RADIOApril 10, 2024

Congress Will Allow the FBI to SPY on YOU, But Not THEM?!

Congress is voting on whether to re-authorize FISA Section 702, which would allow the FBI to secretly spy on Americans without warrants. Glenn speaks to 3 congressmen who are leading the charge to prevent this. First, Rep. Chip Roy accuses House Speaker Mike Johnson of standing in the way of an amendment to force the FBI to obtain warrants before spying on U.S. citizens. Then, Rep. Thomas Massie lays out the "biggest red flag" he's seen: “There’s 2 carve-outs in here for congressmen…Only if you’re a Senator or US Representative do they have to notify you” if they’re spying on you without a warrant. And lastly, Rep. Warren Davidson explains his his “Fourth Amendment is Not For Sale” amendment, which would put an end to this shady practice.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: House Republicans are divided. I don't know how they're divided on this.

Read the Constitution. Where do you find in the Constitution warrants, Pat?

PAT: Well, you have the Fourth Amendment. For instance.

GLENN: Which is?

PAT: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.

And no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause. Supported by oath or ampliation.

GLENN: So wait. Wait. Wait.

That's the Fourth Amendment. What does that mean?

The reason why this was written in, is because the king used to issue general warrants. And that meant Pat Gray, there's something wrong with him. Go find it. And they could look into anything.

They could go into your house, go through all of your papers. Where a warrant, now, our kind of warrant has to be sworn out. By the police and somebody else, you know, somebody tips them off.

And they say, look, I know he robbed somebody, or he killed somebody. And he's keeping their necklace in their house.

It's in his safe, in his wall, and in his bedroom. They go to the judge, and the judge says, really?

And listens to all of it. And he's supposed to be skeptical and protect your right to privacy.

But if they have enough evidence to make the judge go, I think you're right. He did.

Then he issues that specific warrant. They can't just go into your business. And everything else.

And just look through stuff.

They have to know what they're looking for, and generally, where it is.

PAT: And if they find something else, that incriminates them on some other issue. You can't use it.

GLENN: You can't use it, okay?

That's the Fourth Amendment. This is where we get warrants. This is why you can't just stop people in the streets, and search them.

Okay?

This is why America doesn't say, papers please. You can't do that! Because of the Fourth Amendment. Now, we were all really drunk and stupid, when we passed the Patriot Act. And in the Patriot Act, it has Section 702.

And it's the foreign intelligence surveillance act.

And we ail talked about it, at the time. And we all trusted our government, at the time.

Strangely, except for actual liberals, which I don't think exist anymore.

And they were the ones that were saying, tonight. Don't do this.

This -- this will -- they will scoop Americans up into this.

PAT: And we said at the time, eh, that's fine. It's not going to happen. Because I was for it, at the very beginning.

A few weeks into it, I was like, oh, wait. It's going to be a problem.

I remember thinking, all they have to do is just change the meaning of terrorist. If they -- if they decide a group of Americans are terrorists, we're done.

And that's exactly what they've done now.

So what happens is, they -- they get a warrantless surveillance of foreigners.

We don't have to have a warrant on foreigners.

So they go to the FISA court, and they say, look, we're going to listen to these people.

And they don't need a warrant. And they go and they listen to those people.

The problem is: It's a giant chain.

That person, if that person is foreign, and he calls somebody here in America, then that person is tracked.

And everyone else that he talks to. And everyone else that they talk to.

And so on. And so on.

Do you remember the old -- you know, the shampoo commercial?

And so on. And so on. And it kept dividing itself, until the whole screen was just nothing, but faces.

That's exactly what is happening. And they are scooping up all kinds of information on you. That doesn't have anything to do, with terror overseas.

This has got to stop. You know, when they -- when they built, after 9/11, they built the visitor's center of Washington, DC.

What you don't know, is -- or may not know.

Is underneath the visitor's center, we don't even know how many floors, there are.

Underneath that.

It's all top secret.

Your -- some of your senators and some of your Congressmen can't even get into the floors. They're top secret, because they're FISA courts.

We know now, that the FISA courts are completely corrupt. We know that the FBI is changing the facts, when they go to the court.

They're changing -- they've actually changed, sworn testimony. And no one is punished for it.

We cannot allow section 702 to pass.

Now, there is a -- an amendment to the bill. That has been suggested.

But the bill is coming up, this week. The G.O.P. representative Laura Lee of Florida, is the one who has put the amendment in.

Titled reforming intelligence and securing America act. It would reauthorize section 702 of FISA for five years.

And aims to impose a series of reforms. I don't believe any of the reforms.

I don't believe those will ever happen. We have given the keys to everything about us.

To the government. And the government has turned hostile on many Americans.

So, what do we do? We have Chip on yet?

CHIP: We passed a rollout committee yesterday, that would include -- that had a rule that said we will have a vote on a warrant. The problem is that the Speaker of the House, has now come out against the warrant amendment. That's a problem. Because the Speaker has pit his finger on the scale to shift the conversation. And to say publicly, we don't need the warrant.

GLENN: What the hell is wrong with this guy?

CHIP: Well, that's for another conversation. For the purpose of today, when we go to the floor, in an hour and 40 minutes, we're bringing to the floor under a bill that has an amendment to add the Fourth Amendment protection, the warrant protection that we could still pass, but seems like we won't. Because the speaker has put his finger on the scales.

So now since the speaker has done that, we now have to decide, whether or not we stop the whole process by killing the rule.

And then force it to be only reauthorized under its current form.

Which, of course, still wouldn't give us the protection of the warrant.

GLENN: No.

CHIP: But our concern is, there are other amendments in this, that would expand FISA in the name of going after --

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

CHIP: Right. And so, for example, there is well-intended legislation, to go after. To be able to collect data. Collect information. Relative to drug trafficking like fentanyl.

The problem is, in the definition, about precursors, and other stuff. It expands FISA. Expands the amount of information they were collecting. You could be about talking about an American citizen, buying, you know, whatever. Cold medicine.

That's the precursor for making meth.

So we're all alarmed, that it's expanding FISA, and we're trying to run all these pieces to ground.

