Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
Shop
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

GLENNApril 20, 2017

Belly of the Beast: Glenn Recounts a Hallway Argument at Fox News

What was the corporate culture like at Fox News? On radio today, Glenn shared an enlightening encounter from his FNC days, which now makes him question certain stories being reported in the wake of Bill O'Reilly's exit.

Enjoy the complimentary clip or read the transcript for details.

GLENN: All right. So we're talking about this audio about Kirsten Powers, who was complaining that Bill O'Reilly pointed out the fact that there were a lot of blondes that work at Fox News. And that was her experience with Bill O'Reilly, the nightmare, that he was a Neanderthal and said, "There's so many blondes here, I sometimes lose track and I can't keep you all straight." She wanted something done. He needed to apologize. Needed to make sure that that never happened again. Blah, blah.

This woman is -- you know, she's a liberal. She dated Anthony Weiner. And her -- I mean, how you could have spent two minutes with Anthony Weiner if your line is that --

PAT: If you're that sensitive.

GLENN: -- is beyond me. But -- so the trouble comes, as she is telling the story -- she said, so I went to Roger Ailes.

And what did Roger Ailes say, Stu?

STU: He --

GLENN: Nobody likes Bill.

STU: Nobody likes Bill. He likes to pin up pictures of hot women. He likes to talk dirty to hot women.

GLENN: Okay. Where does that come from? Where does the talk dirty come from?

STU: Well, I mean, it's coming from Roger Ailes here.

GLENN: Here. But what does that --

STU: He's referencing an old story that had been reported.

GLENN: Okay. Now, this is the big thing. This is the one where everybody said, well, he paid off. Okay.

Here he is. And it seems as though this was a consensual relationship, at least at one point. Bill thought that they were -- this is what it seems. I don't know if this is true.

STU: We have not talked to Bill.

GLENN: I have not talked about Bill.

STU: You're just saying, basing this on the reporting.

GLENN: Basing this on the reporting. I have not talked to Bill. And it's like, hey, Bill, so tell me about that lawsuit. No.

But this is -- this is my theory on -- on Bill. Consensual, and at some point, it stopped. He didn't know. Or he was just like, eh, I'm kidding. Whatever.

But she taped really inappropriate things on the phone. At some point, she knew, I can make a killing here. Okay?

And so she demand -- I think the word was $60 million, to keep those tapes out of the public. Do you want your tapes or your emails to your wife or your husband -- do you want bedroom talk of yours out into the public? Because I wouldn't. Would you, Stu? Would you?

PAT: Well, especially to my husband. I would say no to that.

GLENN: Your wife or your husband. Okay? Nobody wants that. That's not something that Bill O'Reilly or anybody wants.

Well, I have it. Okay. Settle the lawsuit.

Now, I think that -- I could be wrong. But the way I've read that story -- and I've looked at it, you know, for, what? Fifteen years that story came out. Fifteen years ago.

PAT: Been a while. Ten, 15.

GLENN: So I haven't thought about that story since then. But if you hear what she's saying here -- what did Roger Ailes do? Roger Ailes brought that story up, and her sexual smear, the reason why this is on CNN with the -- the headline, "Look at what she said Roger Ailes said about Bill," comes from that one story.

Now, why is that important? Let me share a story with you on what I know about working at Fox under Roger Ailes.

Roger Ailes was a genius. Sheer genius. I think there was a good side of Roger Ailes. I think the dark side of Roger Ailes won. But I think there was a really good side of Roger Ailes. And I think he was torn apart towards the end of his life thinking what he could have done, if he would have used his power for good as opposed to evil.

But at some point in his life, he became a dirty old man. And -- and one of the things that he did at Fox -- and I know it firsthand is, he would sabotage relationships.

Remember how I have said in the past that, you know, Sean Hannity and Mark Levin and I, we didn't get along.

Well, me personally, I believe that all came from Roger Ailes. And I know another one who was involved, who was also feeding that stuff. But they were being fed by Roger Ailes. Roger liked to be the kingpin. And he was the master manipulator of everybody's relationship. And he liked his shows and his talent not liking each other. Because he knew, if I keep them pitted against each other, A, they'll compete harder to beat that son of a bitch. And they would never join forces. If they joined forces, then we're in trouble.

I know this firsthand because Bill O'Reilly heard an argument in the hallway at Fox. I don't know if I've told this story before on the air. Have I?

PAT: I don't think so.

GLENN: I heard an argument on -- in the hallway about ACORN. And remember when we found that New Orleans was the head. There was something really bad. And it had to do with Van Jones and ACORN and SEIU. Well, I didn't have the money to go investigate that, but Bill O'Reilly's team did. Bill O'Reilly saw that story and was like, "Got to get on that story. That's great."

Bill and I had no relationship. Bill heard an argument in the hallway between my producer and his producer. And my producer at the time was yelling at Bill's producer saying, "You stole our story." And that's when I came around the corner. And I said, "Whoa, whoa, guys, what is up?" And he said, "Well, you know, Bill O'Reilly's people are stealing our story." And I said, "What story is that?" The ACORN story.

That's not our story. That's America's story. What are they doing?

