RADIOAugust 22, 2022

Expert predicts Donald Trump’s ‘MAJOR’ news after FBI raid

President Trump recently teased on Truth Social a ‘major’ announcement ‘pertaining to the Fourth Amendment’ and concerning the FBI’s recent raid of his Mar-a-Lago home. So what could Donald Trump be planning to do next? Journalist John Solomon, author of ‘Fallout,’ gives Glenn his best guess. Plus, Solomon details more information concerning the raid, and he recaps FBI corruption that’s existed for DECADES: ‘This is an agency that has…a very big history of abuses. Time and time and time again.’

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: John Solomon. Welcome to the program. How are you, sir?

JOHN: Great to be with you, Glenn.

GLENN: It's great to be with you. We are living in insane times. I remember we -- you know, we've talked for years now.

Did you -- did you ever really believe that it would ever get like this?

JOHN: I didn't, no. Yet, we've had this great American experience for 246 years. And I think back to that speech you gave at CPAC on February, and all the things you said, somewhere along the way, we jumped out of the roots of this great country. And we're in a place now, that doesn't resemble the America that we all grew up in. It's a very troubling time.

GLENN: Yeah. So I think a lot of people during the last couple of weeks, have learned a lot about what to do, and what to expect, when you're served a warrant at your house. It's actually a good way. It's God's way of teaching us the Constitution, I think. What happened with Donald Trump, is, again, I believe a horror show. There's no way he is selling secrets. You know, nuclear secrets to Finland, this is ridiculous.

It does now seem to appear, to be a shot across the bow because he was trying to release documents, that showed who was involved in the Russia hoax. Is that true?

JOHN: Well, listen, there is this long six-year battle between the FBI and Donald Trump. And of course, it starts with Russia collusion, which we now know as completely contrived and political investigation, but had no predicate, no merit whatsoever.

As the presidency is coming to an end, as Donald Trump is leaving office on January 19th, 2021, he declassified the documents, the FBI never wanted out in public.

They didn't want these documents out. These are the ways they handled their informants. What they do before they sign the FISA warrants. What they were telling the court, versus what they knew internally.

That just inflamed the FBI all the more. And for the last year, as I reported. The FBI secretly grabbed those documents. The president declassified them. He ordered them to be released. In the last hour of the Trump presidency, I'm told at 11 o'clock on January 20th, 2021, the FBI and the Justice Department grabbed those documents. They made up an excuse. Saying, hey, we left a couple of Privacy Act pieces of information in there, from the declassified documents.

Let's grab them. We'll fix that, and we'll release them. They grabbed them for 19 months. They kept them from the American public despite a lawful order of a sitting president.

GLENN: Unbelievable. So he had the documents, but they hadn't been redacted?

JOHN: They were redacted. They were completely ready. They were declassified. All the declassified markings. At the last minute, the Justice Department raised an issue that maybe there was a piece of information there still covered by the private sector. Let's go look at it real quickly. It looks like it was really just an excuse to grab the documents.

GLENN: All right. So did he have those at Mar-a-Lago? Do we know? Is that what they were going off of?

JOHN: No one has told me -- I haven't found anyone who told me that they had the documents there. And, of course, I've asked the president. Do you have the documents?

He's told me no.

That's why he gave me permission as a journalist, to go to the non-public section out of the national archives to try to find these documents.

That's what led us to the discovery just three weeks ago, that these documents had been grabbed by the Justice Department. And a secret hand, grabbed them and put them in the Justice Department.

GLENN: So you haven't been able to find them?

JOHN: No. We know where they are now. There's two sets. There's a classified set at the national archives. I can't see them. Because I don't have any security clearance, nor does anyone else in normal America.

Right. I could have -- that's probably not advisable. And then the second part, is there is a set with the Justice Department. And I'm taking multiple actions to try to force the Justice Department. And I hope to have really good news later this week. I've been negotiating with the archives. They have been working with the Justice Department. I have a sense, an inkling, that we might get these documents in the near future.

GLENN: All right. So what was it that the FBI do you think, was looking for?

JOHN: It's a great question, right. The first possibility is maybe what they said, is all that it is. Right? This is a dispute between the archives and former President Donald Trump, and they actually went through this unprecedented means to get documents back, by raiding his home.

I haven't found any other great explanation for people. And I think when people look bang. If that's all this was. If this was a dispute over documents, there is a civil process, that could have been followed. And that means they will have criminalized a dispute over paper. And with some serious issues involved. And I think there's another part of this, Glenn, that we haven't been able to dig into. I'm really working on now.

It is impossible for this sort of a dispute to go on, and for it to become criminalized without the Biden White House -- there's just no way, the way the system of government works. So what was the Biden/White House's role in these conversations?

I think that's the next big shoe to drop. I don't know what it is. But I'm determined to find out what it is. The way government works, you have these issues of privilege. You have these issues of I would dispute, between the current administration, the past administration. The Biden White House had to be in the loop

And I don't think their story adds up.

GLENN: Well, I have to tell you, just on common sense, and the way the world has worked in America. There's no way a decision that large, that would come back to the White House, eventually, and affect the presidency, not just Biden and Trump. But the entire presidency. There's no way the Justice Department doesn't call and at least give a heads-up. Am I wrong?

JOHN: I'm 100 percent with you. And I think there's another issue here. Remember that there -- the grand jury subpoena. Which I broke the story a couple weeks ago, was executed on June 3rd. In a collaborative way, by the way. Both sides were still working together then. That didn't address the issue of executive privilege. What does that mean?

It means somewhere earlier in the process, somebody to wave executive privilege in order for a grand jury subpoena to be issued for executive documents. The only way Donald Trump is going to be waving it. I think we're going to find out that the Biden administration waived executive administration for Trump. And that they were deeply involved in it. That's just the only plausible explanation for why there wouldn't be a privilege claim back in June, when the grand jury first showed it to be. This first --

GLENN: Wow. So, John, I'm doing a special on Wednesday. On the history of the FBI. And how -- and how corrupt it has been. I mean, it really was corrupt from the very beginning.

You know, we had Hoover doing all kinds of stuff, that was really, really dark and bad. Are we at or beyond the Hoover days?

JOHN: Well, listen, one of the big stories I did when I was at the Washington Post, and I worked with 60 Minutes. For 40 years, for 40 years, the FBI would go into -- take it out of politics for a second.

They would go into a case, and say, that guy on trial for murder, I can assure you, that the bullets we found in his bedroom door, matches the bullets that were shot out of that gun.

And for 40 years, they testified that hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds of murder defendants were convicted based on the FBI scientists. The story I broke in 2007, showed the FBI knew all along, that that science was junk science. It wasn't true. That they couldn't make such a representation, and yet they continued to make it, well past -- I mean, during the Hoover years. Well-past -- all the way into the Mueller easier. So the history of the FBI. Which was the church hearings. Which went into the Hoover era. Or what we learned in 9/11. The mistakes of the Oklahoma City bombing. The problems with the FBI.

This is an agency that has a very big representation. But it also has a very big history of abuses. Time and time and time again.

GLENN: Any way to reign that in.

JOHN: It's a great question preponderance is some of the policy makers I've talked to in Congress. For the first time, I've heard Republicans tell me privately, you know what, it's time to break up the FBI. Maybe have them -- make them like Scotland Yard, and put the Domestic Intelligence into a different agency. There is clearly a moment of reckoning for the FBI within on the immediate horizon. The real question is, if you just take the counterintelligence division up. You put it somewhere else. The mentality still exists that there's not a regard to the Constitution. That's the part, whether it's inside the FBI or outside of it, the lack of regard for the Fourth Amendment, for our liberties in the face of a big government, that's the part that hasn't been flesh out. I'm not sure just dividing the FBI.