Meanwhile, that's all stuff that's been added to it. You know, by the leadership.

So now, we're trying to figure out, what we do. With a rule here at noon.

We are conflicted because of the current regime, doesn't have the Fourth Amendment warrant, you know, a language in there.

Obviously, we still have protections in American citizens under the Constitution. But if you don't put this provision in place, it's not as strong in terms of what we're trying to do to protect American citizens.

THOMAS: The biggest red flag in this. And I spent 15 minutes last night. The rules committee, going back and forth to the chairman of the Intel committee. We finally got him to admit, this is inside his bill. A carve-out for congressmen. I don't know if Chip mentioned it.

GLENN: No. He didn't.

THOMAS: Okay. They are trying to tell you, they have 53 reforms in here that will take care of all the problems. Well, the congressman who are voting for this aren't convinced, because they get a carve-out. There's two carve-outs here for congressmen.

Number one, the FBI is surveilling you, using FISA. They're going into this database, and searching with your name and your congressman. And they're ostensibly doing it for your own good.

Because they're worried about foreign actors. They have to notify you.

Only if you're a congressman. Only if you're a senator or US representative.

Do they have to notify you. And I asked, why did they put that in there? They were afraid of political bias.

What about school boards? Aren't you afraid of political bias there? And oh, by the way, does this apply to candidates, or just incumbent congressmen? It only applies to incumbent congressmen. How special is that?

So my solution here is, get a warrant. And then you don't have to put out carve-outs for congressmen.

GLENN: Correct.

THOMAS: And here's what's especially despicable about the carve-out. That's to get congressmen's votes. There's at least one Congressman we know -- Darin LaHood. He's said this publicly. He's on the Intel community, and he was being spied on by the Intel community.

He's responsible for their oversight. So he was worried enough about this. That he insisted, there would be some provision. Now, his concern is legitimate.

I'm not tingeing him, per se.

GLENN: No. I know.

THOMAS: For asking for this. It should be solved for everybody, not just congressmen.

GLENN: Thank you. So tell us what your amendment actually will do.

WARREN: Okay. So the amendment we have is called the Fourth Amendment is not for sale. So one of the most important ones in the bill is to get a warrant.

And let's go back in the fall. The base tax had getting a warrant, and the -- what is the Fourth Amendment not for sale do?

It prevents the federal government from buying data from data brokers that they would otherwise have to get a warrant for a subpoena to obtain. So it was in the data broker loophole. So it was in the base text. The Speaker essentially works with the Intel committee to gut the bill, of some of these important provisions.

And at least the warrant requirement is going to be able to be offered as an amendment. But he basically strips the Fourth Amendment is not for sale, from even getting a vote.

And part of the reason, I still remember, you know, a long time member of Congress, again, Walter Jones, asked him one time when a bill was popular in the House. Passed with like 420 some votes.

Only seven no votes. Would help solve a problem. Be popular with the public. Why in the world won't the Senate pick this up?

And he said, well, I hate to be cynical. But probably because it would pass. And why would they strip this out?

Well, because Dick Durbin, who is the Chairman of Judiciary in the Senate has a similar bill in the Senate, and Chuck Schumer is a cosponsor.

So this is an issue that does not break on party lines. When it was offered as a standalone bill in the Judiciary Committee last summer, it passed 36 to one through the committee. So how often did Jim Jordan and Jerry Nadler agree on something? Pretty rare.

But this is one that at least, this isn't a total party line issue like so many other things are.

GLENN: So they're stripping it out.

And he's actually going around the rules to make sure that it's -- that it never makes it to the floor, is it he not?

WARREN: Well, it doesn't make it as part of this debate. He has offered to give us a vote at a later time. But this is the problem.

If it's not attached to something that has passed like FISA. Well, of course, the administration wants to keep spying on Americans. They have already said that. So if there was a way to pass it through the House -- and even if there is a way to pass it through the Senate. The administration, you know, simply would veto it.

That's why it should be part of the FISA debate. That's why the judiciary committee had it as part of the base text of the bill, that essentially the Speaker reworked.

GLENN: So I'm hoping that most of the people that are hearing your voice right now, are the kind of people that maybe used to say. Well, I don't have anything to worry about.

Because I'm not doing anything illegal.

And realize now, the government has turned hostile towards American citizens.

And all of the information that is out there, it's very dangerous for individuals.

Tell me what -- why the average person should care. Why does this matter?

You know, to those people who are not breaking the law, et cetera, et cetera?

WARREN: Well, the barbecue to the founding of the country, and why was the revolution ticked off. One of the major causes according to John Adam was the general warrant stop the king. King George was basically saying, well, we're looking for bad people. So under the guise of looking for bad people, we will just come and rummage through your personal effects. And, you know, in the concept of privacy.

Well, the Fourth Amendment doesn't say, well, if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear.

It says that as an American, you have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

That without probable cause, and they can't search your stuff, and with probable cause, they have to get a warrant. Even for really bad people.

Even to go after pedophiles. You have to get a warrant. And that's the way. The foreign surveillance act, is designed to collect intelligence on foreigners. That part is broadly supported.

It's been very effective. We want to stop threats to our country. But when it comes to citizens, there's a reason there's no Domestic Surveillance Act. It's because the Fourth Amendment says that we have an expectation of privacy.

And we have to defend that. It's probably the most infringed part of the Bill of Rights at this point.

GLENN: So what is the most effective thing people can do today?

WARREN: Call their member of Congress. Tell them to demand that their number of votes are for a warrant requirement. And ask them to say, we should be voting on the Fourth Amendment is not for sale.

The government should not be circumventing the warrant requirement, to buy data, that they would otherwise get a warrant. They don't want the warrant requirement in the first place. But in the event, that should pass, in a lot of ways, they're saying, well, it's not as consequential. Because we could just buy our ways around it.

What RFK Jr. should do with the FDA and HHS on Day 1

Donald Trump has nominated Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to be his Secretary of Health and Human Services. Glenn breaks down what he should do on Day 1 to rein in the corruption at the FDA. But should we be concerned that he will add in too much regulation? Glenn, Stu, and Glenn’s head researcher, Jason Buttrill, debate. Also, is this really just about making our food healthier, or is it also a fight against cronyism?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: All right. Jason, I know you're here to talk about UFOs and other crazy stuff.

