RADIO

How a Baptist Pastor Went from Shroud of Turin SKEPTIC to DEFENDER

Is there enough evidence to prove that the Shroud of Turin is real? Prestonwood Baptist Church apologetics pastor Jeremiah Johnston used to be a skeptic. But once he did a deep dive into the history of the Shroud, he became a “total defender” of the Shroud’s authenticity. This Easter Week, Pastor Johnston joins the Glenn Beck Program to lay it all out from a scientific perspective. Plus, he explains why you don’t need to be Catholic to believe the Shroud is truly the burial cloth of Jesus Christ.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Yesterday, we had Jeremiah J. Johnston on. He was the author of a book, called Body of Proof. He has his doctorate. But so do I.

I know I'm a doctor of humanities. And I didn't even study for the test. But he's also the president of Christian thinker society, Prestonwood Baptist Church, and we were talking yesterday about the Shroud of Turin, which surprised me. Because a lot of people, especially in the south Baptist, and even evangelicals. They don't necessarily hold to the traditions of the Catholic Church. And I -- I think we all have unbelievable pieces of the puzzle, and one of those pieces, I think as -- is the Shroud of Turin. And I didn't know what to think about it, until a few years ago. He's writing a whole book on the Shroud of Turin. So we thought we would bring him back today. This is the burial cloth of Jesus Christ, that's what it's purported to be. The burial cloth. And it is a -- a reverse negative. It is almost like when his body came back to life. This is the way I view it.

When his body came back to life. It's like the burial cloth was like a film. And it printed in a burst of light. It printed the negative of his body in that cloth.

And nobody really knows how it was made, if it was fake. Jeremiah, welcome to the program.

JEREMIAH: Glenn, it's great to be back with you. And I'm sure we have people that right now, that are like Thomas Didymus. Remember Thomas the twin, that he said in John 20:25, hey, look, you can say Jesus is God. Good for you. But unless I see his nail-scarred hands. Unless I can put my hand in his side, I won't believe. Well, guess what we're going to do on the Glenn Beck Program? You'll actually be able to see the nail-pierced hand of Jesus, thanks be to the Shroud of Turin.

GLENN: Okay. Explain the history of the Shroud of Turin. Of where it came from. Of when we think it first appeared.

JEREMIAH: Absolutely. And let's make sure we situate this. Because you bring up a really important point. There's been a pejorative vibe towards the shroud, by anyone who isn't Catholic. I want to remind our audience, the Catholic Church, they're the largest landowners on church. Did you know that? They actually have a lot of land. They have a lot of assets and property. And guess what, it turns out they have some excellent artifacts for the Christian faith. C.S. Lewis. We've all heard of C.S. Lewis. I love Lewis. I lived in Oxford for three years. Glenn, I didn't know it until this year. Jack Graham, my pastor and I, went to Oxford on an inspirational summer trip, and then we went and did some golfing at St. Andrews. We literally went to Lewis' home, and I look up on Lewis' home. I don't know if you can see this, but for the benefit of our audience, I'm holding it right up to my face. I look up, C.S. Lewis kept a picture of the Shroud of Turin in his bedroom, next to his bed, where he slept. And the reason he did that, Lewis said, I needed a reminder every morning and every evening, that my God has a face. And so we're not talking about something weird or frisure, even C.S. Lewis took it seriously.

GLENN: So when did it first appear on the scene?

JEREMIAH: This is what's remarkable out of the Shroud of Turin, goes back far beyond the radio carbon dating. And as you point -- because some people hear shroud, they're like, what is that? As you pointed out, this is a burial garment for Jesus. All four gospels say that Joseph of Arimathea, and Nicodemus, two members of the Sanhedrin. Remember, if the Sanhedrin condemned a criminal to death, it was according to the Mishna. The Sanhedrin had to bury the condemned criminal. What do we see in the juridical procedure of Jesus?

Two members. Joseph of Arimathaea, and Nicodemus. They take Jesus, and they wrap his body in a burial garment. And they bury him in Joseph of Arimathaea's tomb.

GLENN: And it's not like when you think of wrapping a body. You think of like a mummy. But this is actually like a very long tablecloth, very, very long.

JEREMIAH: Right.

GLENN: And it's -- they laid it down, then put the body in. And then where the head is, they took and they pulled the rest of the fabric down to his feet. So it's a double image of the back, then a space, then the front of this body.