GLENN: Well, especially the intelligence arm.

The intelligence agencies are completely out of control. The things I've read about the intelligence agencies. And I've heard from people on Capitol Hill. Is they really don't answer to anybody right now.

JOHN: Yeah. Yeah. They have their own mindset. Their own mentality. So much of what they do, can say secret, no matter what. As we're seeing in this search warrant today. We never get a visibility, to know if the excuse they're giving to us, is real. And only years later, through lawsuits and FOIAs that we find out. Well, the officials in the intelligence community didn't match, what we were told at the time. It's that secrecy, that I think creates so much concern.

There was an opportunity to know of Russian collusion. Why Republicans were still in control of both -- to do something, to trade a permanent advocate. So that all intelligence cases that occurred in secret, there would be someone advocating on behalf of the American, whose liberties were about to be violated. They when I find on that, Paul Ryan whiffed on that. But I think there's a lot of people today, that would go back and say, you know, if I had to do over, I would probably create that public advocate who goes into the court and argues on behalf of you and me and everybody else.

GLENN: Yeah. So, John, what do you think Donald Trump is talking about, when he says that, you know -- he said over the weekend, it might be within hours. It might be Monday, that I'm going to be filing something. And big news coming. What do you think that might be?

JOHN: My reporting indicates that that the president is considering, filing a motion to remove Judge Bruce Reinhart, who by the way, just a few minutes ago ruled that the entire affidavit cannot be kept sealed. He believes, he used the word unprecedented. I'm glad he recognizes what he approves as unprecedented, but he is rejecting the Justice Department's request to keep the affidavit secret.

GLENN: Wait. Wait. Wait. He rejected the -- the Department of Justice?

JOHN: Just broke just a few minutes ago.

It's up on Just The News right now. Judge Reinhart this morning said the Justice Department's request to keep the entire affidavit for the search warrant, under seal, is rejected. That this is an unprecedented case. It requires transparency, so people can understand why the FBI was authorized to raid a former president's home. That just happened this morning. That's something that the president was cheering on.

GLENN: And how long will it be before we see that?

JOHN: Well, there are two options. Either they have to deliver the unredacted version of the affidavit on Thursday. Or a more likely scenario is the Justice Department will slow walk this. Go to a district judge, then go to an appeals court. Maybe even go to the Supreme Court.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

JOHN: My guess is they will go that route. But meanwhile the president -- to answer your question, I think the president is going to ask that a special master be appointed. A court-appointed independent person. Take the documents from the FBI and go through them and say these are -- these aren't. These are overly expansive. They shouldn't have be collected like your passports. And not leave the FBI on an honor system, given all we know. So I think that's what we'll see the president do.

GLENN: That would be great. John, thank you so much.

JOHN: Great to talk to you. Always an honor to be on your show.

GLENN: Likewise.

All right. When I say back to school shopping scam, I would assume you're thinking I'm just talking about that list of stuff you're supposed to get for you kid. Know, a bag full of stuff, that he's probably never, ever going to use anyway. Now, that's true. But there are also real back to school shopping scams out there. Buyer beware. It is important to understand cyber crime and identity theft. And how they will affect your life. And they will come cloaked a million different ways, which is why no one can prevent all of it, or catch all of the bad guys. And only LifeLock is the one that comes to the table. And says, look, we're going to do our absolute best. And we have the best track record at it. We're the longest running in the industry. But also, we have a team of experts, that are going to fix it. And work with you, to fix it.

And it is only at LifeLock by Norton. Now, join, and you'll save 25 percent off your first year with the promo code Beck. Call 1-800-LifeLock. 1-800-LifeLock or LifeLock.com. Use the promo code Beck. Save 25 percent now.

Ten-second station ID.
(music)
There is a -- I can't say this anymore. An unbelievable story.

There is another believable story, because it's only believable because of everything else that's going on.

You know, it's funny. We're called extremists. But only common sense and tradition now is extreme. It's extreme because everything else is insane.

We have an amazing story about a guy, who was canceled by Google, that you have to hear. Because this one affects you. And I haven't really heard anybody really tie this together, on how this will affect you. It's an outrageous story. We will have this coming up in a second. What do you think of John Stossel, and what he just said?

STU: Pretty amazing. You know, it does seem like -- the overreach is clear. And the -- and the courts may back up some of the Trump side of this. Which is always a plenty surprise, I suppose. When you go into this level of scrutiny. But I do think that there's a chance that this stuff really backfires on them. I think -- you know, you've always had the right, be the one who is defending the FBI in a lot of these institutions. And say, look, we understand. And we've said this a million times. We understand there are some problems in some of these institutions. They need to be rooted out.

It seems like the right after this, is getting to the point, where they're just giving up on that. Like, we can't.

GLENN: Hang on just a second.

Would you call John Solomon back just a second and say, sorry, Glenn has one more question that I forgot to ask him. I want to ask him about the whistle-blowers. Because he's in a position, to know. Are we seeing more whistle-blowers, than usual?

Because that's the feeling I get, reading some stories.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: And hearing from Congress. That FBI agents are coming forward, and going, this has got to stop. And that to me, is heartening.

STU: You're also hearing this from people -- was it Grassley that came out with a big list -- was it 14 whistle-blowers on this one story?

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: That's not the typical -- this isn't like, I don't know, a hard-core Trump ally. He's just a normal kind of institutional Republican. He's been there for 500,000 years. And he's the type of guy you wouldn't necessarily think would be making erratic claims about this type of thing.

GLENN: No. He's kind of old school, reasonable reasonable, just consistent. Just consistent.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: But he's been saying that -- and if they're not -- if you are in the FBI, I plead with you. Plead with you to have zero tolerance for anything unconstitutional and whistle-blow. Come to us. Come to Project Veritas. Come to anyone. Anyone.

But please blow the whistle.

Because you're all going to be painted with the same brush, you know. What happened -- what happened with the police, in many cases, now, this is not the case with BLM. It just gave fuel to BLM.

Is the -- the -- for a long time, the police officers would close their ranks. And they would protect their own.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: You can't. If there's a practice bad guy, you've got for rat them out, otherwise, you'll all be deemed bad.

And I would like to be in a position where I trust the FBI. I don't know if I'll ever be there again. I don't know if I'll ever be there.

STU: And that's probably a healthy thing. There should be some general skepticism. You know, many of our people more on the Libertarian side of -- of the right have pointed this out many times. That conservatives tend to have a real skepticism of government, except for law enforcement and sometimes the military.

And that's not always the best thing to do. You should have the skepticism of government on all these facets. You just shouldn't wildly blame law enforcement for being wrong every single time.

GLENN: I want to be in a neutral position, you know.

STU: Hey, judge things by the facts. That's all we're asking here.

GLENN: Right. And the problem is, if the Intelligence and Justice Department have gone bad, who do you call? Because Ghostbusters is out of business. I don't know if you know that.

STU: No. Yeah, they're in business.

GLENN: No. That's a parallel universe.

STU: Really? That didn't really happen?

GLENN: No. Uh-uh.

STU: A better universe.

GLENN: No. The last I saw, all the equipment was, you know, buried in some place in the middle of the country.

STU: Probably better than what actually happened, you know.

GLENN: So we -- we need the trust in our institutions, and our FBI.

Please, if you're in the FBI, set the record straight. And -- and get rid of all of the bad things in your life, and whistle-blow!

