RADIOMarch 21, 2025

What AI Got Wrong About the JFK Files

Glenn’s research team has been using the AI program Grok to sift through the newly released JFK assassination files. But so have many other people … and Grok’s analysis has been inconsistent. Glenn reviews multiple Grok summaries of the files and warns that you should NOT trust them without verifying everything. Some summaries include fake quotes about LBJ, the CIA, and Allen Dulles that would mislead anyone wondering who killed Kennedy. This is why AI must always be a tool, Glenn says, and never a source.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So I want to talk to you a little bit about something I found, I think it was yesterday. My researchers and I. And I -- I saw something on X. Somebody, a friend of mine sent this and said, wow. Look at this. It's happening. What Grok is saying, is happening with the JFK files.

And I read it.

And I -- my first thought was, wow. Next week's show. My next Wednesday night special is all built on JFK and the assassination.

In fact, could you go into my office, and go get the gun? Have somebody go into my office, and get the gun. But it's -- next week, we're going to do this.

And I read this from Grok. And I'm like, oh, my gosh. This is going to be one of the most amazing shows ever. If this is what it is. And here's what Grok says, first guess as to who Grok thinks is responsible for JFK's death.

Before diving into the detailed analysis of the players, blah, blah, blah, an educated guess. Who is responsible for JFK's death?

Drawing from the analysis of 31,419 pages and since -- synthesized -- ugh. Putting it together with all the public records. The Warren Commission. Other types of declassified. You're going to know when I'm AI.

STU: All of a sudden, you won't be making mistakes like that?

GLENN: I can read.

The most plausible -- Glenn could never read!

STU: He could never say that three syllable word. Hall of Fame.

GLENN: Anyway, so here are -- the following are the key players in the JFK assassination according to this from Grok.

Lyndon B. Johnson. Now, when I saw that, I'm like, wait. That's kind of earth-shattering. What?

My team hasn't found that. What are you talking about? Lyndon B. Johnson. The CIA with Allen Dulles. Then the Mafia. Victor Petrov. And then Lee Harvey Oswald. And they were all in collusion, one way or another. That's what Grok said.

Now, I said that to my team. And I'm like, are you finding any of this? Because I haven't heard this anywhere, and it's posted on a tweet from Grok!

My first thing after I sent it to my research team. And said, can you check into this?

I went back, and I asked it, I asked Grok.

Tell me from all of the documents, that have been released.

Coupled with anything that had been released before, or on commission. Et cetera, et cetera. Who most likely was responsible for the death of -- of JFK.

It says this: I've been tasked with analyzing the vast trove of JFK assassination records, both the recently released file, and the millions of pages in -- classified over the decades, to determine who is likely responsible for President John F. Kennedy's death, November.

Blah, blah, blah. The question of whether he was a lone wolf, Lee Harvey Oswald, as the official narrative holds, or a conspiracy involving multiple actors.

So it goes through and opens up all of the different things that it says it's learned.

Then, its conclusion. JFK's death was likely the result of a conspiracy, not a lone wolf.

LBJ. Rogue CIA elements. The Mafia. And Soviet/Cuban actors. And Oswald as the fall guy. That's the most plausible picture.

Okay. Wait a minute. So now, I didn't feed in, its answer to someone else.

I mean, said, based on these things. And I get the same answer.

And so now I send this to my team. And said, I asked, and just received the same answer. Is anyone getting this answer?

Look at our prompts.

And am I prompting incorrectly, are we prompting incorrectly? So I get back from there. Let me see.

I get this from Nathan, one of our writers.

He wrote: From the released JFK files, show me where LBJ told Allen Dulles to proceed as discussed, deniability, critical, and cite your sources. Now, he just went into --

STU: That's one of the quotes.

GLENN: That's one of the quotes that is in both of these things. And he decided, I will drill in on one quote. Okay?

I've carefully reviewed. This is Grok's answer.

I've carefully reviewed the available information, including the context provided and the current state of the released JFK assassination files. There is no verifiable evidence, from the officially released JFK files that contained a direct quote from Lyndon B. Johnson to Allen Dulles stating, proceed as discussed. Blah, blah, blah.