But I want to continue this conversation.

And you did the research for a show that we did, on the FDA.

JASON: Crazy.

GLENN: It's crazy. Crazy. And I think this is the kind of stuff that I want RFK to dismantle. I want him to dismantle the money going back and forth from the drug companies, the revolving door, and Bush. Why would I think of him?

Trump is -- is doing this with big tech too. You work -- work for the government.

You are not going to work for big tech for ten years. Good. Same thing should be true with pharmaceutical companies. And good food.

And here's why. Froot Loops comes from the FDA. They say, we want to make a new product called Froot Loops. And we want to make some of them yellow. So we need. What is it? Yellow number five?

JASON: Sounds like a concentration chemical. Really, whatever it is.

GLENN: So yellow number five.

STU: Delicious concentration camp chemical.

GLENN: Right. So the FDA says, okay. You have to prove that yellow number five is good, is okay to put in.

They don't take a percentage of how many people have we said yellow number five is okay for? So if it's in everybody's food, that changes all the calculations. But forget about that.

We're only talking about Froot Loops.

So they say, you have to show us the study.

Now, think of global warming.

The food company goes to their group of known and trusted scientists.

And say, we need a study that shows yellow number five is safe.

And they're like, oh, we're going to do that study.

We're going to -- it's going to be fair and balanced and totally on the up and up.

STU: You seem skeptical.

GLENN: A little bit. Just like I am with studies that are paid for by the people who are going to benefit from that study.

It's not neutral

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: The FDA is then given that study, after it comes back. And says. Yellow number five is phi fine.

They're given that study. And they -- so the FDA says, so the study.

You've got the scientists to approve. Uh-huh. And it was a really tough fight. They really dug deep. So okay. Good. We'll approve it. Give us. How much money was it? Do you remember?

JASON: Oh, it's insane. And it's per batch.

GLENN: Yeah. So it's not just -- yeah. We've proven it. So okay this for Froot Loops.

It's every time that they have to -- they make a new batch of Froot Loops. And they're pouring yellow number five in.

They have to apply for a new license for that batch.

Okay?

Well, wait. It's either good or it's not.

Why?

Let me ask you something: Why do you keep coming to me, and giving me all this money. You know what I mean?

Maybe some day, I can do something for you. You know. Maybe. Maybe. Hey, I have a job opening.

Maybe you guys want to come over here, and police things with us.

That's the problem. And that's what I hope they get rid of.

STU: So are you looking for the FDA to do more or less in this process?

GLENN: I'm looking for somebody that is neutral.

STU: Right.

But I'm asking specifically, the FDA. Which I guess in this theory. In this -- like concept here. We're calling FDA neutral. I don't know we necessarily agree with.

In theory, they're the neutral party here.

Which I think has all sorts of problems. So my -- my -- I think what you're describing is a funding mechanism. Right?

FDA is massive. It costs a lot of money. And they're paying for the FDA to continue to go.

GLENN: Half of -- half of the money from the FDA. Okay?

Half of their budget, comes from food and pharmaceutical companies.

STU: Right. Let's say, you stop that.

You cut the FDA in half.

That's the direction we're looking for. Less input from the FDA.

GLENN: Yeah. I want less FDA to the FDA. And I want an end to the revolving door and an obvious corruption that is coming from money.

GLENN: So when you say that a funding issue, that translated as a crony issue. This is everything that the left used to hate. Everything.

It's everything -- like, I'm a Libertarian, more than anything else.

I guess I'm Libertarian lite. So when I first heard about this.

I got the person that did the bulk of this research. Was one of the biggest hippies on our team. You know who I'm talking about.

GLENN: You know who it is. Don't smoke --

JASON: That one. The other big hippie. But I said, food. I don't give a crap. If I want to poison my body, I want to poison my body.

But when it got me, was when I saw the cronyism angle.

And that's why I don't get Libertarian on this. This is everything you used to be, about big government.

They are getting rich off of an alliance with a lot of these companies.

GLENN: And it appears as though science takes a back, backseat.

They're sitting in the back of the bus.

GLENN: The experts.

And you can apply this to everything that we hate now about big government. Anything else. The push for blah, blah, blah, for the progressive agenda right now. Where they say, well, the experts are telling us this.

Well, the experts are employed by the people pushing their poison! And they are paid directly to --

GLENN: If you understand why we have a problem with clients -- climate science.

Just take what you know about climate science. That this is all being done by the people who want this to be real.

Because they want -- they want the money to keep coming in.

You're not -- you're not denying the -- the planet is getting, you know -- is going to kill us all, within five minutes.

You're not getting any money if the study comes out and says, no, that's not true.

You're not getting money. So the scientists sometimes will come back with the results that the people paying for it, want.

JASON: This would be like, if Elon Musk wants to sell his EVs. And he produces this huge report, saying that the world is spontaneously going to combust, in just two years.

Unless you add here to his research, that his scientists did, and trust us.

It's great!

GLENN: And, by the way. And, by the way, the lithium battery study that I just did.

Fires don't start with lithium batteries. It's not a problem.

JASON: Yeah. Yeah.

STU: So the issue is, you believe these food companies are proving things that theoretically are not helpful.

That are harmful. Then they're producing these studies. And they're giving them to the FDA. And the FDA is just approving them.

GLENN: And the FDA is not -- you know, the FDA. You know, I'm sketchy on this one. You might be able to help me out on this. The FDA made the food pyramid. The food pyramid that we've all grown up. Saying this is absolutely right.

They designed that through the food companies.

STU: Okay. So --

GLENN: It should be through science.

And through knowing what is --

STU: So who is doing these studies, if the food companies aren't paying for them. Who is paying for them?

JASON: The food companies are.

STU: I'm saying, that's your vision of the future.

GLENN: I think there could be a tax on the food companies or pharmaceutical companies.

STU: So they would still be paying for them.

GLENN: They're still paying them.

But they're not picked the scientists. Like, the scientists at general foods say.

STU: So you want a larger role for the FDA. They're deciding --

GLENN: They're the regulator. They are the regulator. It should be them, to prove it's safer.