You see something, say something. Are you getting tired of being told that you're what's wrong with America?

Are you tired of corporations going woke right and left?

Well, the good news is, you're awake. And so you don't have to pay for -- for services from a company that hate you. And then have some of the profit that they make, invested in the organizations that also hate you. And want to destroy everything that you love.

Patriot Mobile is your phone company. It is the one that will give you your cell phone and give you the same great service. The coverage. They're on the same cell towers as all the others.

And they love you. And they are actually in fighting for you. Go to PatriotMobile.com/Beck. Or call 972PATRIOT. PatriotMobile.com/Beck. 972PATRIOT. Use the offer code Beck. Get free activation. Join the movement. Pay less. Get great coverage. And actually be with a company that is fighting for your God-given rights. PatriotMobile.com/Beck. 972PATRIOT.

STU: BlazeTV.com/Glenn. The promo code is Glenn to save ten bucks to BlazeTV. More coming up.
(OUT AT 9:28AM)

GLENN: Hello, you sick freak. Yes, what would Monday be without a monkey pox update?

The CDC, the Center for Disease, Control, and Prevention has released a study over the weekend, suggesting that people should wear a mask, to protect themselves from monkey pox.

Now --

STU: Wait. There's no evidence that this is an airborne virus?

GLENN: No.

STU: So why would we wear a mask to avoid monkey pox?

GLENN: Well, I've said --

STU: It's an airborne virus. Would have seen how little they work. But why would --

GLENN: Well, because we've had -- we know now, monkey pox, the CDC came out last week, and said, monkey pox is something that is being spread, mainly through men having more than ten partners, and it is a sexual disease. It is being spread sexually. It's not a sexual disease. But it's being spread sexually.

STU: It's sort of a long-term intimate contact needed to spread this.

GLENN: Correct. So they didn't say that everyone should wear a mask.

STU: Uh-oh.

GLENN: I'm wondering if that's like a face condom, or what exactly -- how do you -- I mean, unless they're just lying to us, and one of those two things is wrong. Either the mask or how it spread.

If you're trying to logically figure it out, you've got to do some pretty complicated Common Core math. And show me your work, on how you got there.

STU: Hmm. I have a question about monkey pox.

GLENN: Yeah. I don't think I should answer it.

STU: No. Probably not. But they keep saying, we were talking about this phrase, men who were having sex with men. Which is the phrase now used. It's not gay people, or bisexual people. It's men who have sex with men. They keep saying that phrase over and over again. For some reason.

GLENN: Well, because gay sex, I think, could be sex between two women.

STU: Well, it's usually, there's an L in the LGBT, right? They could -- they keep saying, like, this is happening in the LGBTQ --

GLENN: I don't know what words mean anymore. I don't know what words mean.

STU: So this is my question, what about men who have sex with trans women? Could they be affected with this?

GLENN: No, that's completely different. It is to them.

STU: Here's the thing, they're biological men who have transitioned to women. I think this is what I would be accused of.

GLENN: Hater. Hater. Hater. I don't think monkey pox --

STU: Will the monkey pox -- is that --

GLENN: I don't think you can label someone who is now claiming to be a woman.

STU: Monkey pox will essentially approach the trans woman and say, I was thinking about infecting this particular man.

GLENN: You. Yeah.

STU: Then I realized, actually, this person is identifying as a woman, therefore, it's totally safe to have sex with this person.

GLENN: Right. Monkeys are not animals, man.

STU: Wait.

GLENN: All right. We have a really important story to share with you. It broke over the weekend. And it involves Google and a dad.

STU: Yes. So a dad in San Francisco, this is February 2021. If you know anything about San Francisco, this was like mid-lockdown. They were still in pull full fledge, right. Of lockdown. So the dad. Stay at home dad, had his son. And his son is having some issues in a sensitive area, if you would. And a rash of some sort, some redness, some swelling, breaking out.

GLENN: Monkey pox.

STU: Now, of course -- now, this wasn't monkey pox. This was pre-monkey pox era. This child is having some discomfort. You're of course not allowed to go outside for some reason. So they're doing a virtual doctor's visit. While they're doing this virtual doctor's visit. The doctor requests photos to understand what's going on.

GLENN: Look, I'm not going anywhere really dark with the doctor, is it?

STU: No.

GLENN: Good. I'm just asking for the listener.

STU: Well, if you survived the monkey pox update, I think you already are here.

GLENN: Right. This one is a lot more tame.

STU: Yes. This is more tame. So he takes some photos, to give to the doctor of his child's area. Sends the photos.

The doctor recognizes what the rash is, what the issue is, sends antibiotics. Gets it knocked out immediately. Everybody is happy.

GLENN: Got it. So, I mean, want to recap this story. It's during covid lockdown. Dad is locked in the house. The doctor has these virtual visits. The doctor, a good guy. Asks the father, a good guy, to take a picture of the sensitive areas of the son who is a good guy. So the doctor can diagnosis and give the right prescription.

STU: Which he does, and it works. Everybody is happy. Apparently not. Not according to the people over at Google. Who have an algorithm, running over all his photos, that are in the cloud.

GLENN: Oh.

STU: And this photo that was apparently uploaded automatically to the cloud.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: Sends -- sets off some alerts, that say, this could be child porn. Now, of course --

GLENN: But it's not child porn.

STU: It's not child porn.

GLENN: Now, was Google monitoring this guy, because they suspected child porn?

STU: No. This is an automated algorithm, that is scanning the photos much every single person who uses Google cloud.

GLENN: Everyone. Uh-huh. Okay.

STU: Now, you might say, there's some utility to this. If it was child porn, it would probably be really good that this was alerted. And maybe some child could have been protected from some horrible, horrible incident.

GLENN: Sure. So they should have maybe reached out to some doctor. Well, but the doctor could have been -- he was on the receiving end, so to speak.

STU: Right. But what needs to happen here? The algorithm sets off these alarms. And then it goes to a human. And the human would have to determine at some level. So this happens, apparently. It's egregious enough for the people at Google, to alert the police. And shut down his entire account. Shutting down his access to his email. Deleting all of his photos from the beginning of his child's life all the way through. Deleting all of his documents.

GLENN: Okay. So wait a minute. Hang on just a second. If you were trying to catch somebody who was in child porn, the last thing you would want to do is tip them off that the authorities are on to them. So Google just -- they call the police. Then they just delete everything?

STU: At least from his access point. So he cannot access any of his stuff. Now, of course, this means he can't access the photos to prove he's innocent. Because now he no longer has excess to the photos that he took, that were his.

GLENN: What happened to the doctor's office that received the photos?

STU: Well, nothing at this point.

GLENN: Okay.

STU: So this goes on. He goes to Google, and appeals it. And says, look, my kid was sick, the doctor asked for these photos. I sent them. They reject his appeal.

Then months later, he gets a letter from the San Francisco police department. San Francisco police department has alerted him that they have begun an investigation. Have looked at all these photos.

He gets in touch with them, and explains to the San Francisco Police Department, hey, look, this is what was the situation. The Police Department sees all the evidence, and agrees with them. And says, okay. Obviously, no crime here.

He did not commit a crime here. This was not child porn. He was sending them to a doctor. So now you have the dad. You have the doctor. You have the police department, all saying the same thing.

GLENN: And the boy.

STU: And the boy. This is not a crime. There is no abuse here. Seems all appearances. All the evidence that we have. A good dad, trying it help his son, through a difficult moment in his life. The only standout here is Google.