JEREMIAH: Exactly. Exactly. And that is not unusual. If you were in the Jewish burial traditions, you would do that. You might say, oh, Glenn. Jeremiah. There's no way that a burial shroud could last for 2,000 years. Give me a break. Well, actually, when you're a student of history, you can see, we even have a Tarkan dress linen shirt, and guess what, Glenn. It's 3,000, 200 years older than the Shroud of Turin. It's 5,000 years old.

So given the right set of circumstances, linen will last forever. So you're exactly right. It's 14 feet long. It's about 4 feet wide. Longer than our studio table here at Mercury Studios. And what's fascinating is, something occurred. And I have the top five reasons why I went from skeptic. Glenn, I was a total skeptic, until I went and wrote Body of Proof.

Did the video series for the Bible study, Body of Proof in Jerusalem. Went to the shroud exhibit, had private access.

Exhibited all -- looked at all the artifacts. And then I came out with top five reasons, that utterly took me from skeptic to total defender now of the shroud.

GLENN: Okay. So let's share those.

JEREMIAH: Number five. Let's do a countdown. You like countdowns, Glenn?

GLENN: Sure.

JEREMIAH: The Shroud of Turin is the most studied artifact of the archeological world, there's not a close second. And the second thing I want to say, is it's almost the most lied about artifact in the archaeologically world.

GLENN: Okay. Wait. Let's start with the first one. Which is the most studied. How do you know that, and what's been done with it?

JEREMIAH: Because I've read all the peer-reviewed journals that you don't have to, Glenn.

GLENN: Go ahead.

JEREMIAH: There's been an amazing evidential history of the Shroud of Turin. In 1978, the Sturkin (phonetic), this is the Shroud of Turin research project team. Went to Italy. They thought it would be a free trip to Italy. They were all having drinks in the lobby of the hotel. Giggling that the on the Catholic Church's dime, they would have a free trip to Italy. They only had two days to prove that it was a hoax. And guess what, nobody was giggling two days later. They had approximately a hundred twenty hours to examine this very ancient shroud, which has a very unique history.

I mean, Hitler tried to steal it. They had to save it from Hitler's hands during World War II. The history of the shroud is just remarkable. So these were not Bible scholars. These were not -- as far as I know, they were outside of the priests, that were kind of security overlooking the shroud, while it was being looked at.

These were all weapons scientists. Barry Schwartz, who you interview, that I encourage everybody to go back and watch the Glenn Beck interview with Barry Schwartz. He was a nominal Jew. His only bias was, he thought it was a hoax and a joke when he went there. And now he's utterly convinced, that it's not only not a hoax. Because as we'll talk about in a minute, you cannot -- if it's a hoax, it's never been repeated. He's convinced that it's an authentic burial shroud of Jesus, so it's the most studied cross-disciplinary practice in the world.

GLENN: And the -- in 19 -- the 1970s, when Barry was part of this. As you said, they all went in as skeptics.

And I believe it came out, at the time, that it was possible. But radio carbon data was saying, no. It's like a thousand years later. Or something.

But something was wrong. And I don't remember what it was. Maybe you do.

Barry said, it was only until later, when technology changed.

JEREMIAH: Right. Right.

GLENN: That they realized, oh, my gosh, this is that old.

JEREMIAH: Yeah. And 1978, you have the original research project. And they come out. What they say, it's not a hoax. There's no pigment. There's no ink. There's no dye. The shroud has survived three fires. It's been doused in water twice. If there was dye, if there was paint, it would have bled out. It would have smeared. Essentially, they came out and said, it's not a hoax. We don't know what it is. Ten years later, 1988. This is point number three in the countdown, which we'll get to. The 1988 carbon dating was done. So about ten years after that original research project.

GLENN: Okay. All right.

JEREMIAH: And this is when all the headlines came out, Glenn, that said, this is a total hoax. The carbon 14 dating -- dated it to the late 13th, early 14th century. There's huge problems with that, and we'll discuss that.

GLENN: Okay. So number four.

JEREMIAH: Number four. Science today.

This is what really arrests my attention. Cannot explain how the image is in the cloth.

Now, Glenn, you've seen the shroud.

I mean, it's stunning.

The energy it would have taken.

GLENN: I never actually -- I never actually have seen it in person.

I was going to go to Turin. I wanted to go this summer to Turin, just to see it. Because talking to Barry Schwartz has totally changed my mind on it. You can't see it. Because it's protected.