STU: Aren't you answering your questions why Libertarians don't like it?

You're arguing for a larger role for the FDA. That's why they don't like it.

JASON: Larger responsibility.

STU: Yeah. I'm on the side of, the FDA has nothing to do with this. I would much rather have the FDA basically shut down, and not have any role in this whatsoever. Now, that is -- it's an old school American view.

GLENN: No. I would be for that.

STU: I don't like government control of this stuff, or input. I think that's why Libertarians don't like it.

What they're doing now, if I'm understanding this correctly. Is that companies are basically on their own, to come up with signs that prove this.

And the FDA basically goes along with it.

GLENN: For money.

And jobs.

STU: Again, and half of their budget.

Other alternative to fund the half of the budget. Is taxpayers.

That's the other alternative.

GLENN: No. Or taxing.

Taxing the food companies. And the pharmaceuticals.

Okay?

You want this service.

STU: Either way. We're paying for it eventually.

We're paying for it in our food. And we're paying for it in our taxes.

Again, I could understand the problems with this.

And this, of course, is true. Right? Companies constantly produce science that helps themselves. It happens in global warming and everything else.

I just think that my -- my -- I'm concerned, here's my concern. Here's my concern.

I don't want the -- I'm from a conservative movement.

That doesn't want the federal government to make me healthy.

GLENN: I agree with that.

STU: I'm of a vision of conservatism, that doesn't want the federal government to make me anything.

GLENN: Correct.

STU: This is a line in the sand for me. And I know a lot of people don't care about it.

But I'm of the conservative movement that yells at Michael Bloomberg for getting rid of large sodas. That's me. That's 100 percent me.

I have seen Jason too much in Taco Bell to know that he is -- I know he's on my side on that part of it.

GLENN: I don't want the government to tell me what I can eat. What I can't eat.

STU: Yes.

GLENN: But I would like -- I would like a -- some science to say, hey.

Stu, not good.

And not from Monsanto. And not necessarily from the government, that wants to control everything.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: You know, there should be a way to get neutral science. But we don't have that now.

And honestly --

STU: There's been a lot of neutral science produced about food coloring. A lot of it. And you can choose whether to like those studies.

There has been some that have some indications of negative aspects. There have been many, many, that have been like, it doesn't seem like there's much here.

But that being said, the government comes in. And if the government approves a study, is that now gospel?

I don't think that's what we want. I think what --

GLENN: Science -- science is always changing.

STU: Yeah. I mean, it's not. Of course.

But our understanding of it --

GLENN: Yes. Thank you, our understanding.

STU: Science doesn't change.

GLENN: But, you know, I am concerned. Because, look, this is a guy, RFK, who has a very strong opinion on a lot of things.

And it's not my disagreement within this that, well, scientific consensus says X, Y, and Z, therefore he's bad. That's not what my belief is at all.

He has in his head, his own consensus. And he is going to try -- I believe, that he is going to apply his mental consensus over a lot of things that I don't necessarily want changed. I want to make the decisions for myself.

And as long as we live in a world. Where if what he winds up doing with this role, hey, you can spill raw milk all over the place. I'm not going to be concerned about it at all.

GLENN: Okay. So here's the thing.
I've learned this. Gosh, 50 years ago, 40 years ago.

It's never a problem, if you're selling a Volkswagen, and the client buys it.

And you've paid for a Volkswagen.

And it runs like a Rolls-Royce.

STU: No. It's great.

GLENN: If you buy a Rolls-Royce and it runs like a Volkswagen. There's hell to be paid. So what he's selling us, his Rolls-Royce that he is selling us right now, is we're going to cut regulation.

We're going to get out and make things your choice. And give you the transparency that you need to make good choices. But we're not going to force anybody to do anything.

Okay?

That's the Rolls-Royce, that he's promising. If he starts to run the Volkswagen way, which is more federal regulation, less choice, then there will be hell to be paid.

Because you're not -- that's not what you're selling us right now.

STU: Yeah. Look, I -- he's going to do some things I'm really going to like. I'm sure of it.

JASON: I think it's baby steps. Like, I would love to get rid of the FDA as well.

You know me. I would love to dismantle the bureaucracy. But let's take baby steps. Let's at least start with, let's not them collude with big food, Big Pharma, and all that.

Make a ton of money off of our expense. I'll just start there.

GLENN: I actually think -- I mean, he has said himself, the FDA should be shut down. And he said, 90 percent of it should be shut down immediately. I'm all for that. I don't need a baby step. I'm ready.

Okay. Let's do that. You know, let's just know what we're -- what we're trying to do here is to make the government accountable to the people, and giving the people their own rights back, that we stupidly gave to the federal government.

Trump RECKONING Coming for the Censorship Regime: Mandate to Fix America Part 1 | Ep 394

America has given Donald Trump and the GOP a historic mandate to fix what the Biden-Harris administration broke. But we can’t do it without a serious reckoning. This election was about more than just dinner-table issues: the cost of living, gas, income. CANCER has taken over this nation, and we voted — in RECORD NUMBERS — for President-elect Trump to EXCISE that cancer at every level of the federal bureaucracy. Tonight, Glenn starts a series that looks at everywhere the cancer has spread — the deep state, the media, the Department of Education, EVERYWHERE — and identifies where we want Trump to come in and start cutting. We begin with the country's eyes and ears: the censorship regime and the propaganda-industrial complex, also known as the legacy media. Glenn takes us back half a century to where it all started, when the biggest progressive minds in the country found out how to brainwash and indoctrinate a select elite class. They now control over 90% of the information that we all consume! This, he explains, is why the Democratic Party went from the party of anti-war, working-class hippies to the party of elite, college-educated war hawks in bed with Big Pharma who think the American people should be “drones.” If Trump doesn’t fix the eyes and ears first, a process that started when Elon Musk bought Twitter, the cancer will just return. Beware deep state, for the Orange Man cometh with very sharp tools.

Will Tulsi Gabbard and Matt Gaetz CLEAR OUT the Deep State?