So now the story escalates to the New York Times. The Times comes in, documents all of this. Has actually, apparently looked at the photos now. And has also determined, this is not child porn. Right? So we're sure on this one, it seems. Every point of evidence.

GLENN: I think people at the New York Times might be able to know what child porn looks like.

STU: They may very well be able to do that.

GLENN: So he wanted -- so they've gone through all of this. The dad wanted to sue Google, because, you know --

GLENN: They've shut --

STU: They shut him out. They say no. Even with the word of the police department. They still said no.

So he wanted to sue Google. He realized it was too expensive. He didn't have the money to do it. So he is just basically now in the constant state of trying to get them to change their mind, even with all of this. The Times contacts Google and gets a comment on the record where they say, yeah, we're not reversing it. After all of this. The police department is on the record saying, we have a copy of all of his data, but on a jump track. And they are saying, they want to work with the dad, to get him access to all his information back. But at this point, Google is still denying it.

GLENN: Now, imagine when Google and the United States are in bed with each other more than they already are. Imagine the ESG aspect of this. Dad is put on a list by Google. Google shares information by the government. The government shares information by the banks. Dad does not just lose all of his pictures. All of his contacts. And his Google phone. Dad would lose all phones. Dad would lose his banking. Dad would lose absolutely everything, because he would be too much of a risk.

And who do you go to? Who do you go to?

The New York Times? Who do you go to, to say, hey. I need to get my name off of this list. It doesn't -- now, let me add one additional thing to this. I told you last week, that the World Economic Forum, has said, that bullying and everything else, online and disinformation, misinformation, malinformation is too big of a problem globally.

So they are now pushing for high-tech and governments to endorse a system that would look at your tweet or whatever in question, and the algorithm would decide whether or not that is good or bad. If it's bad, it then makes a tree of everything that you do. So it goes back, and it looks at, who is influencing you?

And if those people -- it deletes you. Then it goes to all of the people with contacts. All of the people in your social media realm. And it looks for anyone else, that is spreading that information. And on each of those people, there's made a tree. And they lose their access. All the way down -- this is according to -- look it up at the WorldEconomicForum.com. Or org. Would you look it up, which one is it. But look it up at the main page of the World Economic Forum. It was there at least last week. Where they were talking about making a tree that would -- I mean, 7 degrees from Kevin Bacon. If this happened with this guy, I guarantee you, it's only a matter of time, before they get my name or your name. Because it trees out. And the World Economic Forum says that it's not enough to get the problem, that is manifesting itself on social media.

They need to see where that idea originally came from. Because they now need to silence ideas, before they get into the bloodstream of the population.

If that's not terrifying, especially coupled with this, that is actually happening. And you have a chance of stopping this. But you won't have that chance to stop these kinds of things. Look at how hard it is to get your name off of a No Fly List. You're on there -- you're on there by mistake. Look how long it took people to get their names off of no fly lists. You can't even find out from the government, if you're on it or off it. What the status is. Or why you're on it or off it.

STU: Yeah. In fact, one of the things that came up in this investigation. They said, well, we've also flagged a video from six months ago.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: And we thought that was problematic too.

He's like, well, what video? They're like, well, we're not going to give you access to it. So he can't even defend the video that he supposedly had on his phone.

GLENN: You can't -- you have a right to face your accuser.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: But that's only in governmental law. Back in just a second.

I don't know about you. But I tend to think, that I can immediately tell quality work when I see it. Taking and buying and selling homes, for example. You know the quality work, you know when somebody is going beyond the job that they just have to do. And they love their job. And they're excellent at it. This is a free service to you. To find the people that we think are the best real estate agents, with the best track record. And the -- and the best work ethic in your area. It's RealEstateAgentsITrust.com. Free service to you. You just go there. Say where you are. If you're selling or buying. And if you're moving across the country, or across the street, we'll find the real estate agents, that can help you. RealEstateAgentsITrust.com.
(music)
(OUT AT 9:49AM)

GLENN: This is the Glenn Beck Program. Back to John Solomon. John, I'm sorry to call you back.

JOHN: No problem.

GLENN: I just needed one more question from you. We were talking about the FBI and the warrant and what happened to Donald Trump. I have been hearing from Congress, that they're seeing tons of whistle-blowers come forward. And that gives me kind of hope. You're in a position to know, are we seeing whistle-blowers, and is it -- and is it more than just one or two?

JOHN: Yes, it is. That's a great question. And it's true. We've been writing a lot about it at Just The News. Fourteen separate different Justice Department and FBI whistle blowers, including at least one in the very senior ranks, have come forward to either Congressman Jim Jordan in the House or Senator Chuck Grassley in the Senate, and their allegations were, as we were discussing earlier in the show, that there was this politicization particularly in the Washington field office, where the current raid was conducted by -- the two examples that Chuck Grassley has put out there, that is very clear. An analyst wrote a document, trying to take legitimate evidence against Hunter Biden. And claimed it was disinformation that caused a part of the Hunter Biden investigation. Temporarily closed down in the election. That's one example of a bad politicization going on in the FBI. According to the whistle-blowers. The other is the same office, the Washington field office, opened an investigation on Donald Trump. Not the one we're talking about now, but an earlier one. Without having a proper predicate, meaning there wasn't evidence, much like the case in Russia --

GLENN: Jeez.

JOHN: -- to open up. That's what these guys are talking about, these men and women that are coming forward. Fourteen of them, you're right on the money, Glenn.

GLENN: So that's a good sign. We're seeing more than usual. It's not just maybe the political guys on the other side.

JOHN: Yes. No. I think this is right. This is a greater heartburn among career people.

GLENN: Good. Thank you for that. John, I appreciate it. God bless. John Solomon, of course, is the CEO and editor of chief of Just The News, which is a news site you should go to every day and check the news. That's good news. And, again, I want to encourage anyone -- anyone at any level, if you're seeing it in your city level -- you're seeing it to the FBI level, the NSA, CIA. Please, whistle-blow. We need to know good guys are in there.

Glenn Beck warns of dangerous government powers in proposed Charlie Kirk act

President Trump and others have posted in support of a proposed Charlie Kirk Act. But Glenn Beck gives a warning: there are 2 versions of this going around. One, proposed by Sen. Mike Lee, would stop the government from using propaganda against Americans. The other would go further, giving the government dangerous powers over truth. Glenn Beck explains the differences as well as what the Smith-Mundt Act was and why an Obama-era decision may be connected to the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Okay. I want you to just spend a couple of minutes with me, and switch everything that you've been thinking on, off for a minute. This is very important. I want to take you back to the world in 1948, okay?

The ashes of World War II are still warm. The Cold War is already beginning to chill in the air, and the Soviet Union has a propaganda machine that is in full swing.

Radio Moscow, Pravda, endless streams of anti-American stories are pouring into the homes of men and women, all across the globe.

And Congress looked at this. And said, we need a counterbalance on this.

America needs to tell her story to the world about liberty and about her finding ideals.

And we need to tell it to the rest of the world.

This is the birth of the Smith-Mundt Act. Okay? We needed to launch things, at that time. Like the Voice of America, and radio-free Europe, and Radio Liberty.

These were not just radio stations. For many who were behind the curtain, these were lifelines.

A Polish dissident in the 1970s or a Hungarian who lived through the 1956 uprising, they'll tell you, they're huddled in the dark, and they have that dial of that radio.

And they can tune it. They carefully tune it, listening to an American voice break through the static and break through the darkness. That says, freedom is real. And the world hasn't forgotten you. They remember that as being very important.