And he said, "Well, they're going to send somebody down into New Orleans." And I looked at Bill's producer, and I said, "That's fantastic. We'll get you everything that we know. Can we have you after you break the news with Bill -- can we have you on the show and you further the -- he was stunned.

Yeah. Good.

And I looked at Grish and said, "Whatever -- whatever they need, get them. This is -- we're a team here."

That's when Bill walked around the corner, and he just looked at me and went, "Beck." Bill was sitting around -- standing around the corner. He was listening to all of it.

That was the first time that Bill knew, I'm not like -- I'm not cut from the rest of -- I'm not like that. I'm a team player. Let's work together for the good of the company. Let's work together for the good of the country.

We're allies. If you remember on my show, I used to promote Sean Hannity. And he would do specials. And I would promote them because I wanted him to know, I'm in your corner. You don't have to be in my corner. I'm in your corner. And I would promote.

I did that to every show because I wanted to show -- and nobody ever asked me to. I had to go track down the details. But I did it to show the other talent, we don't have to be enemies. Why do we have to be enemies?

So when that happened, Bill called me up to his office the next day. "Beck, can you stop by my office? I want to talk to you."

Okay.

So I go into Bill's office which was the corner office and pretty darn sweet. And I'm sitting there. And, you know, he's got all these pictures of, you know, him with, you know, the pope and the president and Jesus. I mean, he's got everybody. And you're like, "Wow." And it was a pretty powerful office.

And I'm sitting there like a little no-nothing. Oh, is that the music? I'm going to have to pause in this story so we can pay some light bills. And we'll come back and tell you the rest. And I think it will begin to make sense, why I've said, "We're on a dangerous road in the media." A very dangerous road.

[break]

GLENN: So I'm sitting in Bill O'Reilly's office. And Bill calls me in, and he said, "So what are you doing here?" And I'm like, "Well, you called me to come up to your office." He said, "No, why are you here at Fox?" He said, "I used to watch you on Headline News." And he said, "I'd watch you." He said, "For a while there, I just thought you were nuts." And he said, "You might be. I'm not saying you're not. You might be nuts." He said, "But you're a hell of a television performer." And I said, "Thank you."

And he said, "You really believe this stuff, don't you?" And I said, "Yes, I do."

He said, "You need to slow down." And I said, "What do you mean?" And he said, "You're just going to burn through way too much." And I said, "Bill, I don't plan on being here for very long." And he said, "Why?" And I said, "I don't want to do this. I figure I'll be here for about two years, and that will be enough." And he said, "You could be here the rest of your -- look at me. You could be here the rest of your life." And I said, "I don't want to be." And he really didn't understand that.

And he was like, "Why not?" And I said, "Because this isn't what I want to do. This is what I feel like I need to do."

So the Bill O'Reilly in the hallway that heard me say basically, "We're partners. We don't even have to be friends. We don't have to be enemies. We're partners on furthering the news." That, coupled with him sitting me down and saying, "Why are you here?" And I said, "Because I believe it." He said, "You're going need to help." And I said, "Okay."

And he said, "You say some pretty crazy things." He said, "And people are going to need to hear the answer on what you really meant." And he said, "You know you're not going to get a fair interview anywhere." And I said, "Oh, I know. I just spent some time with Katie Couric." And he said, "I promise you, I will give you a fair interview. I'm not going -- I'm not going to be a Bill, but I'll give you a fair interview. I'm going to ask you the question that everybody wants to hear, but I'll let you answer it." And I said, "That would be tremendous." And if you're a long-time listener, you know -- people used to call me all the time and say, "Glenn, why do you go on Bill O'Reilly? He's not helping you. He's not your friend." Yes, he was. He was my friend. He was allowing -- he was asking the question the Katie Courics of the world wanted to ask me, without the agenda. He was a great friend. He was -- in fact, he and Anderson Cooper are the only two people in the industry that treated me like an equal, like a human being. And like I was intelligent. Only two people on the air that I can think of, that actually have been there. And really understand it. And may not agree with me on everything. But they know that I'm trying to be a decent human being.

I left Bill's office. When I left Bill's office, that didn't take long to get back up to the second floor, to where Roger Ailes was.

A few weeks later, I was in Ailes' office. He called me in for something. And he said, "Hey, listen, I know you're new here. I just want you to know, you've got to be careful of Bill O'Reilly." And I said, "Okay."

He's a user of people. And you just need to stay away from him and be very, very careful.

Huh. Okay. I didn't say anything. Okay. File it away.

A couple weeks later, I get another -- you know, another interview or time with Roger Ailes. And he plants another negative seed about Bill O'Reilly.

Bill O'Reilly and I are talking. And I said, "Hey, Bill, I think I've figured something out about this place." He said, "Yes." And I said, "I bet you're hearing negative things about me, about things I might be saying about you behind your back." And he just smiled. "Might be."

And I said, "Yeah, I'm hearing things that I shouldn't trust you because you're saying things behind my back." He smiled and said, "Might be."

And I said, "I tell you what, why don't we make a deal that we don't listen to those voices. And if we think that it might be true, we come to each other and we ask the other and we're honest with each other. Other than that, we dismiss them."

He said, "I think that's very wise advice."