President-Elect Donald Trump’s latest round of cabinet picks include Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence and Rep. Matt Gaetz as Attorney General. Glenn and Stu discuss: Is Gabbard out for vengeance against the Intelligence Community for spying on her, or is she just searching for the truth? Will House Ethics Committee accusations against Gaetz tank his confirmation, or will he be able to clean house at the Department of Justice?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Well, I wasn't born with the news yesterday, Stu. I'm not sure anybody was.

STU: We said it. We did say. These are kind of just normal Republican -- any Republican nominee may have put these people in office.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: And that changed, I would say, after that.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

STU: This is what you promised, right?

It's always exciting. Somewhere, yeah.

STU: We got a lot of excitement yesterday.

GLENN: There's a couple of things that I find worthy of pointing out.

If you look at it from his point of view. Last time, he was in office, he didn't know who to trust. Right?

He didn't know the system. He didn't know the players. He didn't know the parties, how they actually work in Washington. And he was stabbed in the back, in the side, in the shoulder.

You know, in the chest, in the stomach. Everywhere. He was stabbed. By everybody.

Okay?

So he's looking first, I think for people who are loyal to his vision. And perhaps, also, loyal to him, because he was stabbed over and over again.

STU: Yeah. I mean, obviously this is a factor.

GLENN: Right.

And it's logical and reasonable.

I mean,, Stu.

You know I've been stabbed every -- from every direction. Right?

STU: Sorry about that.

GLENN: Wait a minute.

And you know that I -- I have a tight circle around me. And they are people that not everybody necessarily likes each other, but they're all people I know, because I've seen them battle hardened.

They will never tab me in the back. Do you know what I mean?

And that's reasonable.

STU: That's a very reasonable desire.

GLENN: Correct. So that's the first thing that needs to be taken into consideration.

The second thing, I noticed yesterday is, he's also nominating people that the left will say, this is vengeance!

No. No. Not necessarily.

Although, it could quickly become that. And I will be against that, if it is a who couldn't come fest, okay?

But I don't think that's what it is. I think this is people who have been wronged, by the department they're now running. You know what I mean?

STU: Right.

GLENN: For instance, Tulsi Gabbard, DNI. Well, what did -- DNI. She oversees CIA, Homeland Security, all intelligence. Okay?

Well, she was put on the terror watch list. Now, you could look at that and say, oh, she's going for vengeance. She wants retribution.

No. I know Tulsi well enough to know, she wants no one to ever face that again for political reasons. You know what I mean?

She was deeply -- not offended, deeply disappointed in her country. It was -- it was an assault on her honor. That's where Tulsi is. And she's like, my country. I mean, it's shattered for her.

My country is saying that I'm a traitor. And they're only saying it because of politics?

This is not America. So I think she's perfect for that role.

Now, Matt Gaetz is an interesting pick. I don't know how I feel about Matt Gaetz as the attorney general. Wouldn't have been my pick. But I'm going to give Donald Trump the -- all the rope he's asking for. I think he's earned our trust. He's earned the right to go fishing and pull up any fish that he wants.

Now, that is not a blanket. Wait a minute. This isn't working out well, kind of deal.

If it's not working out well, I'm still going to say, it's not working out well.

However, if you look at what he's done in the past, he was one of the toughest people up against the Justice Department.

I mean, it's him, Massey, Rand Paul, he went after the Justice Department. And he was in oversight of the Justice Department.

So he knows it. He is qualified for it.

He just is possibly a loose cannon.

But the other thing I know about him, is he will not stab Donald Trump in the back.

STU: Definitely not.

He will do anything that Donald Trump asks him to do.

GLENN: I hope that's not. Wait a minute. I hope that's not a blanket statement, from anybody.

And I'm not talking about you. But from anybody.

I will do what the president asks me to do.

Unless it's unconstitutional.

STU: Look, I don't have that much worry that Donald Trump is going to request an unconstitutional thing. Though, I don't think Matt Gaetz would be the -- the -- the obstacle in his path, if he did.

GLENN: Right.

STU: I'm just not all that concerned about Donald Trump doing that. But I think Matt Gaetz will do that.

I can understand if I'm Donald Trump, look, I've been through this. They've come after me. I need somebody to go after me and basically fire everybody. And not feel bad for -- you know, because they have relationships inside that world.

GLENN: Right.

STU: And so from that perspective, I understand the Gaetz pick. Because Gaetz will do that.

He will -- if Donald Trump says fire 75 percent of the people, he will fire exactly 75.0 percent of the people.

GLENN: Yeah, and I will tell you that, you know, there are different -- there are different phases of a job.

STU: Right.

GLENN: You know, there are war generals. And there are peacetime generals.

A war general, isn't afraid of getting bloody.

Isn't afraid of going in with a hatchet and just kill them all, you know what I mean?

And I think that that's a Gaetz role.

That he may or may not be. Proof is in the pudding.

A peacetime guy. You know, he's the guy who goes in, when you're at war. And says, all of you, out.

You know, he does that for two years.

And who is open for a gig in two?

Oh. Ron DeSantis is open for two years. You know what I mean?

STU: Yeah. It kind of seems that he is specifically designed for the beginning of this. Now, again, the question of whether he gets confirmed is a whole 'nother situation.

And I know the recess situation, they're trying to get it so they don't have to confirm him. I think that's probably the only way he gets the job. I don't think he he'll get through the Senate.

But he -- it's not impossible. And if he goes through the recess appointment approach, he can get in there and he can go for two years because of that clause.

So he would only be able to do two years and then he would need to be confirmed. I don't -- I mean, maybe in two years, if he just did a really good job, he would get confirmed by the Senate. So it's possible. But right now, the guy has a lot of enemies in Congress. A lot of times, that's a good sign.

But I do think you're right, that he's the type of person that guy that will go in there and be light the place on fire, and that's exactly what Donald Trump I think wants to start on, because of how corrupt he believes he is. So I understand from that perspective.

I guess my -- if I'm making a pick, which I'm not. I was not actually elected president of the United States. We don't get to make this pick. But you think of a person like Eric Schmitt.

GLENN: I would have gone with him.

STU: Who is, I think a more -- I don't know. I think he would do a lot.