But and here is the key: We, as a society, drew a very bright red line, none of this could ever be used in the United States. Congress rightfully was terrified of unleashing a government propaganda machine on its own citizens. Now, I want you to remember. 1948, Congress is still Democrat.

Okay?

You just had 20 years of the same president, FDR.

They're about to say, no president can serve that long.

The Democrats said, no Democrat president. No Republican president can ever serve that long. Because we were so close to fascism.

So the Democrats are very concerned about the government going fascistic.

And they should know about it. Because they remembered the control commission.

Now, let me take you back to World War I. The Creel Commission is something that nobody remembers, and everyone should.

Because it's what whipped America up in a frenzy, to get us to go into World War I.

You know it, because you remember the I want you Uncle Sam poster. And I've always hated that Uncle Sam poster because of the Creel Commission. I love it. I think it's really beautiful. It was created by an artist, that he didn't create it for the Creel Commission. So, you know, he was innocent. But it was the Creel machine that plastered it on every wall, every post office, every train station.

And suddenly Uncle Sam's finger was pointing at you. It wasn't just a poster. It was a summons. It was you. We need you to go to war. Americans did not want to go to World War I. In fact, Woodrow Wilson said, the other side, he will put you into war. I will keep I out of war. He knew that wasn't true.

Within three months after his reelection, we're at war. But he had to bring the country along. So the Creel Commission, through films and songs, films like the Kaiser, the Beast of Berlin, it turned the -- it turned Germany into a cartoon villain. George Cohan, he wrote songs, over there. Over there.

All of these things were done by the government, as propaganda to get Americans to go over there.

And fight. Then the government went even further. And they started hiring these, what were called Four Minute Men.

Now, imagine this, you're sitting in a movie theater.

The film. You're watching maybe the -- the newsreel. And as they're changing the reels, some guy who just in the audience, stands up, walks to the front. Clears his throat. And he delivers this really well-thought out and rousing four minute speech about patriotism. And liberty.

And crushing Germany.

The government had 75,000 volunteers. They gave millions of speeches, when anybody would pause in churches and schools. In parks.

In theaters. They were called Four Minute Men.

This was social media before social media. They were short bursts. And they seemingly were everywhere, and always on message.

Because the message was crafted by the government. Then the Creel group, through our government, published booklets, official bulletins. They planted stories in the press. This is when we really started really getting into the press, and information was -- had one goal. All of the information. And that was rallies for the -- rally support for the war, and drown out anybody that was disagreeing with that. Okay?

The government actually encouraged kids to spy on their neighbors.

That you were encouraged and post -- post men did this.

To go through the mail, if they saw -- if they saw letters that were coming in. Ask they wanted to know, who it was. And are you a German spy. Are you somebody who is going to be against the war?

Postal workers went through your mail. And it was legal at the time!

You were encouraged, operators were encouraged to listen to people's phone calls, and to report if they were on the other side.

This is Germany.

In fact, because of the Creel Commission, Germans, and what's his name?

The head of the German propaganda, oh, what's his name? The German douche bag. I can't remember his name. Anyway, what was his name?

STU: Goebbels, is that who you're talking about?

GLENN: Goebbels.

STU: Although, I like your name for it, frankly.

GLENN: Yeah. Goebbels, the douche bag.

Anyway, he said, we lost World War I because of American propaganda. But we learned how Americans did it.

And that's what Goebbels did in World War II. All of this propaganda. Okay?

By the way, American advertising, up until World War II, it was called propaganda.

What I heard, I wouldn't have said, now a message from our advertiser.

I was delivering literally and it was cool at the time, to call it propaganda.

Because that's what it was. Paid for propaganda.

Bit after Goebbels took it. And did what he did with it. We were like, oh, propaganda is bad!

Okay?

So here's what -- here's what happened because of the Creel Commission. They were pushing uniformity of thought. They did that by making sure Americans were hearing the same slogans. The same images. The same stories from every direction. Which created the illusion of unanimous consent. I want you to think about life today.

I want you to think about life during COVID.

What was the goal of the government.

To crush any dissent, and to control all of the messages that were going out, to make sure that you were hearing the same slogans, the same images. The same stories from every direction, to give you the illusion that it was unanimous consent.

What about the global warming? It's exactly the same.

Then on top of it, the Creel Commission demonized dissent. Okay? German Americans were part of this country forever.

In fact, we were I think two votes away from making German our official language, as the United States, not English. But they were all of a sudden, branded as traitors.

You couldn't -- a priest went to jail, because he gave the last rites to a German who fell down in front of him on the streets and was dying. And a priest spoke German and gave him the last rites in German. That priest went to jail! Okay??

Okay? So they demonized dissent. Then they suppressed free speech. The propaganda campaign dovetailed with the Espionage Act of 1917. The Sedition Act of 1918. If you criticized the draft, if you questioned the war, you could be fined. You would be ostracized, and you would go to jail.

This is Woodrow Wilson, gang. Does any of it sound familiar?

Now, here's what the aftermath was, after the war. When the war ended, the mask came off. Millions were dead, and Americans felt absolutely duped. They felt that they were tricked into going into a war that they were manipulated into. They didn't even understand it. And that's why we were such isolationists, in the 1920s and our 1930s, because our own government had manipulated the population to go in to fight this war, and they felt so manipulated and so betrayed by their own government. They were like, I don't want anything to do with foreign wars, okay?

So why did this -- why did this happen in 1948?

Well, because in 1948, all of this stuff is happening, and we're saying, okay. We need to have some sort of -- some sort of boundary.

Because we're going to start all of this propaganda, for the United States. And it cannot be ever turned on the people of the United States. Okay?

So then why -- why was it repealed?

It was repealed without any really kind of conversation. Because it was slipped in, called the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act.

It was slipped in to a defense authorization bill. Just like it's happening right now, the government didn't pay its bills.

They couldn't come up with the -- with a way to actually fund everything. Because we have to act as an emergency, otherwise all of our war machine. And it's all going to stop. And the world is going to die. And panic and all of that.

;And so somebody has slipped the bill in. And we modernized it.

Why did we modernize?

Well, because don't you like transparency?

I mean, we're doing this overseas. We're doing this propaganda overseas. Do you know -- taxpayer. You're paying for it. Shouldn't you see it?

There was a Congressman Max Thornberry. He was one of the sponsors. And he said, quote, today the law prevents the American people from seeing or hearing the same things we broadcast overseas, and that doesn't make any sense.

We paid for it. Okay. Then they switched that from transparency to, and it's helping fight terrorism. It will let the Department of Defense and the State Department share counter radicalization material both abroad and at home, because we have to modernize this. The internet is everywhere, okay?
So who doesn't want to fight terrorists? Who doesn't want transparency?

Now, here's what actually happened. I'll tell you in 60 seconds. First, Stu.

STU: Yeah. Let me tell you about Prize Picks. You know, we're talking about daily fantasy sports, which is a nice escape, honestly from where we've been over the past three weeks.

If you remember fantasy sports and you're like, oh, gosh.

Yeah, that's a lot of work. I have to be on there, every single day. You don't have to do it that way. Prize Picks brings it back to what it was meant to be. Simple and quick and actually enjoyable.

No drafts. No leagues. No season-long commitments. You just look at the player projections for the day, decide if they'll do more or less than what is listed, build your lineup. And then you're in.

It takes less than a minute to play. And you can mix or match players across different sports, football, baseball. Basketball.

Whatever -- whatever you want.

You don't have to be a stat wizard. You don't have to be a sports insider. You just got instincts, and you have an opinion.