Now, here's why I tell this story. Did you see what just happened with Kirsten Powers? She goes into Roger Ailes' office. She's new there. She goes to Roger's office, and she has a problem because he called her blonde on the air. And that's something that she even wrote a book about, you know, about what? Blondes. A non-blonde joke book. I mean, it was a book about how it's bad, and the horrible things that happen to blonde women.

STU: Well, I mean, a very standard criticism by the left was that there are a bunch of blondes working at Fox News.

GLENN: Yes.

PAT: The Fox News babes, they've been called. And that was something very common that the left was upset about.

GLENN: Yeah, but she's on the left.

STU: She was on the left, but worked at Fox News. So defended Fox News against that accusation and has written about how she did not like that people noticed the blonde hair.

GLENN: Right. Then you probably should have your hair -- you should stop lightning your hair because it's so blonde.

STU: I don't know what her natural color hair is, honestly. Personally.

GLENN: Yeah, I would say probably 40 percent of the people that are on-air at Fox are not naturally blonde. But that's, you know, a different story.

I'm, believe it or not, not a natural blonde anymore.

STU: Really?

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

So, anyway, you see what happened. She goes up and talks to Daddy Ailes. And what's Daddy say? A friend of Bill. A friend.

JEFFY: Uh-huh.

GLENN: You got to be careful. You know, Bill likes to -- he likes to talk dirty to people.

My guess is that Bill has made mistakes. But Bill mainly is old-school, as he says. He just -- come on. He's not going to play the politically correct, oh, I have to apologize because you were hurt by a blonde -- get over it. You're in the big leagues. Get over it.

I think that's old-school Bill O'Reilly. I also know Bill. We never had a problem because Bill knows that we're not only doing news, but we're also doing a show. And so he takes his business seriously. More seriously than anybody I've ever seen. And he has very high standards. Don't screw it up. Don't screw my show up. Don't waste my time. Don't waste my audience's time. Okay?

Very high standards. In the '90s -- in the '80s, this is the way I was, except I was much more of an animal. And if you screwed something up, I was pissed at you.

STU: You're not saying the sexual part of it.

GLENN: No, I'm saying the demanding exactness in your job.

So Bill gets a bad rap because, look, if you're not good at what you do or you screw up or you're lazy -- screw up once, he's going to be mad at you. Screw up twice, you've made an enemy. Not on his show. Not on his watch. Don't screw it up. Okay? That's one reason why Bill and I never had a problem because I understood that about Bill.

He takes it very seriously. Those who don't, you've got trouble. So he has that going for him. Or against him.

He is old-school, not going to play political correctness. He made a mistake I think in a consensual relationship.

And the worst part of it was Roger Ailes was feeding poison to everybody. So how much of this was right about Bill O'Reilly, and how much of this is poison that everybody knows that because -- I mean, even Roger Ailes who we know is a predator, Roger Ailes says he's a predator, right? I mean, he's got to be a predator.

JEFFY: Nobody likes him.

GLENN: Nobody likes him. That was one of the first things, Glenn, there is a reason that nobody likes Bill O'Reilly. Really? Because I didn't take everybody else's word for it. I just got to know him. And it started with me knowing that he's got to be the most guarded man in the world because either everybody wants something from him or everybody is knifing him in the back for his position. So I showed him support. And that broke down a wall. And so I found out who he really was, or at least who he really was who he showed me.

How many people just took, oh, yeah, he's -- watch out. Watch out.

STU: And, you know, it's tough because you get into these situations. And there is nobody who will even say things that are positive. Whether they're judging the case or not -- you know, even if they like you, they don't defend you. You're not the only one, apparently, though defending Bill O'Reilly. In a world exploding in violence, we've now identified a naval closer to home: Bill O'Reilly. Sexism is a serious problem and a serious accusation. It's true there are many people who dismiss a woman as unserious and out of their depth, not because they are, but because they are a woman. Bill O'Reilly isn't one of them. If disagreement is violence and everything is sexist, then eventually nothing will be.

GLENN: Who said that?

STU: Oh. The headline is Kirsten Powers: Bill O'Reilly is not sexist.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

PAT: Oh, my gosh. When did she say that?

JEFFY: What!

STU: Written in 2014. Written in 2014 for USA Today.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. Oh, my gosh. And she is the one that had -- CNN is using now as the big smoking gun.

PAT: What! Oh, my gosh.

JEFFY: She must have forgotten -- forgotten when Bill thanked her for her --

GLENN: Unbelievable.

PAT: Jeez.

STU: I mean, that's incredible. Literally the headline in USA Today: Kirsten Powers, Bill O'Reilly is not sexist. That's the headline of the story. It was a column.

JEFFY: Unbelievable.

PAT: I mean, it was shocking that she survived the initial attack about her being blonde.

JEFFY: Right. I know.

PAT: You know, that she could even speak after that is a tribute to her. And then for her to completely forget about it in 2014, what an extraordinary person. Extraordinary person.

STU: We all have days where we forget things.

GLENN: Unbelievable. I have to tell you, is there anybody else that is defending -- I saw Eric Metaxas say something nice. Is there anybody saying anything nice about Bill O'Reilly?

STU: Other than Kirsten Powers in 2014.