This specific phrasing and the associated claim appeared to stem from speculation or unverified assertions, rather than any documented evidence in the public record.

So now why --

STU: So oops. Right.

GLENN: So now why is it giving me the impression, that Allen Dulles, LBJ, the CIA, they were all in on this thing?

And they used Oswald as a patsy. This -- I wanted to bring this up. Because I -- we even have one more. We have this from our Chief Researcher Jason.

Conclusion: Oswald is the lone gunman remains most likely, 70 to 80 percent. CIA, their involvement at all, rises from 40 to 50 percent. Exiles and the mob, claim 30 to 40 percent. And Cuban/U.S.S.R. stay low still at 20 to 25 percent, maybe as low as 15 percent.

So he's asking, what are the odds that these things? Okay. And it prints out, page after page after page.

STU: Of overlap there too.

GLENN: Of overlap. So we're getting different answers.

You should be able to ask and get the same conclusion. This is why this device, it must be a tool of you.

Because had I not known how to use AI and how to question. And had everybody on my team, because this is what we do for a living. Everybody on my team. We have been using Grok and AI over and over and over and over again, to get research results. And this is what we're concentrating on.

We would have, may have gone on the air, or, you know, if we were ever responsible. Or at least if I'm a regular citizen. And I don't have a team. And I don't know how to ask Grok the right questions and drill in on things.

You would be tweeting today, LBJ. He was responsible, along with Allen Dulles. You would be doing that today.

STU: You would have quotes!

GLENN: You would have quotes.

STU: That prove it!

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: But you don't have quotes.

GLENN: Nope. And neither does Grok.

It's terrifying.

Because it's now empowering you to say, no, I did my homework!

No. You didn't.

It did.

I did my homework.

I asked Grok.

What did I say -- what have I been saying the whole time?

Never trust it. Never. Trust, yet verify. Never, ever trust it.

Know that it was made in the image of its creator.

And its creator is us. We're lazy. We cut corners. We lie sometimes.

We make things up. It does all of those things.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: So it's had to more credible, sometimes than your crazy uncle Bob, that is sitting in the corner drunk during Christmas.

And you're like, don't listen to uncle Bob. He's nuts.

STU: It's basically a politician.

We could replace all the senators with this guy.

GLENN: Honestly, because it will give you the answer, you're looking for.

STU: Right.

GLENN: Based on how you phrase your question, it will give you the answer.

When you say, give me the best argument, in defense of!

It might not be the best argument. You're saying, give me the argument. Right?

Give me the argument, of what I'm looking for. I'm looking for a great --

STU: Here's -- build my machine, that gets me to that conclusion. That's terrifying.

GLENN: Yes. And that's a tool, that gets you possibly to the wrong place.

Because you're not asking it to give me the best arguments on both size. Debate it out.

Let me see the debates.

Let me see your sources.

And go from there. You have to have it debate itself. You have to have it do the critical thinking.

And also, when you prompt it, you need to say, I need the best argument. The best unbiased argument, for and against this.

Are Leftists Swatting Conservatives? What to Do if You're Targeted

Are conservative influencers being targeted by leftists who are calling in fake 911 emergencies? A disturbing number of prominent conservatives have been falsely swatted in recent days. So, Glenn sits down with his local sheriff, Bill Waybourn of Tarrant County, and he urges you to do the same. Sheriff Waybourn gives an update on how common these false flag calls have become and also says that Trump's Attorney General Pam Bondi is "absolutely on board" with prosecuting people. He also weighs in on how "the Cartel is being shut down" by Trump.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: You know, if you have any doubt on which side in the country is dangerous. Both sides could be dangerous. But there is one side of the political debate. That has an actual active revolutionary army. And that is the left.

And we are seeing it. The earlier I played in the podcast. That the words of -- of Chuck Schumer. Who I guess he's trying to prove that he's manly or something.

But he is talking about. We are targeting Republicans in their own areas.