JEREMIAH: It's under a vault. They bring it out every few years. It's that same John the Baptist Cathedral in the Piedmont District of Northern Italy, as you say in Turin, Italy. By the way, if you go to Jerusalem, there's an incredible Shroud exhibit there that shows every aspect of the Shroud.

And I'm talking not just scientists in general. Rocket scientists. Republican scientists.
Chemical scientists. Cannot explain how the image is in the Shroud.

If it was a forgery, if it was a hoax, it's never been able to be repeated.

I mean, this is unbelievable. These aren't Bible theologians or commentators saying it. They're scientists saying, we cannot explain how there's an image. And here's the fascinating thing, Glenn. Do you know if you get closer than 8 feet, the image vanishes. You actually have to stand back from it, 8 feet, to be able to see the image.

It's very unique.

TV

The Globalist Elites' Dystopian Plan for YOUR Future | Glenn Beck Chalkboard Breakdown

There are competing visions for the future of America which are currently in totally different directions. If the globalist elites have their way, the United States will slide into a mass surveillance technocracy where freedoms are eroded and control is fully centralized. Glenn Beck heads to the chalkboard to break down exactly what their goal is and why we need to hold the line against these ominous forces.

Watch the FULL Episode HERE: Dark Future: Uncovering the Great Reset’s TERRIFYING Next Phase

RADIO

Barack & Michelle tried to END divorce rumors. It DIDN'T go well

Former president Barack Obama recently joined his wife Michelle Obama and her brother on their podcast to finally put the divorce rumors to rest … but it didn’t exactly work. Glenn Beck and Pat Gray review the awkward footage, including a kiss that could compete for “most awkward TV kiss in history.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Now, let me -- let me take you to some place. I think kind of entertaining.

Michelle Obama has a podcast. Who knew?

She does it with her brother. Who knew? It's -- you know, I mean, it's so -- it's a podcast with two brothers. Right?

And -- and it -- they wanted to address the rumors, that they're getting a divorce. And this thing seems so staged.

I want you to -- listen to this awkward exchange on the podcast.

Cut one please.

VOICE: Wait, you guys like each other.

MICHELLE: Oh, yeah. The rumor mill. It's my husband, y'all! Now, don't start.

OBAMA: It's good to be back. It was touch-and-go for a while.

VOICE: It's so nice to have you both in the same room today.

OBAMA: I know. I know.

MICHELLE: I know, because when we aren't, folks things we're divorced. There hasn't been one moment in our marriage, where I thought about quitting my man.

And we've had some really hard times. We've had a lot of fun times. A lot of adventures. And I have become a better person because of the man I'm married to.

VOICE: Okay. Don't make me cry.

PAT: Aw.

GLENN: I believed her. Now, this is just so hokey.

VOICE: And welcome to IMO.

MICHELLE: Get you all teared up. See, but this is why I can't -- see, you can take the hard stuff, but when I start talking about the sweet stuff, you're like, stop. No, I can't do it.

VOICE: I love it. I'm enjoying it.

MICHELLE: But thank you, honey, for being on our show. Thank you for making the time. We had a great --

VOICE: Of course, I've been listening.

PAT: What? No!

GLENN: They're not doing good. They're not doing good.

Okay. And then there was this at the beginning. And some people say, this was very awkward. Some people say, no. It was very nice.

When he walks in the room, he gives her a hug and a kiss. Watch.

Gives her a little peck on the cheek.

PAT: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

GLENN: Does that --

PAT: Does that look like they're totally into each other?

GLENN: Well, I give my wife a peck on the cheek, if she walks into a room.

PAT: Do you? If you haven't seen her in months and it seems like they haven't, would you kiss her on the cheek? Probably not.

GLENN: No, that's a little different. That would be a little different. But I wouldn't make our first seeing of each other on television.

PAT: Yeah, right, that's true. That's true.

GLENN: But, you know, in listening to the staff talk about this. And they were like, it was a really uncomfortable -- okay.

Well, maybe.

PAT: I think it was a little uncomfortable.

GLENN: It was a little uncomfortable.

It's still, maybe. Maybe.

But I don't think that rivals -- and I can't decide which is the worst, most uncomfortable kiss.

Let me roll you back into the time machine, to Michael Jackson and Lisa Marie Presley. Do you remember this kiss?
(applauding)

GLENN: He turns away, immediately away from the camera. Because he's like.

PAT: He was about to vomit. Yeah.

GLENN: It was so awkward. When that happened, all of us went, oh, my gosh. He has only kissed little boys. What are we doing? What is happening?

