if he wanted to get the best possible deal.
And so I assume he did tell me, for example, if he had been a spy for the CIA or for the Mossad, I would be the first person he ever told because that would have helped him get a better deal.
And of course, he told me he was not anything like that.
But she knows much more than I do.
So if she is willing to disclose everything, then I think we'll get to the bottom of this and know who's innocent and who's guilty.
But how can we possibly trust her?
She's gone through all of her appeals.
She's facing, you know, she's in jail for 20 years.
I mean, you're in that situation.
Well, you never trust.
You always verify.
What you do is you ask her for leads.
You say, where is the information?
And then she has to provide it.
It's not going to be her word against anybody else's.
It's going to be she's providing information.
She may have a written record.
She may have travel records.
The records may be in England.
They may be in a vault somewhere.
But it's always distrust and verify when you're dealing with anybody in prison.
So the government knows how to make deals.
I've participated in deal making for years.
I think it was Abby Hoffman who once said, in the halls of justice, the only justice is in the halls because that's where the deals get taken.
And so it's constantly the case where mafia killers are having reduced sentences in exchange for information about their bosses.
Corporate thieves are given immunity or given reduced sentences in order to turn in.
Look, when I asked to teach criminal law at Harvard Law School, I would tell them, if you're going to commit a crime, there's one rule, always commit a crime with somebody more important than you are so that you can turn them in and they can't.
It's the name of the game.
Let's make a deal.
And so there's no reason not to make a deal with Ghelane Maxwell.
She's already served five years, which is longer than anybody has ever served for this kind of a crime.
But I mean, wait, she was grooming a thousand girls.
Well, there's no information about no evidence about that.
The evidence is that she arranged for people to come and give massages.
We don't know whether she was aware of the nature of the massages because he kept his own life private.
But even if so, you know, look at Sean Combs, how much worse he did, and he's going to probably get far less than five years.
Five years is a lot of time for a woman in her 60s.
And if you can exchange a couple of years of freedom for all the information that you need, it's probably a deal that's worth it.
So why hasn't she done this before?
And why did she get 20 years when others don't ever see that?
Because she got Jeffrey Epstein sentenced.
You know, he would have gotten the 20 years had he stayed alive.
But because he died, somebody had to be held responsible.
And so she got a sentence way in excess of what she would normally get.
If he had stayed alive, government would have made a deal with her.
She would have gotten no time.
She would have testified against him.
And he would have gone to jail for the 20 or maybe 30 years, life imprisonment because of his age.
And she would have gotten nothing.
But because she had nobody to testify against, he was dead.
She got prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to the 20 years.
So normally she would not.
Usually people who are in that position are the ones who testify.
So you say a grand jury would not lead to anything, but this might.
This would, definitely.
Grand jury wouldn't because grand jury testimony is always tailored in the narrowest possible way to provide just the minimum information necessary to indict.
They don't want to give the defendant other information.
So I don't think you're going to find much in the grand jury, but you will find a lot in the information that has been sealed by the three federal judges.
But let me tell you what you're going to find.
You're going to find a lot of false accusations.
Let me give you an example.
Give you an example of two women.
One is named Sarah Ransom.
And during the run-up to the 2016 election, she wrote, I don't know, 50 or 60 emails to Maureen Callahan at the New York Post in which she swore that she had videotapes of Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Richard Branson all having sex with children.
They investigated and found out it wasn't true, and she eventually admitted it was totally made up.
So, if you're going to produce the names of the people she accused, you have to also produce what her background.
Or take another woman named Maria Farmer.
She was on CNN the other day as if she was the angel Gabriel testifying truthfully.
But she has a history of lying and making up stories about people.
She's also a Holocaust denier.
She has emails, I have them in my possession, in which she said there were no Jews killed in the Holocaust.
The Jews killed everybody else in the Holocaust.
This is a nut case.
And she is the one that CNN is interviewing without giving any explanation about her background.
So what's happened is we've heard one side of the story.
We've only heard the accusations.
We know that there are accusations against Bill Richardson, the former ambassador, against George Mitchell, against Ayud Barak, against the granddaughter of Jacques Cousteau.
What we don't know is whether any of these allegations are true.
Now, do you know?
I mean, I know you can't say anything because of, but have you seen evidence of things?
Yes, of course.
I have.
Of course I have.
And I know, for example, a few obscure people who nobody ever heard of.
And there's very substantial evidence that maybe they did have consensual sex with young girls, maybe some above the age of consent, maybe some below.
Yes, there are such records, but they're not famous people.
I know involving Donald Trump or Bill Clinton or Bill Gates or any of the people who have otherwise been accused whose names are well known.
I don't know of anything that would corroborate that.
I know of a lot of false accusations by people who shouldn't be believed.
But if you're going to release the names of the accused, you have to also release the information about the accusers because there are many accusers out there who never met Jeffrey Epstein.
They just collected money by making false accusations and their lawyers collected money.
So this is a deep scandal, which is complex and gray area.
And although obviously the villain of the piece is Jeffrey Epstein, there are other villains as well.