Which goes to some. He might just mean, like Sarah Palin meant, we're targeting, you know, through political process.

But there's too many people on the left, that are actually targeting. And let me give you this. A website called DOGE quest has published the personal information of Tesla owners, nationwide in -- in an apparent bid to shame and also intimidate them.

Because they're saying, you're a supporter of DOGE. And because you bought -- because you bought a car. Maybe you bought it because you believed in global warming.

I don't think you were probably on the Trump train, but okay. The site called DOGE Quest, reveals all of this information.

The operators who also posted the exact locations of Tesla dealerships said they will remove identifying information about Tesla drivers, only if they provide proof, that they sold their electric vehicles. Now, I don't know about you. But that sounds like the very definition of terrorism.

People have been doxxed. And there is something else that is happening.

And that is, people sending in S.W.A.T. teams. It's called swatting.

Let me just show you a montage here of some of the people that are being swatted. Look.

VOICE: Swatting against conservatives. We told you yesterday about Texas radio host Joe Pags being swatted.

VOICE: This morning, a growing number of conservative influencers are getting targeted by Schwartz.

VOICE: They were so urgent in getting the police to break down my door, and possibly kill me. In my doorway, they told them, I heard them on the scanner traffic, that he's bleeding out upstairs. Please hurry, and get inside.

VOICE: When I walked up to the door, he was pointing a gun at me. You know.

VOICE: We did just get swatted. The officer said they received a phone call that -- that somebody murdered somebody in the house and was planning a suicide by cop.

VOICE: And podcaster Nick Sortor also posted, both my dad and my sister were swatted tonight. A dozen cops attempting to kick my dad's door in at gun point.

VOICE: Yes, sir!

VOICE: Just a few hours ago, Infowars reporter and anchor Owen Shroyer was swatted at his home.

VOICE: And then most recently, Juanita Broaddrick posted, well, I just got swatted. About ten police and S.W.A.T. team showed up. They said the caller said there were two masked men and people said that had been shot.

GLENN: This is -- this is terrorism.

And those people who are making these calls, should go to prison for a very, very, very long time. Luckily, I know my sheriff in Fort Worth County.

I know, the guy who is protecting me and my neighbors. I know who he is. And he knows who I am, which, Sheriff Waybourn, welcome to the program.

That is the first key, is it not?

BILL: That is the first key, relationships are very, very helpful in these situations.

GLENN: So as we are sitting here, and I didn't mean Fort Worth, Tarrant County.

When we are sitting here, and you're seeing things like this happening, what -- what does that mean to you? And how you have to behave. And what you're walking into.

BILL: Right. When they get these urgent calls. They have got to respond. They have to be ready to go for law enforcement. In case it is real.

I will tell you, especially in the greater Fort Worth area. And the surrounding areas. They are very well aware of it.

There have been several of these. In this area, over the last year. There's probably been 15 or 16 cases.

GLENN: You're kidding me.

BILL: No. And I will tell you, they all turned out good. As far as law enforcement's reaction. Nothing went wrong or somebody got hurt. Because I think we've got some great law enforcement.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

BILL: But when they're rolling towards that. I mean, the Intel starts at the moment that the 911 phone is listening and the dispatchers are trying to listen for different clues about what might be going on there. And they're passing it on.

And then we have other intelligence which I won't make public.

GLENN: Yeah, sure.

BILL: But we're trying to do that. Now, we're -- there's some preventive things that we need help from the homeowner.

GLENN: Okay. Like?

BILL: Well, one is, let's hide your information. Because a lot of this is coming over the gaming systems. It's really big. That's like 95 percent of the gaming systems, where you don't know who you're gaming with. But they know who you are. So we've got to protect your identity. We've got to protect your privacy. And try to block all things that show who you are.

And maybe some double stuff, where you -- you have code words. Or stuff. So you know who you are dealing with.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

I tell you, the gaming systems are terrifying. My son, he was being groomed for this pedophile.

And luckily, we found out about it. And the FBI came into the house, and they took the gaming system. And they said, it's all happening through the gaming system.