He would not be a rubber stamp. Like I think Gaetz will be for anything that he wants. However, he is a really serious person. Can absolutely do the job.

Would be an incredible pick for that job. And I think brings a little more credibility, not to mention an easier path in the Senate. Again, it's up to Trump. He gets to make this pick. If this one fails, he moves on to someone else.

GLENN: And I like Ken Paxton. Paxton wouldn't have affected the balance of power in the Senate and the House, you know what I mean?

STU: Yeah, the House -- I'm getting into worry time. We're now taking three House members out, when you have a very small majority. Now, I'm sure Trump is thinking about this.

Because it is important to him. He does need the House.

GLENN: It's critical.

STU: And I think they will get to 220 or 221.

GLENN: He's got to stop poaching from the House. He has to.

STU: And Johnson is like begging him at this point, please, nobody else.

GLENN: No more.

STU: Because he dropped out quickly. Now, of course, there's a lot around that. Gaetz is -- he was -- they were scheduled to vote on whether they were going to release a report on all of his personal issues here in two days. And so the fact that he immediately drops out, that means they theoretically don't --

GLENN: Where do you stand on those issues? Do you believe those to be true, or is that another hatchet job?

STU: That's an interesting question. To me, again, I will say, I haven't spent a lot of time --

GLENN: Yeah. I haven't either.

STU: To me, the idea that he was sex trafficking, seems like a real stretch.

I don't know. I could be --

GLENN: There are sex traffickers in the country. And they seem to miss a lot of those. They don't even look for a lot of those.

STU: Yeah. And he was not charged, it should be pointed out.

And the idea that -- it seems like even the accusation itself

GLENN: Is sketchy.

STU: Strikes me as they're stretching that into a larger crime. They're saying basically.

The accusation. We don't need to go into any of that. We don't even have the report. The problem -- the accusation you don't know is that he slept with a 17-year-old girl, and took her on trips, which they call as a across state lines. And then they say, they have their -- his Venmo records, and they say, that he Venmoed these women a bunch of money.

Which, I think that part of it is true. The question is, what is it for?

The accusation is, it was for paid sex. So paid sex across state lines. That's sex trafficking. Now, when I think of sex trafficking. I'm thinking of people being smuggled in from other countries.

GLENN: Yeah, I immediately think of a cargo container.

STU: Yeah, exactly, and that's not the accusation against him.

GLENN: Right.

STU: Look, they're serious.

You know, look, if he's actually having sex with underaged girls. That's a big enough deal.

GLENN: Yeah. That's a problem.

STU: Obviously, Trump is convinced he didn't. He has denied this. These are a lot of accusations from multiple other members of Congress, who say that he was, at the very least showing them pictures of girls that he was having sex with, on the floor of the House.

And, again, that doesn't necessarily -- that's not necessarily a crime. But not necessarily the best activity for someone you want to appoint to attorney general.

GLENN: Yeah. It's more Clinton-esque.

STU: Sure.

GLENN: Worthy of the president of the United States.

STU: As we know, there are -- it's difficult to find somebody who isn't engaged in some horrible activity in Washington. So --

GLENN: Yeah. I know. But I hope these things are wrong. We can't have somebody who has any dirt on them.

STU: Oh. And, look, Gaetz has tons. They are about to release an ethics report on him that they are saying is very damaging. Now, Gaetz is going to deny it.

And he has some. Like, I remember him saying, oh, actually, they're coming -- I'm being framed.

GLENN: Yeah, he's denied this hard.

STU: Some of that was true. Because they were coming after his dad in some related things. There's a long story here. If that report comes out. Which, by the way, I would expect it to.

GLENN: Of course, it will.

STU: It would be very surprising if somebody, who has a lot of enemies. Will not reek this report. Before this process.

GLENN: You have to remember too, the report is still just wrong.

STU: And it's an ethics accusation, it's not going to result in charges.

At the end of the day. You know, this will come down to whether Republicans want to cross this line for Trump.

And the biggest one he's presented to them so far. If he went to Thune. And this is what I expected. He went to Thune and said, look, I'm not going to endorse Rick Scott if you give me these recess appointments.

My guess is that was a big part of the deal. He was pretty clear about it. And the reporting is pretty clear on it going out. If that happens, he will be able to get in there. He will go in, he will shake the place up, and probably only last two years.

GLENN: Yeah, because he will be acting attorney general.

STU: Acting, and that's the maximum limit on that.

GLENN: Right.

STU: But I will say, it will be an interesting test of that relationship and how serious Thune is in keeping that promise.

Thune is not a guy that I would trust, with a -- with a promise like that.

GLENN: I wouldn't trust Thune with anything. Hey, could you hold this pile of dirt for me?

I'm not giving it to Thune.

Absolutely. I'm all over it.

STU: Thune. The easiest way to think of Thune is McConnell.

He's basically McConnell. Now, look, McConnell, maybe he would keep that promise.

Usually what happens here, the Senate wants their opportunity to give their opinion and their consent.

GLENN: The one thing I do like about Gaetz is, you know, he was pushing to stop the influence industry in Washington. And he was pushing for the end of stock trading. Inside information. Blah, blah, blah.

STU: Yeah. He's very good on that.

GLENN: And he reach out to the uber left. He stood with AOC. And I love this comment from him. AOC is wrong a lot. But she's not corrupt. And I will work with anyone and everyone to ensure that Congress is not compromised.

I think that's good!

Can Elon & Vivek’s D.O.G.E. slash the federal bureaucracy in HALF?

Donald Trump has made it official: Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy have been tapped to run a new “Department of Government Efficiency” (or D.O.G.E.), tasked with slashing the federal bureaucracy and spending. But will it be successful? Glenn and Stu review what’s standing in the way of mass firings and Vivek’s possibly genius plan to get around these hurdles.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Hello, Stu.

STU: Hi, Glenn, how are you doing?

GLENN: I think Donald Trump is becoming the greatest president to ever live. If this stuff happens, I may put him up -- honestly I may put him up with Lincoln.

STU: Wow! Wow. Well, he's trying to do a lot. If he can accomplish this, heavy lift.