GLENN: Yeah, other than when it was popular to say something nice about Bill O'Reilly. Look, I'm not judging the -- I don't know any of that. So I don't know. And I think you should -- you need to take people seriously on that stuff.

And I don't like if he's treating people, you know, poorly on the staff. I don't like that. Shut up, Jeffy. No, I don't like it. I think it's -- when you're rude to people, it's wrong. Shut the fat mouth. And close the --

JEFFY: That's a surprise to me. I didn't know you would feel that way.

GLENN: Close those -- close those lard-ridden eyes.

JEFFY: Is that a new policy coming from Glenn Beck?

GLENN: Yes, it is. It is. But I don't -- you don't stand for that. It's not right. It's not right.

PAT: No.

GLENN: And in a world where there are contracts and stars, it sometimes lasts longer than it should.

But also, let's look at facts.

PAT: Have we seen any? Have we seen a single fact? Have we seen any proof? Have we seen evidence of any of it? I don't think so. We have somebody's word against his.

GLENN: I haven't. I haven't. And nobody wants to -- nobody wants to stand up because it's unpopular. And we are -- we know -- I will be painted as a guy who is dismissing sexual assault or, you know, sexual impropriety or any of that. I know how that's going to be -- but that's not what I'm saying. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying there is real. And there is fake. I don't know which this is. But I haven't seen the real stuff. I'm only seeing things that make me say, well, he called her blonde. And then Roger Ailes said something about him. That's not the same as sexual harassment. What are we doing?

Right is right. No matter what it costs you personally, right is right.

I have a theory about Trump's nuclear testing…play icon
RADIO

I have a theory about Trump's nuclear testing…

President Trump recently ordered the Pentagon to resume nuclear testing after Vladimir Putin announced a new underwater nuclear device. Are we heading towards a potential nuclear war, or does Trump have another goal? Glenn Beck explains his theory: Trump just won this fight...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Well, President Trump said yesterday, truly great meeting with President Xi.

This is a the problem. So much is hyperbole is -- truly. Like everybody said that meeting couldn't happen. It happened. And they said couldn't be done. It was done.

I got up this morning. People said I couldn't open the door, and I opened the door. Okay? It was the greatest door opening I've ever seen.
But from all accounts, this was a really, really good meeting.

Let me just say this: He's getting ready to meet with Putin. And with what Putin has done in the last couple of days, and now everybody is upset.

Oh, my gosh. Donald Trump said he's going to start testing nuclear weapons again!

Yeah. Yeah.

You know why?

Well, China is testing them.

And Russia is testing them.

We've had a moratorium on that. And here's what he's really doing. If I -- if I heard the news. And I was in the Donald Trump White House, I would be -- I would have walked in, after I heard the news, especially yesterday.

That Vladimir Putin has a new nuclear missile, that he can shoot 6,000 miles away.

Underwater. And it can navigate, and then blow up like a hydrogen bomb under the water, just off the coast of California, which would create a radioactive tsunami. This is what I would tell the president. Congratulations, Mr. President. You've won.

Now, why would I say that?

Because Vladimir Putin is not going to do that.

He's not going to do that. It would make him the pariah of the entire world. You're not going to set off a nuclear, radioactive tsunami to cover Los Angeles.

Because here's -- if I'm the president, and maybe this would make me a very bad president. But if I'm the president. And I hear that he has just launched a nuclear missile, towards Los Angeles, my decision is: Do I stop it?

Yes, I do everything I can to try to stop the missile from hitting. Do I respond before it hits?

All unconventional wisdom is, you've got to launch now, Mr. President. You have to launch now!

Hmm. Now, maybe this makes me a very bad president. I don't know.

I think it probably does. But I would say, no.

I'm not launching. Let it hit. And then I'm going to say to the rest of the world, immediately after it hits, this man just bird Los Angeles, killed all of these people, by launching a missile, a hydrogen bomb, underwater. God only knows what it's done to the environment.

But here's what it's done to people. And here's what it's done to Los Angeles. I give the world an hour before I respond.

I don't want a nuclear war. Because we all know what that means.

But rest of the world, you need to condemn him, and he needs to go on trial for crimes against humanity.

Nothing -- nothing warrants that kind of abuse of nuclear weapons.

That's what I would do as the president. Because I know the rest of the world, would not be kind to anyone who launched a nuclear weapon at the West Coast.

Wouldn't. If we launched a nuclear weapon, you know, even if we blew up Israel, with a nuclear weapon, the world would be like, look at what America has just!

They've killed all these Jews. Wait a minute. I'm so confused right now, what I'm for and what I'm against. But they would still condemn it.

Nobody can get away with that. He knows. Putin knows, the president is the most concerned about nuclear weapons. So what does he do?
He describes two nuclear weapons he has.

He's pulling out all -- there's nowhere to go from there. What are you going to do next? I'm going to blow up the moon?

He's just used everything in his bag of tricks. There's no place bigger that he can go. Other than actually launching those things. Mr. President, Congratulations, you've just won. So that's what I think is happening with -- with what Donald Trump has done this week. And the way Putin is now reacting. And he's about to turn his sites on Putin and Ukraine.

So let's start and see what happens.