Luckily, the gaming system has a record. And so, it's recording everything.

Can you -- have you found. Or can we find these people?

How come we can't find -- does it -- does it triangulate the phone, if you're on a cell phone, and you're someplace? And you're calling it into 911.

Can we find these people?

LIZ: Sometimes, we can find these people. Some of these people are oversees. They're not even here in the United States, but we go after them.

If you will pardon the term, with the gust of a hound dog, using all resources, both federal, state, and local resources, to try to locate them.
And find out who they are. And when we get our hands on them, we will prosecute them for the felony that they've committed.

GLENN: And what are you hearing from Pam Bondi and the federal?

LIZ: Well, ironically, I talked to her this morning, but we didn't get to discuss this. But she is absolutely on board, prosecuting people federally, if at all possible.

That's just the temperament of who our attorney general is.

GLENN: Yeah. I want to ask you. Because I don't know -- I met Pam. But I don't know her.

And I'm a little concerned that, you know, the Epstein thing.

I'm hoping, and maybe you can help me on this. I'm hoping that she said, wait.

We're not releasing these things right now. Because we have internal cleanup to do.

And we are also building cases, against these people.

And we want to release it, when we can say, and we're prosecuting. Do you think that's her approach?

BILL: I think that's absolutely probably her approach. She is a very, very smart woman.

And a great prosecutor.

And so she's doing the cleanup, as you say.

And I think that she is watching very carefully, what she can and can't do.

GLENN: What is the difference between the last administration and the recent administration?

In your position.

BILL: In my position, it's that the cartel is being shut down.

And, you know, I visited with the Director of DPS last week, and they're averaging a little less than 200 crossings a day on the entire Texas border.

You know, last year, at this time. We're talking 15,000 a day. So that's absolutely the first thing that I would say, is that is happening.

But also, that the administration is coming alongside of us.

And some other areas. Like, THC. The THC products that are such a threat to our kids these days did I see.

They're coming alongside of us. As Texas is trying to pass laws. And we're trying to absolutely curb that issue.

GLENN: You know, I look at what's happening in Mexico.

With these cartels.

And I would -- I would think, putting myself in the shoes of a Mexican.

I would think to myself, I can't say anything about these cartels.

I know people who have run against. And said, they will clean it up. And they're dead. And their family is dead.

I want this to happen, but I can't really say anything, and my government is in bed with it.

I think the Mexican people, the average Mexican person. If we go in and say, okay. Mexico, you didn't do anything about it. And we're killing them all.

I think they will turn and say, you know what, let's go concentrate on some other market. Not in America.

Because they're serious about it. And I think the Mexican people would be happy.

I know I would be.

I would be thrilled. Is that your take?

LIZ: That is absolutely my take.

And I know just last week, unfortunately, they lost five Mexican National Guardsmen who were ambushed and killed bit cartel just a few days ago.

So they're fighting back. And they're trying to do some things.

But as we know, that government -- you know, I've said this publicly.

Is I don't trust them.

GLENN: You shouldn't.

LIZ: You know, we need to see what they're trying to do. And hopefully, they will stand you up. The cartel has --

GLENN: Are they capable?

Are they capable? Every time somebody stands up, they're dead.

BILL: They're dead.

GLENN: So are they capable of standing up, as -- as, you know, politicians, or even a group of politicians? Because, oh, that's a death sentence for them.

BILL: That is a death sentence.

I agree with you. I've said over a year ago.

I said, what would you like to happen? When the conservative president comes in.

I said, on or about Day 15 or 20, that the cartel is woken up by the 82nd Airborne.

And that I think we go in and clean them out, would be best for everybody.

GLENN: You think that's coming?

BILL: I don't know, because our president is unpredictable.

GLENN: Yeah. I know.

BILL: But he has labeled them terrorists. So they are on notice, and I think anything is possible. And if I was a cartel leader, I might say, okay. Guys, we're closing shop.

And we're moving. And where are we going? That's what --

GLENN: Yeah. I think -- you know, the pushback on sending somebody in, is that, well, they're just going to retaliate in our cities.