You can win Prize Picks. It's daily fantasy, the way it should be. Fun, flexible, and easy to fit into real life and a nice escape. No stress. Just sports your way.

Download the app today. Use the code Stu.

Get $50 in lineups after you play your first $5 lineup. The code is Stu, to get 50 bucks instantly when you play your first 5-dollar lineup. It's Prize Picks. And it's good to be right. Ten-second station ID.
(music)

GLENN: So in 2012, the left decides, we have to get rid of this propaganda thing.

Okay?

Once the firewall was gone, and it's just a blip, no one even really noticed it. Suddenly, the government agencies could circulate diplomacy campaigns, inside of the United States.

And we saw this. This is where you get your USAID. The NGOs. Doing all the things here in the United States.

Because they can all do it. During COVID, you saw this.

You saw government-funded messaging, quietly merging with the media campaigns and big tech content moderation. Narratives weren't debated. They were handed out by the government. And then they were enforced. Then take the DHS disinformation governance board.

This is a direct descendent from this shift. Okay?

It was the government openly declaring it had a role in policing speech at home.

Look at the 2016 aftermath of the elections. Reports now confirm that the US government funds originally intended for overseas information campaigns that had filtered into domestic projects that fact-checked, flagged, and suppressed certain narratives online. The line between foreign propaganda and domestic persuasion was completely gone. Everything they worried about in 1948, was now happening after 2012. Okay. So why am I bringing this up today?

Because after the assassination of Charlie Kirk, we have been asking for this to be reinstated.

This Smith-Mundt Act has to be reinstated. But after the assassination of Charlie Kirk, there is a new wave of enthusiasm for this as there should be.

But some people on our side, are now demanding more than just a firewall.

You go to change.org. And there's petitions for a Charlie Kirk act.

And it will not only stop government propaganda. But it goes further than that. It starts to punish private media. Educators. Social media platforms. For spreading what they call false narratives. So this is -- this is our side saying, yeah, well, now we want the power to do what they did. Okay? Hear me clearly.

Accountability matters! Lives are destroyed, reputations are smeared. And that matters.

But we have systems in place for that.

What this proposal opens is a new door. A terror where government decides, what is and isn't falsehood.

And the government cannot do that. History teaches us. Once the government claims the authority to define truth.

Liberty is gone. Okay?

Now, enter Mike Lee.

Mike Lee has another proposal. Mike Lee has a version. That he is submitting to Congress. And trying to get it passed. And every American should be for this.

Right or left.

Every American should be for this. He's not going to reinvent the wheel. He just wants the old firewall put back. That's it.

Period.

The government must not, and cannot propagandize its own people. Restore the very bright red line that was attacked in 1948.

It's not about silencing speech. It's about preventing the most powerful institution on earth, with the endless resources of that institution, the government.

And the endless reach, from turning its firehose of influence in on the American people.

This is why it matters. I want you to think of -- I want you to think of football.

Oh, boy. Dangerous.

You wouldn't let the referee this a football game, put on a jersey, and join one of the teams. Okay?

But that's what the repeal did. It let the government be both the referee and the player in the arena of ideas. Mike Lee is saying, put the stripes back on their jerseys. Make sure they're in black and white stripes. So we know exactly who they are!

Change.org and some people on our side want to make the ref not only a player, but the judge, the jury, and the executioner. It cannot happen.

This is -- I'm telling you, if this goes through, Mike Lee is proposing something that is clean. Doesn't have any of this in.

So support the Mike Lee Mundt Act. But if you're hearing people talk about, we have to go further, that is the Patriot Act of our day. We're standing at a fork in the road.

Reinstating the Smith-Mundt protections. They're not going to solve all the problems of misinformation, but it reestablishes the ground rules. And tells Washington, you cannot propagandize us, period.
(music)

Once truth belongs to the state, truth itself ceases to exist. Support Mike Lee's bill.

Restore the Smith-Mundt Act.

Shocking twist: Terror label removed in UnitedHealthcare CEO case

A New York judge has dismissed state terrorism and first-degree murder charges against the man who killed UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. Should the charge have been kept? Why is the state only pursuing second-degree murder charges? And will he avoid the death penalty? Former Chief Assistant US Attorney Andrew McCarthy joins Glenn Beck to explain what’s really to blame for these decisions.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: We have a good friend, Andy McCarthy who is a Nashville review contributing editor. He's also a former chief assistant US attorney, and a guy who when he speaks, I almost always agree with him. And when I don't, I'm probably wrong. Especially when it comes to things like this, because this was his expertise. He was a former chief assistant US attorney. And he worked on terror most of his career. I mean, he -- he is -- he is well-versed on terror charges and how to try them.

This Luigi Mangione case, the terrorism charges have been dropped. And, Andy, if I remember right, came out with an article I think last year said, this is not going to stand.

These terrorist charges aren't going to stand. And I don't understand why they won't.

And I don't understand how only be charged with second-degree murder.

When it was clear he was stocking the guy. Privy planned on killing him.

He was waiting for him outside.

That's premeditation, which is murder one.

But I know Andy will have all the answers for us.

Can you make sense of this for us, Andy?

ANDY: Yeah. I'm afraid I can, Glenn.

I think to start with the second point first about why it's murder two, rather than murder one. Back in the McCaughey days, which is like the 1990s in New York, when he was governor.

STU: Yeah.

ANDY: They tried to revise the New York capital murder statute. Because they haven't done a death penalty case in New York in decades.

And this was not -- this ultimately was not a successful effort. They still haven't revised the death penalty.

But what they did, they took the things that you could get the death penalty for, which in New York, were only things like killing a police officer or killing a prison guard in the prison.

And they made those the only murder in the first degree. Variety. Homicide, and all other murder.

GLENN: Why?

ANDY: Well, because they were trying to clean up -- their idea was, they were trying to clean the statute in a way that murder one would be revised as capital murder.

GLENN: Death penalty.

ANDY: Right. And all other murder was going to be second-degree murder, so because --

GLENN: That's insane.

ANDY: What we're dealing with Mangione, under New York law, would not have qualified for the death penalty because that would have been very, very narrow, and it's mainly killing police officers or prison guards.

That puts it into the category of second-degree murder. That doesn't mean, by the way, that it's unserious.

It has a -- I think the -- the offense in New York is like 25 years to life. Societies -- it's --

STU: The guy should get -- I mean, you could. You could argue against the death penalty. But guy should get either the death penalty, or life without payroll.

Not 25 years! This guy -- help me out on this one. How is he not a terrorist? He had the intent to terrorize. He said himself, he wanted people to look over their shoulders.

I mean, he is a textbook terrorist. And premeditation. Textbook!

ANDY: Yeah. To -- to prove terrorism, you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, an intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population.

And you have to sort of get out of the -- the mindset that murder is terrorizing. I mean, all murder is terrorizing, to the people who are obviously involved in it. And to the extent that it intimidated people. But we can't turn every murder into terrorism.

GLENN: Correct.

ANDY: Terrorism --

GLENN: But he did it for. But isn't terrorism about trying to scare the population to either vote different or change the laws to be so terrorized that they -- in this particular case, he was trying to send a message to the -- the industry, you better watch your back, because there's more of me.

And you'll get it in the end.

That's terrorizing a group of people to get them to act in a way, the terrorists wants them to act.

ANDY: Yes.

GLENN: Isn't that how they define it?

ANDY: It's not terrorizing the government to change policy or terrorizing the whole civilian population. What the judge said, this was very narrowly targeted at the health care industry, and this particular health care executive.

And I --

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: Wow.