Why this Deep State spy campaign is the WORST scandal of my lifetimeplay icon
RADIO

Why this Deep State spy campaign is the WORST scandal of my lifetime

According to the records released now by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and the House Judiciary Committee, The Biden era DOJ and special counsel Jack Smith drove an investigation that sprayed subpoenas like a firehose. There were 197 subpoenas sent to 34 people, over 160 businesses, and vacuumed up communications tied to more than 400 Republican individuals and entities. Fox News, Turning Point USA, OAN, all engulfed in what has been called "Operation Arctic Frost." And all this was predicated on NEWS CLIPS?! Glenn explains why this Arctic Frost is MUCH worse than Watergate.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: While we're talking about winter, let's talk about Arctic Frost. That's the code name. And according to -- according to the records released now by senator chuck Grassley and the -- and the House Judiciary Committee. The Biden era DOJ and Special Counsel Jack Smith drove an investigation that sprayed subpoenas like a firehose. We now know, there were 197 subpoenas, spanning more than 1700 pages. Sent to 34 people. One hundred sixty-three businesses, and then vacuumed up communications, tied to more than 400 Republican individuals and entities.

Okay? That's reaching into everything. They reached into media companies. CBS, Fox, Fox Business, NewsMax, Sinclair, into financial institutions, into political organizations.

Even members, employees, and agents of the legislative branch. So now you have congressmen and senators being vacuumed up into this whole thing.

This is not a precision rifle shot. This is a net and a very big dragnet.

Okay? This is not the way justice in America works. You do not go after, you know, an entire party, 400 people? Now, what were they looking for? How did it start?

Well, let me say, the opening memo to justify Arctic Frost is to call -- does in legal terms, it would be called the predicate.

And it was stamped sensitive investigative matter, okay?

And it's cited. And I love this. Listen to this language. It's cited, evidence suggest a conspiracy around alternate electors.

I'll get to that here in just a second. But it -- it relied on -- leaned on news clips. News clips!

To vacuum all these people up, to get the -- to get the engine turning. News clips were used.

Suggesting, not proving. Suggesting, and it just rose up the ladder.

Ray, Garland, Monaco, even coordination with the White House counsel's office. It surfaces now in the record. This went all the way to the top.

This is not my language. This is what the documents now on the table imply.

Okay? Now, let me just pause for a minute, in the reading room of American memory. What is this all about?

Alternate electors. That's not a Martian invention. Okay?

That's not something completely foreign. We've seen it before. 1876, and 1960. They were messy. Contested. Deeply political moments that produced zero criminal prosecutions for their existence of rival slaves.

In fact, Al Gore, if he didn't set an alternate slate of electors, he was counseled, and I've talked to Dershowitz about this.

He said, they're counseled to have an alternate set of electors. Because once -- if you don't do that, and the tables turn and you're like, you know what, there was a problem -- if you haven't ceded those electors before a certain time, you have no case. You can't change anything. So it has to happen. And it has happened two times before, I think three, but definitely in 1876 and 1960.
In Hawaii, in 1916, Democrats signed certificates while a recount was still underway. The recount flipped. So it was ultimately certified. The democratic slate was certified. Ugly? Yes. But that's the way it worked.

It's not criminal. And history has said no. It's not criminal.

But it doesn't matter, when it's about Donald Trump. So let me go back to Arctic Frost thousand. As the subpoenas flew, the FBI reportedly snooped phone records of Republican members of Congress!

The scope widened to donor analytics. Broad financial data. Trump world advisers.

The lawyers. The media contacts. We said, during January 6, we said, internally, if you don't think they are going after a massive tree, because remember, this is -- this is what the Patriot Act allows you to do now.

You go after one person. If anybody is calling somebody else, well, that person now can be Hoovered up. And who has that person called?

So you can get pretty much everybody that you want, with one subpoena.

But that's not where they stop. They didn't stop with one subpoena. Okay?

When the state casts a dragnet over the opposition's political ecosystem with the authority to seize all their communications, compel testimony, and chill the donors, that's not tough politics.

Okay?

That is the government, with badges and grand juries, leaning its full weight into one side of the national scale.

Watergate. Please!

Watergate. Let me compare Watergate. You know what Watergate was?

Watergate was a gang of political operatives who broke into an office to get information. They weren't even. They weren't even losing the election. Nobody even knows why they would even do this. It is so stupid that they would even do this. But it was a local office. They broke in. They wanted to get some information that was there, you know, on the -- on the candidate and on the race.

And then they covered it up.

And they tried to keep the public from the truth.

It was wrong!

It was criminal.

And it forced a president to resign. And people went to prison over it. But Watergate was a private burglary, executed by a campaign, and covered up. By the White House.

Terrible!

Awful.

That's not the DOJ blanketing the opposing party's entire world, with federal subpoenas while citing news hits as the predicate.

Do you see the difference?

Watergate was an attempt to weaponize a campaign. Arctic Frost, if the emerging records hold, was the attempt to weaponize the entire state against a political party.

The difference there is the whole ball game. Under a constitutional republic.

You don't have a constitutional republic, if that's allowed to happen.

In America, the state is supposed to be the neutral referee. Not a sideline enforcer wearing one team's colors under the stripes.