You retaliate in our cities, and then it gets much worse for you.

I think if we just take out a few families, the kingpins.

BILL: That's right.

GLENN: And it all happens overnight, so fast. Everybody wakes up and says, oh, my gosh.

I really think. They won't retaliate. They will turn their attention someplace else.

Why risk that?

America is serious.

BILL: I agree with you, 100 percent. Because cartel ain't in business to be at war with America. They're in business to sell things.

GLENN: Right. Right.

BILL: And if it's not working out, you go to a different place. So I agree with you. I think that if we take out a few of the kingpins. A few of the leadership. I think that would do it.

GLENN: Are you concerned -- we just talked about swatting. Have we had any Tesla attacks or anything?

BILL: We have none, that I know of, in Tarrant County.

GLENN: Yeah. Well, that's -- used to be the conservative county. In -- in Texas.

But it certainly isn't anymore. Boy, we're on a razor's edge. I'm really, truly worried especially well Hollywood coming in. I'm very worried that we could lose Texas. People in Texas, that grew up in Texas, spent their whole life in Texas. And are not paying attention.

They think Texas will always be Texas.

It's -- it's on a knife's edge.

BILL: We need to always be on our game.

We need to always be working in -- and spreading our conservative values. And educating the public as best we can.

GLENN: Sheriff, always good to see you. Best to your family.

You bet. Sheriff. Bill Waybourn.

A -- a sheriff that if you don't have one like him, you should get one. You know exactly -- if you don't mind me sharing, sheriff. Before you leave.

I asked him at one point. What happens if the federal government comes in and starts taking citizen's guns.

And he said, well, if I may quote you.

The -- all my deputies need guns.

And I just have to deputize everybody in the county.

I just love that. I love that.

Thank you, Bill.

I appreciate it.

Why Kid Rock EMBRACES AI Music

Kid Rock tells Glenn Beck why he's excited about AI-generated music, which has already taken apps like Spotify by storm. While many in the music industry are worried that AI "artists" will replace human artists, Kid Rock says he welcomes AI-generated "Kid Rock" songs. The way he sees it, AI can generate hundreds of songs with his "voice." And if any of them become hits, he'll just play them on tour. Kid Rock also weighs in on Elon Musk's work with AI, including the viral video of the two testing out Grok. Watch the

FULL podcast HERE: https://www.glennbeck.com/glenn-beck-podcast/kid-rocks-white-house-america

Putin/Ukraine UPDATE: Should Trump Withdraw from NATO? | Ep 421

It’s clear the U.S. has carried Ukraine and NATO on its back for years, but should Trump make good on his threats and leave NATO forever? The Biden status quo and military spending kept Russia’s war on Ukraine going, with no end in sight. Now the Trump administration has brokered the first mutual ceasefire agreement of any kind between Russia and Ukraine since this war began three years ago. Critics call it the bare minimum, but could this be the first real step toward ending the war? Glenn heads to the chalkboard to give a full breakdown on America’s deepening ties with Ukraine since 2008 — from the billions in military aid to the Biden family’s shady connections to Trump’s impeachment over that infamous phone call with Zelenskyy. Has America’s commitment to Europe gone too far? Glenn gives a history lesson on the Cold War roots of America’s NATO alliance and wades into the debate: Is NATO a peace pact or a war trap?

Shocking Truth: Department of Education ABOLISHED ITSELF

President Trump is signing an executive order to start dismantling the Department of Education and the Left is freaking out. But Glenn’s staff discovered something shocking: the DoE, in its current form, is exactly the OPPOSITE of the mission statement Congress gave it. Glenn reads from the Department’s founding documents, which state that it was tasked with protecting “the rights of state and local governments and public and private institutions.” It was also meant to “strengthen and improve” local and state control of education. And if that wasn’t enough, it also explicitly bars the Department from increasing “the authority of the federal government over education.” So, by stripping the Department of Education of its bloated power, Trump is actually UPHOLDING the will of Congress, not defying it.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So the president is going to abolish parts of the DOE. But the Department of Education was -- was first put in by Jimmy Carter. And then a few years later, it was -- it was, you know, set in stone by Congress. So he can't shut it down.