He doesn't like women, what is happening?

And then there's the other one that sticks out in my mind of -- and I'm not sure which is worse. The Lisa Marie or the Tipper in Al Gore.

VOICE: The kiss. The famous exchange during the 2000 democratic convention was to some lovely, to others icky.
(laughter)

GLENN: That's an ABC reporter. To some lovely, others icky.

And it really was. And it was -- I believe his global warming stuff more than that kiss.
(laughter)
And you know where I stand on global warming.

That was the most awkward kiss I think ever on television!

PAT: Yeah. It was pretty bad. Pretty bad.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

So when people who are, you know -- these youngsters.

These days. They look at Barack and Michelle. They're like, that was an awkward kiss.

Don't even start with me.

We knew when we were kids, what awkward kisses were like.

PAT: The other awkward thing about that.

She claims, there was not been one moment in their marriage.

Where she's considered reeving him.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: She just said a while ago. A month or a year ago, she hated his guts for ten years. She hated it.

GLENN: Yeah. But that doesn't mean you'll give up.

PAT: I guess not. I guess not. Maybe you enjoy being miserable.

I don't know.

GLENN: No. I have to tell you the truth.

My grandmother when I got a divorce, just busted me up forever. I call her up, and I said, on my first marriage.

Grandma, we're getting a divorce.

And my sweet little 80-year-old grandmother, who never said a bad thing in her life said, excuse me?

And I said, what?

We're getting a divorce.

And she said, how dare you.

I said, what's happening. And she said, I really thought you would be the one that would understand. Out of everybody in this family, I thought you would understand.

And I said, what?

And she said, this just -- this just crushed me when she said it.

Do you think your grandfather and I liked each other all these years? I was like, well, yeah.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: Kind of. And she said, we loved each other. But we didn't always like each other. And there were times that we were so mad at each other.

PAT: Yeah. Yeah. Uh-huh.

STU: But we knew one thing: Marriage lasts until death!

PAT: Did she know your first wife?

GLENN: Okay. All right. That's just not necessary.

RADIO

No, Trump’s tariffs ARE NOT causing inflation

The media is insisting that President Trump's tariffs caused a rise in inflation for June. But Our Republic president Justin Haskins joins Glenn to debunk this theory and present another for where inflation is really coming from.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Justin Haskins is here. He is the president of Our Republic. And the editor-in-chief of stoppingsocialism.com.

He is also the coauthor with me at the Great Reset, Dark Future, and Propaganda War.

So, in other words, I'm saying, he doesn't have a lot of credibility. But he is here to report -- I don't even think you're -- you're -- you were wrong on this, too, with the tariffs. Right?

JUSTIN: Well, at some point, I was wrong about everything.

GLENN: Yeah, right. We are all on the road to being right.

But this is coming as a shock. You called yesterday, and you said, Glenn, I think the tariff thing -- I think the president might be right.

And this is something I told him, if I'm wrong. I will admit that I'm wrong.

But I don't think I'm wrong.

Because this goes against everything the economists have said, forever.

That tariffs don't work.

They increase inflation.

It's going to cost us more.

All of these things. You have been study this now for a while, to come up with the right answer, no matter where it fell.

Tell me what's going on.

JUSTIN: Okay. So the most recent inflation data that came out from the government, shows that in June, prices went up 2.7 percent. In May, they went up 2.4 percent. That's compared to a year prior. And most people are saying, well, this is proof that the tariffs are causing inflation.

GLENN: Wait. That inflation is -- the target is -- the target is two -- I'm sorry.

We're not. I mean, when I was saying, it was going to cause inflation. I thought we could be up to 5 percent.

But, anyway, go ahead.

JUSTIN: So the really incredible thing though. The more you look at the numbers. The more obvious it is, that this does not prove inflation at all.

For starters, these numbers are lower, than what the numbers were in December and January.

Before Trump was president. And before we had any talk of tariffs at all.

So that is a big red flag right at the very beginning. When you dive even deeper into the numbers, what you see is there's all kinds of parts of the Consumer Price Index that tracks specific industries, or kinds of goods and services. That should be showing inflation, if inflation is being caused by tariffs, but isn't.

So, for example, clothing and apparel. Ninety-seven percent, basically.

About 97 percent according to one report, of clothing and apparel comes overseas, imported into the United States.

GLENN: Correct.