ANDY: And I just don't think it trivializes the murder to say that it's not a terrorism crime.

GLENN: Okay.

ANDY: You know, the federal government, Glenn, just so we're clear on this part of it. There were two charges brought here. There's a -- the federal charges and the state charges.

So Alvin Bragg, the -- the New York DA, brought the terrorism charge.

GLENN: What a joke.

ANDY: I said, at the time, I thought he was bringing it because he knew the Justice Department wanted to charge this guy. So he wanted to make a splash. Like the Justice Department wanted to make a splash.

When the Justice Department indicted it, even though Biden is against the death penalty, and the Democratic administration was against the death penalty. They indicted it as a death penalty case.
Because they wanted to make a big to-do over it. Even though, you know, if you look at the fine print, they would never impose the death penalty.

They had a moratorium on the death penalty. So in order not to be outsplashed, what Bragg turned around and did was indict this -- what he -- like ten times out of ten, indict only as a murder case.

If you could get Bragg to indict something that was actually a crime. And he decided to make it a terrorism murder case, so that they could compete for the headlines in the press.

Unfortunately, this is kind of what happens in these -- in these cases.

But to your point about stalking and all of that stuff.

The federal charges. Which are the death penalty charges, include exactly what you're talking about.

The fact that this guy was stalked.

That it was done in a very cold-blooded way.

And actually, if he gets convicted in the federal -- can in the federal system, now that Trump is running the Justice Department, rather than Biden, he gets convicted on the death penalty charge, he's going to get the death penalty.

GLENN: Okay. So it's not like he's getting murder in the second degree, and he'll be out in 25 years. The federal government is also trying him. Will it be the same trial?

ANDY: No. No.

In fact, the interesting thing, Glenn. Just from a political standpoint, I hate having to get political on this stuff.

GLENN: I know. Me too.

ANDY: If we can avoid it. The Biden Justice Department was working cooperative with Bragg. I don't think the Trump Justice Department is going to work cooperative with Bragg.

GLENN: No.

ANDY: And the interesting thing about that is under New York law, they have a very forgiving double jeopardy provision. Which basically means, if the Feds go first, that will probably block New York state from going at all.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

ANDY: Because of their expansive protection. And I think what Biden's Justice Department was willing to let Bragg go first.

So that they would go second. And then everybody would have --

GLENN: Trump won't do that.

ANDY: I'm not sure the Trump guys will play ball with that.

GLENN: No. Okay.

So are you confident the justice will be served in this. Oh.

ANDY: Well, I think -- you know, look, I think if your idea of justice served. Are this guy be convicted of a severe murder charge and never see the light of day again?

I am confident in that.

GLENN: Yes.

ANDY: If you believe as I do, that if you're going to have a -- a death penalty in the law, which our Constitution permits.

GLENN: He deserves it.

ANDY: If you're going to have it, he deserves it. And if he doesn't get it. He would be among a long line of people, who probably didn't deserve it and must get it.

Though, I guess it depends on what your idea of justice is. But I guess if we could agree that justice is this guy never sees the light of day again, I think justice will happen here.

GLENN: Right. Okay.

Can I switch to Charlie Kirk?

ANDY: Of course.

GLENN: How is this unfolding? What are your thoughts on this. What are your thoughts on -- you know, I really want to make sure I don't want to go too far. I don't want another Patriot Act kind of thing.

But I do believe, you know, the -- it appears as though, there may have been many people involved. At least in knowing.

What does that mean to you? And what should happen?

What should we be doing? What are we doing that is right and wrong?

ANDY: Well, to the extent -- I'm sorry -- I do -- I do think, Glenn. That this is being very aggressively investigated by both the state authorities and continuing by the federal authorities.

I heard Kash Patel, because I happened to be on television this morning. And they -- they broadcasted that while I was on.

And he was talking about how they are going through all of the social media stuff.

To see, who may have had an inkling about this beforehand. And if there was any conspiratorial activity, they're going to go after it.

Now, the chats that have come out so far, that have been reported in the last couple of days are chats in which Robinson admitted to committing homicide and told the people that he was chatting with -- that he had already arranged his surrender.

If that's all these people knew, that is to say, he had --

GLENN: Then there's nothing there.

ANDY: And he was turning himself in. Well, they might be good witnesses in terms of what his state of mind was at the trial of Robinson.

But I don't think that implicates them in criminal misconduct.

On the other hand, the feds are going to keep digging.

And I assume Utah is going to keep digging.

And if they find out that someone was involved in planning it, I think those people will be pursued.

GLENN: You know, there's probably Texas would be a bad place to commit this crime.

Utah, however, they have the death penalty. And they used the death penalty.

And the governor who I'm not a big fan of this governor.

But, boy, he has been very strong, and I think right on top of this whole thing.

And he said, day one, you will get the death penalty. We catch you. We prove it in a court of law. You do get the death penalty. And I think that's coming from this guy.

ANDY: Well, it's deserving. Because if it's ever indicative of premeditation and repulsive intent, I would say, this is a textbook case of that.

GLENN: The idea that Trump is now going to go after -- possibly RICO charges for people like George Soros and, you know, organizations like that, that are -- are pushing for a lot of the -- the -- the Antifa kind of stuff. Do you see any problems with that. Or is this a -- a good idea?

ANDY: I just think the first thing, before you get into RICO. And all these. You know, RICO is a very complicated statute, even when it obviously applies. So I think the bedrock thing they have to establish, is that you are crossing the line. From protected speech. A lot of which can be obnoxious speech. And actual incite meant to violence. And if you can get invite meant to violence.

You know, I didn't need RICO to prosecute the Blind Sheikh, right? I was able to do it on incitements of violence and that kind of stuff. Those are less complicated charges than Rico.

But the big challenges in those cases, Glenn, is getting across the line into violent action. As opposed to constitutionally protected rhetoric.

GLENN: Is there anything to the subversion of our -- of our nation. That you are -- you are intentionally subverting the United States of America.

You are pushing for revolutionary acts?

VOICE: You know, there's a lot of let allegation that arose out of that, in connection with the Cold War and the McCarran Act. And, you know, you remember all the stuff from the -- from the '40s and '50s, forward.

GLENN: Yeah. I know.

ANDY: And I think when that stuff was initially enacted, the country was in a different place.

I think when the McCarran Act was enacted, it was a consensus in the country, that if someone was a member of the Communist Party.

Hadn't actually done anything active to seek the violent overthrow of the US, but mere membership in the party. I think if you asked the question in 1950, most people would have thought that was a crime.

And by 1980, most people would have thought, it wasn't a crime. Based on the Supreme Court --

GLENN: Yeah. I don't.

Look, if you're a member of the Communist Party, you can be a member of the Communist Party.

But if you are actively subverting and pushing for revolution, in our country, I think that's a different -- I think that's a different cat, all -- entirely.

ANDY: Yeah, that's exactly right. But if you had that evidence of purposeful activity, and look, if you had a conspiratorial agreement between two people that contemplates the use of force, you don't need much more than that. You don't need an act of violence. If you have a strong evidence of conspiracy. But you do have to establish that they get over that line and to the use of force, at least the potential use of force.

STU: Yeah, okay.

Andy, as always, thank you so much. Appreciate your insight. Appreciate it.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

How to Find God in a Divided World | Max Lucado & Glenn Beck

Glenn Beck sits down with beloved pastor and author Max Lucado for a deep conversation about faith, humility, and finding unity in a divided world. Together, they reflect on the importance of principles over politics, why humility opens the door to true dialogue, and how centering life on God brings clarity and peace. Lucado shares stories of faith, the dangers of a “prosperity gospel,” and the powerful reminder that life is not about making a big deal of ourselves, but about making a big deal of God. This uplifting conversation will inspire you to re-center your life, strengthen your faith, and see how humility and love can transform even the most divided times.