Because Congress established it. Okay?

So only Congress can abolish it. However, he can trim the fat.

And he's going to cut it by 50 percent today. Which is a great thing.

But as Mikayla was doing her homework on this, she said --

STU: One of your producers.

GLENN: Yeah. One of our producers. She said, have you read the Department of Education organization act?

And I'm like.

STU: Oh, obviously.

GLENN: Of course, I have. But tell me what you have found!

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: Listen to this.

It is the intention. This is the founding document passed by Congress. It is the intention of Congress in the establishment of the Department of Education to protect the rights of state and local governments, and public and private educational institutions.

STU: Wow.

GLENN: Just that! Are they operating within the law, that was set by Congress?

STU: Because I think you could convince me, that that was a good idea. Right? That sounds great.

GLENN: Right. So let me read that again.

The intention of Congress, in the establishment of the Department of Education, to protect the rights of state and local governments, and public and private educational institutions, in the area, of educational policies, and administration of programs. And to strengthen and improve the control of such governments and institutions, over their own educational programs and policies.

Did you hear the second half of that?

To strengthen and improve the local and state administration, and -- and the control of their own educational programs and policies.

That is not what the DOD is doing. Not even. Listen to the next line!

The establishment of the Department of Education, shall not, increase the authority of the federal government over education. Or finish the responsibility for education, which is reserved to the states. And the local school systems, and other instrumentalities of the states!

Wait.

This is not what the Department of Education is. At all.

So when they say, well, he can't accomplish the department of he had. No. They abolished the Department of Ed.

The Department of Ed isn't that! Because like you just said, I wouldn't have necessarily a problem with that!

STU: I would have some questions.

GLENN: Yeah, I wouldn't want it.

STU: As a direction, protecting local rights over education, is exactly kind of what I want.

GLENN: Yeah. Exactly right.

B, no provision of a program, administered by the Secretary or any other officer of the Department, shall be construed to authorize the Secretary or any such officer to exercise any direction, supervision, or control, over the local curriculum.

Any program of instruction or administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system over any accrediting agency or association, or over the selection and content of library resources, textbooks, or other instructional materials. By any educational institution or school system.

Except to the extent authorized by this law.

STU: Hmm. I mean, it seems there's all sorts of limitations on it.

GLENN: Yeah. I mean, if you just go back to this: If he just reset it to this, do you know how many problems would go away?

STU: I know. This is really common too. But we mentioned the same thing with the Patriot Act.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: The guy who wrote the Patriot Act. There's a bunch of these things about to go.

I can't believe the Patriot Act would do this. I wrote it. It's not supposed to do that.

GLENN: Right. Right.

STU: That's not what it's supposed to do at all.

It always grows. It always evades. And the initial -- the limiting principles put on it, by the law itself.

GLENN: Which is amazing. When you know that to be true. And our Founders knew that.

It's amazing how long our Constitution and Bill of Rights has lasted.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: You know, the average Constitution's age in the history of the world, the average age of death of a Constitution is 17 years!

We're coming up to 250, of our -- of our Declaration of Independence.

Seventeen years! That's the average.

STU: Wow.

GLENN: We are so far out! For it to have lasted this long, knowing that this is what it always happens. They always morph and distort, and erase the original Founding ideas. Wow!

That's impressive. That we're still standing.

STU: Yeah. And, again, giant chunks of it are still standing. As we pointed out many times, a lot of it isn't standing. Other than just it's on paper.

But that's the problem, right? We should be back to it. And should be trying to focus our country on following it again. A little bit more closely. But I am glad that it still stands.

GLENN: Me too. Me too.

STU: Is it San Moreno? There's one other weird country that has a very old Constitution.

GLENN: Isn't that an old Chevy?

STU: Yeah. The Chevy San Moreno. Beautiful car. V8. Yeah. It's great.