JUSTIN: So prices for apparel and clothing should be going up. And they're not going up, according to the data, they're actually going down, compared to what they were a year ago. Same thing is true with new vehicles.

Obviously, there were huge tariffs put on foreign vehicles, not on domestic vehicles. So it's a little bit more mixed.

But new vehicle price are his staying basically flat. They haven't gone up at all. Even though, there's a 25 percent tariff on imported cars and car parts. And then we just look at the overall import prices. You just -- sort of the index. Which the government tracks.

What we're seeing is that prices are basically staying the same, from what they were a year ago.

There's very, very little movement overall.

GLENN: Okay. So wait. Wait. Wait. Wait.

Wait.

Let me just -- let me just make something career.

Somebody is eating the tariffs. And it appears to be the companies that are making these things. Which is what Donald Trump said. And then, the -- you know, the economist always saying, well, they're just going to pass this on in the price.

Well, they have to. They have to get this money some place.

So where are they?

Is it possible they're just doing this right now, to get past. Because they know if they jack up their price, you know, they won't be able to sell anything. What is happening?

How is this money, being coughed up by the companies, and not passed on to the consumer.

JUSTIN: Yeah, it could be happening. I think the most likely scenario, is that they are passing it along to consumers. They're just not passing it along to American consumers.

In other words, they're raising prices elsewhere. To try to protect the competitiveness with the American market. Because the American market is the most important consumer market in the world.

And they probably don't want to piss off Donald Trump either, in jacking up prices. And then potentially having tariffs go up even more, as a punishment for doing that.

Because that's a real option.

And so I think that's what's happening right now.

Now, it's possible, that we are going to see a huge increase in inflation. In six months!

That's entirely possible.

We don't know what's going to happen. But as of right now, all the data is suggesting that recent inflation is not coming from consumer goods being imported, or anything like that.

That's not where the inflation is coming.

Instead, it's coming from housing.

That's part of the CPI at that time.

Housing is the cause of inflation right now.

GLENN: Wait. Wait. It's not housing, is it?

Because the things to make houses is not going through the roof. Pardon the pun. Right?

It's not building.

JUSTIN: No. No. The way the CPI calculates housing is really stupid. They look basically primarily at rent. That's the primary way, they determine housing prices.

GLENN: Okay.

JUSTIN: That so on they're not talking about housing costs to build a new house.

Or housing prices to buy a new house.

They are talking about rent.

And then they try to use rent data, as a way of calculating how much you would have to pay if you owned a house, but you had to rent the same kind of house.

And that's how they come up with this category.

GLENN: Can I ask you a question: Is everybody in Washington, are they all retarded?
(laughter)
Because I don't. What the hell. Who is coming up with that formula?

JUSTIN: Look. I mean, sort of underlying this whole conversation, as you -- as you and I know, Glenn.

And Pat too. The CPI is a joke to begin with.

GLENN: Right.

JUSTIN: So there's all kinds of problems with this system, to begin with.

I mean, come on!

GLENN: Okay. So because I promised the president, if I was wrong, and I had the data that I was wrong, I would tell him.

Do I have to -- out of all the days to do this.

Do I have to call him today, to do that?

Are we still -- are we still looking at this, going, well, maybe?

JUSTIN: I think there's -- I think there is a really solid argument that you don't need to make the phone call.

GLENN: Oh, thank God. Today is not the day to call Donald Trump. Today is not the day.

Yeah. All right.

JUSTIN: And the reason why is, we need -- we probably do need more data over a longer period of time, to see if corporations are doing something.

In order to try to push these cuts off into the future, for some reason. Maybe in the hopes that the tariffs go down. Or maybe -- you know, it's all sorts of ways, they could play with it, to try to avoid paying those costs today.

It's possible, that's what's going on.

But as of right now, that's not at all, what is happening. As far as I can tell from the data.

GLENN: But isn't the other side of this, because everybody else said, oh. It's not going to pay for anything.

Didn't we last month have the first surplus since, I don't know. Abraham Lincoln.

JUSTIN: Yes. Yes. We did. I don't know how long that surplus will last us.

GLENN: Yeah. But we had one month.

I don't think I've ever heard that before in my lifetime. Hey, United States had a surplus.

JUSTIN: I looked it up.

I think it was like 20 something years ago, was the last time that happened. If I remembered right.

It was 20 something years ago.

So this is incredible, really.

And if it works.

You and I talked about this before.

I actually think there is an argument to be made. That this whole strategy could work, if American manufacturers can dramatically bring down their costs. To produce goods and services.