And don't even start with me on, well, what about Donald Trump?

We'll play that game all day long. And you know where that gets us?

Nowhere. You want to make a charge against Donald Trump and what he's doing.

Good. Let's take that separately.

Let's do that. I'm willing to. Let's take that separately. Let's deal with this one, first. Okay? The moment the referee picks up the ball and starts running, the game is over!

It's not a fair game anymore. And if it can be done to them, today. It will be done to you, tomorrow.

That's not a slogan. That's a law of political gravity.

Yeah. But Trump did -- okay. Let's have that conversation.

But can we at least have it honestly?

Because if you think this is about, whataboutism. You believe so see the nose on the front of your face.

You're completely missing this.

You cannot make a weaponization of a government, a partisan inheritance that each side can claim when it holds power.

If any president, any prosecutor red, or blue, uses federal power to criminalize political opposition, rather than prosecute clear crimes.

It is an offense gets an equal protection under the law. So let's -- let's lay down a standard here, that I'm willing to apply to Donald Trump and to Joe Biden and any other president that comes our way. Because if we don't lay this clear standard down, we're done.

The predicate. Predication. It has to be real. Not rhetorical.

Evidence suggesting via TV interviews, is circular sourcing, at its best.

It's not something that you launch a sprawling investigation on into a presidential rival's universe. If you can't articulate the crime, specifically, you don't get to launch a dragnet on the people that are running against you!

The scope has to be narrow, and tied exactly to the alleged crime!

Not a sweep through media organizations, and donor records, and opposition infrastructure, under vague theories, that come from TV reports!

Journalism.

Political advocacy.

Fundraising.

All of those things are protected activities. Separation from the White House, also must be unmistakable. If the White House Counsel's office is coordinating device transfers into an investigation of its chief political rival, alarms should clang in every corridor of every main justice call hall.

Everywhere! The alarm -- the Claxton should be going off right now. Also, historic practice matters!

If prior episodes -- by the way, this was all thrown out by the Supreme Court. So you know. Okay? Nothing there.

If prior episodes, 1876, 1960, and I believe 2000. If they were treated as political, not criminal, especially where alternate electors were explicitly conditional, then you need compelling new legal theories and clean facts to criminalize it now.

You can't just say, yeah, well, history, never did anything about it before. And, actually, they said it was fine.

But now, now it's going to be a crime.

Wait. Can you be specific on what has changed? Well, we really just liked the people that are doing it this time. That doesn't count. That doesn't count.

Now, before anybody clips this monologue and screams, so Glenn Beck said, nobody -- the Trump administration did anything wrong. Well, I don't think so.

But that's not what I'm saying, because I'm not the judge. I'm not your juror. I'm the guy insisting that the rules are rules, and they should be applied to everyone on all sides.

Smith has his report. He says, he wants to tell his side. Great! Put him under oath. If he didn't do it, then he should be set free.

But it should be on a clear set of laws! What's happened in the Biden administration, they just kept changing laws. Well, yeah. I mean, the bank said there was no crime. But Donald Trump. And so all of a sudden, there was a crime.

Nobody has ever been prosecuted. Ever before that. Even the bank said, this is ridiculous.

There's no crime here.

It didn't matter.

That's not justice.

I want real justice. Smith says he has a side, let's hear it. Bring forward the memos. Publish the predicate. Let the country see where weather we had a criminal case or an election cycle dragnet. Because that's what it looks like. If the emerging picture looks like, if the Arctic Frost opened up on thin evidence, escalated on political pressure, and metastasized into a government-wide sweep of the sitting president's chief rival and his entire ecosystem, then this is not just like Watergate. This is much, much, much worse than Watergate. In kind.

Not just degree.

Watergate tried to steal the information. That's it. They potentially attempted to steal legitimacy to criminalize opposition by wielding the sword of the state.

That violates, you know, more than statutes. That violates our creed, that free men govern themselves by consent, and the process is sacred. And the law is the wall that even presidents and prosecutors can never climb over. If proven, the remedy is not a sternly, terse letter, or an op-ed, and a shrug.

The remedy is the full force of the law. Inspector general referrals. Special counsels where appropriate, prosecution where crimes are clear. Statutory reforms to bar this from ever happening again from -- from press clippings?

Being your predicate? Bright lines need to be drawn. Protections for the press, for donors, and legislators in political cases. Sunlight. All the sunlight on how this began, who approved it, and why no one in the administration said stop.

And to my friends saying, well, Trump is doing the same thing. I hear you. I don't agree with you, but I hear you. Why don't we codify the guardrails right now?

So when emotions are high and temptations are strong, the republic doesn't survive by trusting that our guys will be angels. It survives on the chains on power. Everyone's power.

You know, when I hold a founding sermon in your hand, when you read the ink of Washington scratched in the margin notes of James Madison. You discover that America's miracle wasn't that we selected saints. It's that we built a system where even the sinners are fenced in by law.

That's the process. When justice is blind, to banners and bumper stickers and political parties, that's when America is America. Arctic Frost. If the record stands, it took a blowtorch to that fence.