GLENN: Yeah. Here's the other thing that we need to talk about, and that is these judges. I need to get to Tesla, in just a second. That's equally important. And let me talk about the justices and the judges on what is happening.

The judge has ordered to restore USAID. Worker access, and forbids the shutdown. Because it's likely against the Constitution. Well, that's not your job.

The Obama-appointed judge trying to stop USAID shutdown. Donated thousands of dollars to the Democrats. The judge who blocked the key executive order, has a long progressive activist history.

I mean, we're -- we're having these judges get involved in everything.

So what are judges supposed to do?

What does the Constitution actually say?

I want to take you to a -- a football field. Hmm. Glenn, don't do anything dicey. Don't go into sports analogy. Let's just take you out to a football field for your first segment.

STU: Uh-oh, here we go. Prepare yourself. Gird your loins.

GLENN: If -- is that like the grid loins? So let's say the ref is out on the -- and he decides that that touchdown is worth ten points! The clock should be kept running, because I think so. It's most likely, that it should be running, right now.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: That is what's happening in our court system. That's judicial or referee activism. All right? They're just making stuff up.

Judges that are stepping beyond their lane. And making up the rules. Instead of just calling the game as written.

That's what judges are supposed to do.

They're supposed to look at things, as written. And then say, no. Sorry, guys. That's the law!

Not, you know what, you know who we should do? I should also be able to eat any kind of candy that I want.

And you're all -- you're a defendant. You need to bring me candy.

Because that's what I want, right now. Okay.

I'm fat. I've been sitting behind a bench for a long time. You can't even notice my fatness. I am the size of the bench. Just my upper torso is not.

Okay. You can't do that. You don't do that. Now, it's important to realize, judges aren't necessarily bad guys. They have a really, really tough job. And I don't like -- you know, I really feel bad when you're like, well, that's just a bad ruling!

Well, maybe. But I wasn't in the courtroom. How many times have we done a story, where we really want to bash the judge?

But you weren't in the courtroom. You don't know what was said, or what they know. You know what I mean?

STU: You talked about it when you did jury duty. Because from an outsider perspective. You can always come to something.

When you're there and watching it every single day. You know the ins and outs. Sometimes it's different.

GLENN: It's just different. So when they start acting like lawmakers, instead of interpreters of that law, then we have a problem. Like a judge should step in now on the Department of Education.

And say, sorry, gang, I read this section last night. That's not what's going on here.

So the president, yeah. I recommend, I shouldn't. But if it comes to my courtroom, I'm going to show, yeah. Well, that's the law.

Not my opinion. I might love the department. I might be a full-fledged communist. But I'm here to uphold the law.

And that's what Congress said it is. And that's not what it is!

Now, sometimes, there are problems that Congress needs to step in and say, you're out of here.

Sometimes, the judges -- and it has happened in our history. And it's a very high bar. But I'm not sure. I mean, it should be a high bar, like it is with impeachment of the president. But it shouldn't be off the table.

Okay? And here's why: If you go back to the Founding Fathers, they thought this through. It's kind of crazy.

It's not like, hey. We will do a new Constitution in Iceland. Tweet us your ideas.

In Federalist 78. Alexander Hamilton says, judges should not have life tenure.

And if they do, only if they're on good behavior. Well, what does that mean?

Well, he saw judges, as the least dangerous branch. Because it doesn't have -- it doesn't control the purse strings. And it doesn't have an army.

Okay? So he's like, you know, I mean, if they're on good behavior, just let them go. Just let them go. But he also knew that judges weren't perfect. They do go rogue. So he knew, that they would twist the Constitution, and what they were doing into something that it's not.

And that good behavior clause is not just for decoration.

It's the lifeline of the people.

To stop the judges that have gone bad.

Then in Federalist 81. Hamilton troubles down on this one.

Judges can be impeached. If they abuse their power.

How do they abuse their power?

They step out of line of interpreting the law. And start writing laws. And he's very clear.

Congress has the muscle to check them.

You know, it's like giving the principal, the power to fire a teacher, who is teaching kids the alphabet, you know, backwards and mixed up.