GLENN: If he can accomplish it. Yeah. Heavy, heavy lift. Oh, my gosh. He speaks my language every night. I'm like, honey, can you leave us alone? I'm just reading the news of his latest proposal. I need some alone time right now.

It is -- woo. Ramaswamy and Elon Musk, okay. This is his -- his latest. Let me see if I can give the -- let me see if I can give the actual release first of what he said. Oh, it's just -- oh. It is so sweet.

So he comes out, and he says, look, what we're going to have is this Department of Government Efficiency. You know that Musk was involved. DOGE.

And he says, it's going to run until their duty will be over, by July 4th, '26, which is the 250th anniversary of America.

So we have a lot of work to do, until then. But we're going to give back to America, the government. Give it back to the people.

And so what they're talking about doing is finding all of the ways to cut waste. And Ramaswamy has come up with this great idea of how to fire people.

Okay. We know the problem is that, you just can't fire people, because they're just going to -- they're going to take you to court, every step of the way. Everybody is going to say. You want to fire me, because I was black or white, or whatever I am.

I'm handicapped, or not handicapped. And you can't fire me. That's all that is going to happen. Then they will go to court and say, the president cannot fire all of these people. We're still going to have that one.

But how does the Supreme Court rule, that the executive is not in charge of all of his employees? Because the executive branch is in charge of the cabinet and all of the cabinet positions. And all of the agencies, under those cabinet positions.

STU: Typically how organizations work. That's why I'm so nice to you.

GLENN: Correct. Wait. What?

STU: You know, you have this power over my job. So I have to be incredibly nice to you, all the time.

GLENN: Right.

So everybody -- if you are running a -- if you're running a company, and you need to reduce the size of the company, you will have companies -- they will just cut whole divisions, because they don't want any of the lawsuits.

It has to be random. And it has to be everybody.

Right?

So what Ramaswamy has come up with. And he said, this is only a thought exercise.

But I think it's brilliant. What he's come up with is, we're going to reduce the government by half. And here's what we're going to do. We're going to say, everyone who has an odd number at the end of their Social Security number, you're fired.

STU: Well -- wait.

GLENN: Now, it's just random. Now, these are not the people that are elected. Okay?

So if you're elected into that office. You're not fired.

But everybody else, because we're reducing the size of the government by half.

STU: Well, I love the idea of reducing the size of the government by half.

GLENN: Here he comes. Here he comes. Naysayer.
STU: I love the idea of reducing the government by half.

GLENN: How did we switch roles?

STU: I don't think I'm being a naysayer.

Let me ask you this: Go back to Glenn Beck back in the day for a moment. Rewind your life a tad. And think of yourself a little patch, a little badge, given out by George Washington. What did it say?

Do you remember what it said?

GLENN: Merit.

STU: Merit! Merit has nothing tolerance with random groups of firing. You want to fire the employees that suck, not just --

GLENN: No, I know that.

But to be able to get to the place, where you have merit. You have to reduce the size of the government first.

You have -- you have bloodletting, that have to happen. Okay? You have to cut it by half.

STU: You do.

GLENN: Now, there might be some really good people that we lose. Might be. Might be. Probably will be. Oh, well.

And then you cut it another -- by half again. By saying, everyone whose Social Security number starts.

STU: Has an even number.

GLENN: -- with an even number. You're gone. So now you've cut the government by 70 percent.

I don't think the people that remain will be focused on doing a good job?

STU: Yeah. I mean, I would like -- I think though, there is just structural limitations that need to occur. Right?

You really do. You will need to fire people that are actually pretty good employees. Because of the size of the government. And because of the bloat.

GLENN: You're going to. You can apply again.

STU: I just would like to lead with the crappy employees.

GLENN: So would I. We would have to -- I mean, remember, this is exactly what Calvin Coolidge did. He cut the federal workforce by half.

And then he cut taxes by half. And when he did that, we got the roaring '20s.

Can you imagine?

Because he's also wanting to cut the federal regulations. Anything that hasn't passed by Congress. So all of these -- the administrator will decide. All of those rules and regulations, gone!
Gone! Do you realize how free this country will be, all of a sudden, overnight?

I mean, hello, sexy! I mean, I'm sorry that I am -- I mean, this is conservative porn! This is what we've always wanted!

This is that hot girl walking in going, you do have a shot with me!

Yeah! Okay.

STU: I mean, it will be fascinating to see if they can pull this off.

GLENN: Oh. If there's anybody that can do it, Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy.

STU: They're both. I would think. Especially Elon. Vivek has pretty obvious political aspirations here. He does.

Elon doesn't. He's the richest guy in the world. The only thing he cares about is doing this job, when it comes to this. I don't think he has any other aspirations.

GLENN: No. His aspirations are, I want to go Mars. Can you make that easier for me?

STU: Right. So it will be interesting. Because he will want to come in and do these things. And he's going to, I'm sure bump into all sorts of issues he's not used to dealing with in places like Tesla. Because at Tesla, he just legitimately fires the people. Right?

Obviously, there will be lots of road blocks, put in his way.

Trump, I think will do everything he can to remove them. But there's a lot of -- there's a lot of -- there's a lot of walls there, that he has to break through. I can't wait to see him try to do it.

GLENN: Oh, I know.

You know, if you can't shut down the Department of Education. Social Security number lottery happening right now.

I mean, think of that. Think of that.

And Donald Trump has said, what I've always said what I want to hear a president say. Real estate prices are going to plunge in the DC metro area.

Yeah! Yeah!

He's going to be cutting so many jobs. So many -- I mean, this is fantastic.

STU: I hate to step in the way of your optimism. I hate it. I hate it. Because you're like a little kid.

GLENN: I'm never like this.

STU: You're never like this.

GLENN: It's been since 2005, I've been a pessimist on what's coming. This is the first real shot we have. This is the moon shot. This is the moon shot. Are we going to make it to the moon? I don't know. We might blow up several people in the attempt to get there.

But if we stay focused, we will get there.

STU: I like it. I really do hope it happens. And, I mean, I think -- I have more optimism, than I normally would have, on such a thing like this.

Normally, I would be like, okay. They say this all the time. I don't know. It just feels like, usually, there's something that gets in the way.