There's also some mixed stories.
There are women who were victims and then they became perpetrators.
They went out and solicited 14 and 15 year olds for Jeffrey Epstein and got paid to do it.
So, you know, there's a lot of gray area here.
And if we're going to get to the whole truth, we've got to make sure we get to the whole truth, including the role of some of the people who have made accusations.
So if she testifies, it will be behind closed doors.
It would have to be.
I think initially it would be behind closed doors, but then you would have look, I want everything outrageous from day one.
I want everything to be out there.
I don't think anybody should be protected here.
Let the public decide who's telling the truth, but only after they hear all the information.
When they hear that, you know, Maria Farmer is an anti-Semite, a Holocaust denier, and that she accuses Jewish people of doing terrible things.
Then you ask yourself, maybe she has a motive.
She doesn't believe that the Holocaust occurs.
Maybe she didn't believe that there were false accusations, too.
She made false accusations.
She lied herself, as well as Sarah Ransom.
So let's get to the bottom of everything, every single thing.
Is this going to happen?
If a deal is made with Glene Maxwell, it will happen.
If you're her attorney, what are you saying you hold out for?
Commutation, time served, probation, maybe Something that gives her something in exchange for her giving away all this information.
Ellowin, Alan, always great to talk to you.
We have to schedule you for a podcast for your book, The Preventative State.
Yeah, we'd love to do it.
Thank you so much.
Thank you so much.
Alan Dershowitz from The Dirse Show.
What do you think of that, Sue?
I mean, I think he's, I don't know how he does it.
I don't think I could be, well, I know I couldn't.
I couldn't be an attorney and then know that guy is dirty, dirty, dirty and not say anything.
I couldn't do it.
It's tough.
He's the attorney in this case.
Yeah.
So he's talking about it in a way that an attorney talks about it.
And I understand.
And he's also, by the way, been by all appearances, falsely accused of terrible things.
And there were problems with these witnesses.
The idea that Jelaine Maxwell went out and just was recruiting 14-year-olds for massages and no idea what was going on is completely insane to me.
Again, I understand the point he's making, but man, if we care about 14-year-olds being sexually abused, a deal cannot result in Ghelane Maxwell, whatever her freaking name is, being released or having some super light sentence.
I mean, I don't think five years is a lot at all.
In my opinion, again, he's the lawyer.
He's much smarter in these matters than I am.
To me, it is absolutely not enough.
And 20 years is not enough.
And it could go longer.
Because I don't believe that she didn't.
There's no way she didn't know.
He started by saying she knows everything.
She was a girlfriend.
She was a confidant.
She knew.
Again, he's in a tough spot here because he has attorney client privilege.
He was the defense attorney in this case.
So I understand that his lines, but I'm just taking it out of that context and talking about my own moral views here.
Yeah, and I don't think it helps.
I mean, it would be good to have all the information, but I don't think it's not going to solve anything, especially if it's behind closed doors.
It's not going to solve anything because I would say if this were reversed and it was Joe Biden or whatever and Hunter Biden was rumored, Hunter Biden's on that list.
And then she comes up and Joe Biden's in office and he gives her a pardon and she says, even truthfully, Hunter Biden's not on that list.
Do you buy it?
So put yourself in the shoes of the other side.
They're not going to buy that.
I mean, I'll fight on that ship that Donald Trump did nothing with 14-year-old girls.
I'll fight on that ship until the day I die.
I just do not believe that.
But I don't think it's helpful for her to come out and say, and he definitely wasn't a part of it.
Yeah, and I'm pretty skeptical.
Anything that Ghelaine Maxwell says is going to change anybody's opinion or outcome or get us any more information.
I don't think she's trustworthy at all.
She was telling 14-year-old girls it's going to be okay.
I believe me.
There's no, you have no credibility.
However, the one way we can make sure that we worsen the situation of making sure that people who do these types of things, grooming and more, are not punished.
The one way we can be sure we're going the wrong direction is to make sure someone we know did this has a lighter punishment.
That's the one thing we can all come together and say we should not want.
I don't know what I don't know what she was charged with.
I don't know what the evidence was.
I haven't looked into her case.
So, I mean, his point may be for what she was charged with, don't charge.
He was basically saying what she was charged with is worth about five years, but what she got was his sentence.
I could see that being the way the way he laid that out made sense that she because in reality if Epstein was alive She probably would have cut a deal I wouldn't have been happy with that deal though.
No, but I don't think that's what he was saying.
He wasn't saying that she would have cut a deal to make Epstein's to get make sure we got a conviction more on Epstein.
Yeah.
And therefore she would have had a lighter sentence.
It might have been five years or less.
And that's probably true.
And I would have been Epstein was the main target, so I would have been maybe okay with that.
But bottom line is they both should be in prison for a very, very long time.
And again, I understand he's got legal, I mean, Alan Dershowitz cares about these legal lines a lot more than I do.
You know, he can't say the things that, you know, he's an attorney in this case, but we can say them.
And I'm, you know, frankly, not thrilled with a deal with Ghelane Maxwell really for any reason.