So that they can be competitive.

And I think that advancements in artificial intelligence. In automation. Is going to open up the door to that being a reality.

And if you listen to the Trump administration talk. People like Howard Lutnick, Secretary of Commerce. They have said, this is the plan.

The plan is, go all in on artificial intelligence.

Automation. That's going to make us competitive with manufacturers overseas. China is already doing that.

They're already automating their factories. They lead the world in automation.

GLENN: Yeah, but they can take half their population, put them up in a plane, and then crash it into the side of the mountain.

They don't care.

What happens to the people that now don't have a job here? How do they afford the clothes that are now much, much cheaper?

JUSTIN: Well, I think the answer to that is, there's going to be significantly more wealth. Trillions of dollars that we send overseas, every year, now in the American economy. And that's going to go into other things. It's not as though -- when this technology comes along, it is not as though people lose their jobs, and that's it. People sit on their couch forever.

The real danger here is not that new markets will not arrive in that situation. And jobs with it. The problem is: I think there's a real opportunity here. And I think this is going to be the fight of the next election, potentially. Presidential election. And going forward.

Next, ten, 20 years. This is going to be a huge issue. Democrats are going to have the opportunity, when the AI revolution goes into full force. They will have the opportunity like they've never had before.

To say, you know what, we'll take care of you. Don't worry about it.

We're just going to take all of the corporate money and all of the rich people's money.

And we will print trillions of dollars more. And you can sit on your couch forever. And we will just pay you. Because this whole system is rigged, and it's unfair, and you don't have a job anymore because of AI. And there's nothing you can do. You can't compete with AI. AI is smarter than you.

You have no hope.

I think that's coming, and it is going to be really hard for free market people to fight back against that.

GLENN: Yes.

Well, I tend to agree with you.

Because the -- you know, I thought about this.

I war gamed this, probably in 2006.

I'm thinking, okay.

If -- if the tech is going to grow and grow and grow. And they will start being -- they will be responsible for taking the jobs.

They won't be real on popular.

So they will need some people that will allow them to stay in business, and to protect them.

So they're going to need to be in with the politicians.

And if the politicians are overseeing the -- the decrease of jobs, they're going to need the -- the PR arm of things like social media. And what it can be done.

What can be done now.

I was thinking, at the time. Google can do.

But they need each other.

They must have one another. And unless we have a stronger foundation, and a very clear direction, and I will tell you. The president disagrees with me on this.

I said, he's going to be remembered as the transformational AI president.

And he said, I think you're wrong on that.

And I don't think I am.

This -- this -- this time period is going to be remembered for transformation.

And he is transforming the world. But the one that will make the lasting difference will be power and AI.

Agree with that or disagree?

JUSTIN: 1,000 percent. 1,000 percent. This is by far the most important thing that is happening in his administration in the long run. You're projecting out ten, 20, 30 years ago years.

They will be talking about this moment in history, a thousand years from now. Like, that will -- and they will -- and if America becomes the epicenter of this new technology, they will be talking about it, a thousand years from now, about how Americans were the ones that really developed this.

That they're the ones that promoted it, that they're the ones that does took advantage of it.
That's why this AI race with China is so important that we win it.

It's one of the reasons why. And I do think it's a defining moment for his presidency. Of course, the problem with all of this is AI could kill us all. You have to weigh that in.

GLENN: Yeah. Right. Right.

Well, we hope you're wrong on that one.

And I'm wrong on it as well. Justin, thank you so much.

Thank you for giving me the out, where I don't have to call him today. But I might have to call him soon. Thanks, Justin. I appreciate it.

TV

The ONLY Trump/Epstein Files Theories That Make Sense | Glenn TV | Ep 445

Is the case closed on Jeffrey Epstein and Russiagate? Maybe not. Glenn Beck pulls the thread on the story and its far-reaching implications that could expose a web of scandals and lead to a complete implosion of trust. Glenn lays out five theories that could explain Trump’s frustration over the Epstein files and why Glenn may never talk about the Epstein case again. Plus, Glenn connects the dots between the Russiagate hoax, the Hunter Biden laptop cover-up, and the Steele dossier related to the FBI’s new “grand conspiracy” probe. It all leads to one James Bond-like villain: former CIA Director John Brennan. Then, Bryan Dean Wright, former CIA operations officer, tells Glenn why he believes his former boss Brennan belongs in prison and what must happen to prevent a full-blown trust implosion in American institutions.