I was thinking about the first Trump term on the border.

The second -- they came out with pretty tough border policies.

They said they were going to implement them.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: About, I don't know. A couple weeks into this. Families are being separated.

And then they changed the policy. This is Trump. This was in the Trump era. This is not like some other, you know, Mitch McConnell, and this mysterious Mitch McConnell presidency. This was Donald Trump.

And they backed off of it, because of all the pressure. Do you think maybe it's a second term, they're like, screw this. I'm not dealing with this anymore.

GLENN: Oh, I think maybe because he was in the first term, he didn't know what he didn't know. He didn't know who to trust.

He also didn't know what was coming. He knows now, what's come.

And he knows, I can't trust any of these people. I'm not going to listen. I'm just going to do what I know is right. I'm going to hire the best people in each area.

And then we're making a plan. And we're moving forward on day one.

STU: I love this Glenn Beck.

Glenn Beck is a very optimistic guy. And it's going to be so sad to watch you get crushed.

It is going to be --

GLENN: Look, I know there's going to be -- there's going to be massive pushback. This is not going to be easy.

STU: No.

GLENN: But we at least have a guy. You know, look --

STU: It feels like --

GLENN: Everybody said when Ronald Reagan said, it's an evil empire, and we need to start calling it by name. You can't defeat it, unless you know what it is. That's an evil empire, and we will defeat it, okay?

I, for one, at the time was like, okay. That's scary. But I love that. All right? Finally calling it by its name. Calling it out. Saying, it's the end of that. Everybody fought against that. Even in his own administration. They were saying, don't say that anymore. Don't say that anymore.

He was just, I'm going to say it.

It's because of that, we defeated communism, the first time.

Because he just wouldn't stop.

What do you think is going to stop Donald Trump? What do you think will stop Donald Trump at this time?

What kind of namby-pamby, wishy-washy, guys can wear skirt talk, will stop Donald Trump from doing what he believes is right. Other than the Constitution.

STU: So to reverse this, if he fails, will you accuse him of wearing a namby-pamby skirt?

GLENN: No.

STU: I didn't think so.

GLENN: No. No, no, no, no. I will say that, here are the hurdles that we have to figure out how to get over. Okay?

They threw this in the way. Great. How do we get over?

He's not going to rest. He's not going to stop. He's not going to stop.

STU: It feels that way.

I mean, I think a lot of it has to do with what his priorities are. Right?

GLENN: Hang on. Let me give you -- and let me tell you, what I think happened to him, over the summer.

Okay?

Why I say, he's -- he's --

STU: He got shot.

GLENN: He got shot.

But what did that do to him?

And what else is playing a role?

GLENN: So Donald Trump was shot. He is the kind of guy that just keeps standing up. Okay. That's his natural tendency. Oh, you're going to hit me in the face? You're going to shoot me in the head?

Really. I'm going to get back up and say, fight.

STU: I thought that was going a different direction. Holy crap.
(laughter)

GLENN: So --

STU: That was a long F for that fight there.

GLENN: So he's the kind of guy that does that just naturally. Okay?

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: And he's also the guy who -- he told me, after he lost the last election. In the most humble of ways. He became very, very reflective. And I said, how are you doing?

And he said, I can't believe I've let all of these people who fought for me, I let them down.

I lost the election. Remember, I told you this. I let them down.

I can't. Now we're reversing all of the things that we had made progress on.

I can't live with that. So he also really cares about you, the people.

He's the first politician, that I've seen, that I think actually thinks about you, first.

George Bush, thought about the troops. That was on his mind, all the time.

But this one, thinks about not only the troops.

But you. All the time.

He is serving you.

I truly believe that.

Now, what else happened to him? He gets up. He says, fight. Because that's who he is.

Also, he wanted to see the crowd.

You stood there, if you were in Pennsylvania, you didn't run and hide.

He knew he was part of a movement.

He also knew, this was a God thing.

So the natural thing is: Why was I saved?

He has told me, and he has told others, that he knows he was saved for a reason.

He believes that reason is to fix America. So now you have a much higher calling than, I am just me. I'm Donald Trump. I want to be whatever.

Plus, he knows that the -- the country is either sink or swim.

We're at the end of the republic. Or at the beginning.

Coincidentally, in this term, is our 250th anniversary.

It's not a coincidence that he has DOGE, the final day of their work, July 4th, '26. That's the date of the 250th anniversary. They're not going to gather information and then enact those things by July 4th, '26. He wants it done by then.

STU: That's the right approach.

GLENN: It is. And he wants to hand America back to her people and her founding principles in a year and a half. That's ripe for the economy. That's -- he believes that's his mission.

He believes that's his -- his mission, honestly from God.

I really believe that. He believes this is a nation with a purpose, a higher purpose. He believes in our founding documents.

He believes in you, the people.

He is quite possibly the refounder I have looked for, my whole life. And I can't believe it.

STU: It's an amazing.

I'm more amazed by your optimism, generally, than I am by even the giant aspirations here by the president.

But I'm excited about it. I think it's a great -- first of all, it's nice to have a little hope. Right?

GLENN: I haven't had hope since 2008.

STU: Yeah. It's nice. It's a good feeling.

GLENN: Yeah. It's really nice.

STU: Like I am super optimistic I think from my scale as to what someone like Elon Musk can accomplish. If given the sort of room he needs to operate. Look, it's all going to be tough.

When you talk about the budget and stuff, a lot of stuff comes out of these programs like Medicare, that I don't know is necessarily going to be the focus of this. Do you know?

Is it going to be looking at these generalized programs. They're not diving into Medicare. Because you can't do that without legislation.

GLENN: No. He's not doing that. He's not looking at anything that Congress has to do first.

STU: Right.

GLENN: He wants to cut the size of the federal government and regulation which will give you control of your life back.

STU: I feel like, that's too why he's not too worried about taking people out of the House for these appointments.

Because I think he knows, he's got a few months, where he will be doing executive order type stuff. Executive management, before he's looking necessarily at that first bill.

GLENN: Yeah. He has to be careful on that. He needs to make sure he keeps the House.

But, I mean, this could turn the country around economically, pretty quickly.