So the choice is really simple. Retreat into teams. Each side cheering for its prosecutors. And its dragnet. Or you can do the harder, nobler thing, just like our founders did. And insist that the same rules that bind all power, especially when it's aimed at people that we dislike, are enforced. That's how you keep a republic.

That's how you make sure that there's not a second Watergate. Because we learned the lesson the first time. But it we?

Because if we haven't. If we don't learn it this time, and by God, we are done!

The story of America is not a story of who got whom. It's a story of the people who refuse to let the government become a weapon. And if that spirit still lives in us, then this cold wind called Arctic Frost will pass. And the Constitution will withstand. Because you stood for equal justice. For due process. For truth. That doesn't bend to politics.

And that, that is how we relight the torch of America!

Disease-Infested Monkeys LOOSE in Mississippi?!play icon
RADIO

Disease-Infested Monkeys LOOSE in Mississippi?!

A truck carrying 21 'aggressive' monkey's allegedly infected with contagious diseases such as COVID-19, herpes, and Hepatitis C crashed in Mississppi, causing the monkey's to be let loose. While most of the threat was taken care of, one monkey is reported to still be on the loose. This sounds eerily similar to the beginning of an outbreak movie...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Big thing some good news. Let's start with some good news.

President Trump has just -- is touring Asia and making all kinds of deals.

Donald Trump is single-handedly reshaping the earth!

He really is. He is reshaping everything. Single-handedly.

STU: Big job.

GLENN: I know. He's done more than The Great Reset did with all of that money. All of the campaigns. Everything that they were doing.

Listen to this. What he's just done. Signed a framework agreement, August 28th, between Trump and the Japanese Prime Minister, mutual stockpiling of rare-earth elements, REEs. Okay?

To ensure supply security. That's Japan. Cooperation with international partners, US allies, to shield the supply chain from disruptions.

The goal is to reduce China's 90 percent control over the global rare earth minerals.

For tech, EVs, defense, and AI. Okay. They have a 90 percent stranglehold.

So that's what he did in Japan. Now, also bundle that with the 550 billion dollar strategic investment from Japan, in the US. Including a 490 billion-dollar launch phase. 200 billion for nuclear AI and energy projects, small modular reactors with Westinghouse and Mitsubishi, and supply chain boosts in critical minerals.

Trump tied that to the tariffs. Japan got an auto import tariff slashed from '27 to 15 percent in exchange for the investments. In two weeks in the last two weeks, listen to what he has done. He has made multiple pacts with allies. Australia, critical minerals framework, mining processing, and rare earth mineral recycling scrap. Then in Japan, I just told you, Malaysia, he just did a memo of understanding on critical mineral diversification. In Ukraine, a ten-year access to titanium and rare earth minerals.

In Thailand, an MOU on rare earth mineral supply. Add that to what else he has done. He is -- he is outflanking China. He is trying to break the back of China! He is friend shoring, is what he's actually doing.

He is -- he is putting all of this emphasis on rare earth minerals. He's cutting Asia away from China.

He's cutting Europe away from China. He's cutting South America away from China. He has moved all of the resources of rare earth minerals to us. Anything outside of China, is coming our way now!

That is massive! Massive! We were sitting ducks with rare earth minerals, six months ago, a year ago. Total sitting ducks! They had everything coming their way. We were not doing any kind of -- any kind of strategic thinking on this, at all!

And this isn't piecemeal. This is operation warp speed for rare earth minerals. He is -- the guy is so ahead of everyone else. He is reshaping global trade and permanently, hopefully, sidelining China.

So we are never having to put our hand out to China.

It's remarkable, what is happening. Just remarkable! Now, let me give you another story.

A truck halling 21 monkeys to a testing facility in Florida, overturned in Mississippi.
(laughter)

STU: How did -- how did we make this jump? Has he signed a memorandum of understanding with the monkeys?

GLENN: Nope. Nope. They're still negotiating. According to the Jasper county sheriff's office, the accident occurred on Interstate 59, near the 117 mile-marker just north of Heidelberg. Six recess monkeys from Tulane University escaped. Officials said, five of the six that escaped have now been destroyed.

We've been in contact with an animal disposal company to help handle the situation. The Mississippi Department of Wildlife Fisheries and Parks and I guess now monkeys is still looking for one diseased monkey, still on the loose.

STU: A hundred percent, the beginning of an outbreak movie. That's exactly how it happens. The one gets away. Oh, we've got five of the six. What's the big deal?

GLENN: What was the one. What was the movie with -- oh. What's his name?

Tommy -- remember, he was the escaped convict. He was the doctor, and they were hauling him. He was the doctor from Ohio.

Based on a true story. And he -- they're hauling him. And he escapes. He has to try to prove himself innocent. Remember?

STU: Fugitive?

GLENN: Fugitive. Yeah. That's right.

STU: I was looking for a deep cut there.

GLENN: Fugitive. Sorry, I couldn't remember. It's a fugitive, and outbreak. That's what this is.

STU: That would be a good movie. I wouldn't want this in real life.

GLENN: I prefer a lot of this to not happen in real life.

STU: What are the diseases? We have help C going on?

We have COVID. I think there's three of them. Help C. COVID. And what was the other one? Herpes.

What happens if we combine all three into one monkey, and then release it into the wild?

What could possibly go wrong?