You know what, I appreciate it. We're not doing that. Okay. We hired you to teach the alphabet.

So has this ever been done. Has this ever been exercised?

Yeah. I talked to a federal judge, last night about this. And he's like, Glenn!

Luster versus Georgia. And I'm like, oh, man. That's one of my favorite rulings. But I want to ask you to see how much you know about Luster (phonetic) versus Georgia!

It's back in 1832. Supreme Court told Georgia, they have to stop messing with the Cherokee nation land, and they -- I think they also said, you can't go in and teach the Cherokee tribes Christianity. Okay. Georgia said, no. We're going to do that anyway. Okay?

Now, I'm not a fan of the way the Native Americans were treated in history. And I'm not a fan of Andrew Jackson. But he wasn't a fan of the court.

And he supposedly said, great!

The judge has made his decision.

Now, let him figure out how to enforce it.

Now, I don't like that. I don't like that. But that's what Federalist 81 was saying. They don't have purse strings. They don't have an Army. They have an opinion.

But if the other two branches are like, no! We're going to do it anyway.

Again, I don't like that. But that's only -- that can only apply to when the judges step out of their lane!

When you -- when you're an activist judge, go ahead.

You call your army. But when they're in their lane. And they're saying, no. This is the law. This is how it's written!

Then you don't say, no. You go ahead and try to enforce it. Because then it's a breakdown.

But it's just as much of a breakdown. It they legislate from the bench. And we do nothing about it!

The court doesn't have any tanks. It doesn't have any cops. It relies on the other two branches.

It's judge that one is the weakest!

It has no enforcement.

It was never given any enforcement.

The Founders didn't want it to have any enforcement.

Congress has the checkbook. The president has the tanks. The justices have their robes.

So they lose. Theater weakest of them.

Now, they're supposed to be able to check each other.

So you're -- out of respect, for what each arm is supposed to do, we do listen to the Supreme Court.

But wait until you hear what else is in the Constitution, that I just -- I bypassed. I didn't even know.

They -- that goes right to the judges and how important they are, according to the Constitution.

Not the Supreme Court.

These kinds of judges.

Okay. So Jackson, when he says, okay. Go ahead. Let them force it.

That shows the limits of their power.

But it also shows the flip side. When the judges overreach. They can stir up chaos.

You know, if no one is willing to listen. So here's where article three of the Constitution comes in. And remember, Constitution, the rule book!

The rule book for the courts.

It sets up the Supreme Court. But it also gives Congress the power to create or even shut down, the lower federal courts!

They have no power over the Supreme Court.

They cannot shut it down. They cannot affect it.

But Congress can pass a law that says, you guys are done!

So don't tell me, that you can't impeach them!

It's in the Constitution.

That that is -- and the Federalist papers. That is critical, in case they start overstepping the bounds. You can impeach them.

And we should. This is all a ploy, this is no different than the -- quite honestly. The terrorism that is happening on our streets with Tesla.

Okay? That's terrorism.

This isn't terrorism. This is just a whole buttload of lies. Told by a bunch of people, where supposedly, you know, able to trust.

Because they wear a robe.

Don't trust them. Why would you trust the justices when you don't trust the politicians, when you don't trust anybody in Washington?

Why are these guys exempt?

Okay? I'm not saying. I don't want to sow seeds of discord with our -- I believe in the Supreme Court.

It's the best system that we have. But let's not -- let's not throw our Constitution out for these guys, who are sitting in the -- the lower federal courts.

You know, Congress can say, hey. We don't need this court anymore.

You're banned. Or you're banned from ruling on that.

Sorry!

You're not talking about that anymore.

It's a leash. And it's there for a reason.

The Supreme Court is untouchable. And -- and it's -- you know, it's not above impeachment, if the justices start playing king instead of somewhere.

But their job is like a gardener. Their job is to keep trimming the hedges. Keep the law neat and tidy. If they start ripping out the whole garden.

And planting it, with whatever they want.

Someone has to fire them. That is where we are with these lower federal court justices.

You, according to the Constitution, Congress, and the president, are in charge!