GLENN: Let me tell you something.

You know, we are in real trouble. I mean, I hate to bring this up too. Okay. Did you need diseased monkeys on the loose today from me?

No. No. Can I make it worse?

Absolutely, I can make this worse.

You know when we have the COVID thing. And we were all like, we shouldn't have these labs everywhere, you know.

STU: Oh. Like the labs.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: Gain-of-function research, and things like that.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

We've built hundreds of new labs now. Hundreds of new labs. There are more than 35 hundred BSL3 and over 110BSL4. Bio safety level four laboratories. And all of them are now working on pathogens that could kill all of us.

So a 2025 journal of public health study reveals over90 percent of the countries that operate these labs have no oversight whatsoever!

STU: All of them are working on diseases that can kill us all?

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: There's not one that is doing yogurt flavors or something?

There's not one.

GLENN: No. There's not. There's not one. I wish there were!

You know, they keep saying, these are shields from -- no. These are match sticks. That's what these labs are. These are giant match sticks.

And we're sitting in a bunch of kindling -- they're -- they say they're developing vaccines. But what they're really doing is enhancing the viruses. Which, when I say enhancing, what that really means, they're weaponizing viruses. So don't worry. You know, it's just gain of function, which translated is, loss of sanity.

STU: I mean, because the research makes me very nervous. I mean, the fact that we have more labs that have higher safety standards. In theory, should be -- that was one of the problems with the COVID outbreak. Right?

They were doing research that should have been done at a BSL4. BSL1 and BSL2.

So, I mean, having more fours, that could be good, right?

GLENN: Eh. Did you see the BSL4 in China? In Wuhan?

STU: Well, I think that was the issue, it wasn't a BSL4.

GLENN: I think they called it a BSL4, and then it wasn't one.

STU: I don't think it was. Do we have a BSL4 for monkey research? I think really --

GLENN: I'm not really sure -- I know Georgia.

STU: Don't transfer it. Keep it in one place. You don't need to transfer them anywhere.

GLENN: In Atlanta, they're doing -- they're building another 150,000 square feet of a BSL4 in -- in Atlanta. So that's the place, oh, yeah, where all the zombies will be. Can I just tell you a quick little story? 1979. Soviet Union.

You know, they're trying to maintain this BSL4. They're not very good at it. Because, you know, they're not good at anything in 1979 in Russia.

STU: Except for nuclear power.

GLENN: Exactly right.

Okay. So there was a cloud released from this bio safety level lab four.

No flames. No alarms. Just a faint, invisible mist. It's kind of like hmm, my teenage son's farts. It's invisible, and it's deadly.

STU: Okay. Hmm.

GLENN: And it was carrying anthrax spores, okay? From the weapons lab.

Well, people began to die, clearly. We don't know how many. They think hundreds. Entire families suffocated because the bacteria devoured their lungs. And they were like, I have no lung!

GLENN: Okay. And the Kremlin was like, not happening. What do you say?

People were eating tainted meat. That's what's happening.

And it's eating their lungs.

STU: They Chernobyled it.

GLENN: Yeah. Okay.

So for a decade, nobody really knew what was going on, until the fall of the Soviet Union, and then people were going in. And they were like, oh! Here's what happened.

In one of these bio safety labs, a technician failed to replace an air filter properly.
And that was -- that -- just that allowed this microscopic storm of death to be released into the air.

I don't know! I mean, if your air filter not being installed properly can kill a bunch of people. And only tainted meat. McDonald's. I don't know. I don't -- I don't really think that we should -- we have them all over. 149 nations have them now.

149.

STU: There's definitely not 149 nations that should have stuff like that.

GLENN: You don't think so?

STU: No. I don't even think I can name 149 nations.

GLENN: Try this one. In India, the labs now are experimenting with the Crimean Congo viruses. Fatality rate of 75 percent.

In Russia, under its sanitary shield initiative, they are building 15 new BSL4 sites. In Brazil, Project Orion, a high-containment complex integrated with its particle accelerator.

Oh. And as I said, Atlanta, 160,000 square feet.

Apparently, we don't have enough room for all the monkeys that we're releasing in all the wild. And eventually, we'll find. And put them in there.
And torture them. Or do whatever it is we do. No international body tracks or regulates what's happening in any of these fortresses. What the hell is wrong with us?

STU: We should note an international body does not necessarily solve the problem.

I mean, as we've seen -- when they do monitor it, they usually import people to rape the citizens around the facilities.

GLENN: Exactly right. But you know what I'm really sick of it? There's no international body that does anything, except just let these people put really bad things into our body!

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: Can we -- can we stop with this?

STU: We're good with this on our own. Put all sorts of things in my body. That should not have been in there.

We're good at doing that.

As Americans, on our own. We don't need your help.

GLENN: I really -- just stop.

The arrogance. The arrogance of these -- hey, you know what, we need to fiddle with some more viruses. And let's make a digital God that we can't control!

What the hell is wrong with us?

STU: Especially when the digital God that we can't control can make new viruses.

GLENN: Exactly right! Exactly right.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: And maybe -- maybe -- maybe what we do, is we put it into a self-driving car. And it directs. And monkeys just start flying out of everyone ever seen butt.