Watch Glenn Beck's FULL Interview with Max Lucado HERE

Bill O'Reilly predicts THIS will be Charlie Kirk's legacy

Bill O’Reilly joins Glenn Beck with a powerful prediction about Charlie Kirk’s legacy. Evil tried to destroy his movement, Bill says, but – as his new book, “Confronting Evil,” lays out – evil will just end up destroying itself once more…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Mr. Bill O'Reilly, welcome to the program, how are you, sir?

BILL: Good, Beck, thanks for having me back. I appreciate it. How have you been?

GLENN: Last week was really tough. I know it was tough for you and everybody else.

But, you know -- I haven't -- I haven't seen anything.

BILL: Family okay? All of that?

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah. Family is okay. Family is okay.

BILL: Good question good. That's the most important thing.

GLENN: It is.

So, Bill, what do you make of this whole Charlie Kirk thing. What happened, and where are we headed?

BILL: So my analysis is different for everybody else, and those that know me for so long. About a year ago, I was looking for a topic -- it was a contract to do another book. And I said, you know what's happening in America, and around the world. Was a rise in evil. It takes a year to research and write these books.

And not since the 1930s, had I seen that happen, to this extent. And in the 1930s, of course, you would have Tojo and Hitler and Mussolini and Franco and all these guys. And it led to 100 million dead in World War II. The same thing, not to the extent.

But the same thing was --
GLENN: Yet.
BILL: -- bubbling in the world, and in the United States.

I decided to write a book. The book comes out last Tuesday. And on Wednesday, Putin lobs missiles into Poland.

Ultra dangerous.

And a few hours later, Charlie Kirk is assassinated.

And one of the interviewers said to me last week, your -- your book is haunting. Is haunting.

And I think that's extremely accurate. Because that's what evil does.

And in the United States, we have so many distractions. The social media.

People create around their own lives.

Sports. Whatever it may be. That we look away.

Now, Charlie Kirk was an interesting fellow. Because at a very young age, he was mature enough to understand that he wanted to take a stand in favor of traditional America and Judeo Christian philosophy.

He decided that he wanted to do that.

You know, and when I was 31 or whatever, I was lucky I wasn't in the penitentiary. And I believe you were in the penitentiary.
(laughter)
So he was light years ahead of us.

GLENN: Yes, he was.

BILL: And he put it into motion. All right? Now, most good people, even if you disagree with what Mr. Kirk says on occasion, you admire that. That's the spirit of America. That you have a belief system, that you go out and try to promote that belief system, for the greater good of the country. That's what it is.

That's what Charlie Kirk did.

And he lost his life.

By doing it!

So when you essentially break all of this down. You take the emotion away, all right?

Which I have to do, in my job. You see it as another victory for evil.

But it really isn't.

And this is the ongoing story.

This is the most important story. So when you read my book, Confronting Evil, you'll see that all of these heinous individuals, Putin's on the cover. Mao. Hitler.

Ayatollah Khomeini. And then there are 14 others inside the book. They all destroy themselves.

Evil always destroys itself. But it takes so many people with it. So this shooter destroyed his own family.

And -- and Donald Trump, I talked to him about it last week in Yankee stadium. And Trump is a much different guy than most people think.

GLENN: He is.

JASON: He destroyed his own mother and father and his two brothers.

That's what he did. In addition to the Kirk family!

So evil spreads. Now, if Americans pay attention and come to the conclusion that I just stated, it will be much more difficult for evil to operate openly.

And that's what I think is going to happen.

There's going to be a ferocious backlash against the progressive left in particular.

To stop it, and I believe that is what Mr. Kirk's legacy is going to be.

GLENN: I -- I agree with you on all of these fronts.

I wonder though, you know, it took three, or if you count JFK, four assassinations in the '60s, to confront the evil if you will.

Before people really woke up and said, enough is enough!

And then you have the big Jesus revolution after that.

Is -- I hate to say this. But is -- as far gone as we are, is one assassination enough to wake people up?

JOHN: Some people. Some people will never wake up.

They just don't want to live in the real world, Beck. And it's never been easier to do that with the social media and the phones and the computers.

And you're never going to get them back.

But you don't need them. So let's just be very realistic here on the Glenn Beck show.

Let's run it down.

The corporate media is finished.

In America. It's over.

And you will see that play out the next five years.

Because the corporate media invested so much of its credibility into hating Donald Trump.

And the hate is the key word.

You will find this interesting, Beck. For the first time in ten years, I've been invited to do a major thing on CBS, today.

I will do it GE today. With major Garrett.

GLENN: Wow.

BILL: Now, that only happened because Skydance bought CBS. And Skydance understands the brand CBS is over, and they will have to rehabilitate the whole thing. NBC has not come to that conclusion yet, but it will have to.

And ABC just does the weather. I mean, that's all they care about. Is it snowing in Montana? Okay? The cables are all finished. Even Fox.

Once Trump leaves the stage, there's nowhere for FNC to go. Because they've invested so much in Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump.

So the fact of the matter is, the corporate media is over in America. That takes a huge cudgel out of the hands of the progressive movement.

Because the progressive movement was dependent on the corporate media to advance its cause. That's going to end, Beck.

GLENN: Well, I would hope that you're right.

Let me ask you about --

BILL: When am I wrong?

When am I wrong?

You've known me for 55 years. When have I been wrong?

GLENN: Okay. All right. All right. We're not here to argue things like that.

So tell me about Skydance. Because isn't Skydance Chinese?

BILL: No! It's Ellison. Larry Ellison, the second richest guy in the world. He owns Lanai and Hawaii, the big tech guy and his son is running it.

GLENN: Yeah, okay.

I though Skydance. I thought that was -- you know them.

BILL: Yeah.

And they -- they're not ideological, but they were as appalled as most of us who pay attention at the deterioration of the network presentations.

So --

GLENN: You think that they could.

BILL: 60 Minutes used to be the gold standard.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

BILL: And it just -- it -- you know, you know, I don't know if you watch it anymore.

GLENN: I don't either.

So do you think they can actually turn CBS around, or is it just over?

BILL: I don't know. It's very hard to predict, because so many people now bail. I've got a daughter 26, and a son, 22.

They never, ever watched network television.

And you've got -- it's true. Right?

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

They don't watch --

BILL: They're not going to watch The Voice. The dancing with this. The juggling with that. You know, I think they could do a much better job in their news presentations.

GLENN: Yeah. Right.

BILL: Because what they did, is banish people like Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly.

Same voices, with huge followings.

Huge!

All right?

We couldn't get on there.

That's why Colbert got fired. Because Colbert wouldn't -- refused to put on any non-progressive voice, when they were talking about the country.

GLENN: I know.

BILL: Well, it's not -- I'm censoring it.

GLENN: Yeah, but it's not that he was fired because he wouldn't do that. He was fired because that led to horrible ratings. Horrible ratings.

BILL: Yes, it was his defiance.

GLENN: Yes.

BILL: Fallon has terrible ratings and so does Kimmel. But Colbert was in your face, F you, to the people who were signing his paycheck.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

BILL: Look, evil can only exist if the mechanisms of power are behind it.

And that's when you read the front -- I take them one by one. And Putin is the most important chapter by far.

GLENN: Why?

BILL: Because Putin would use nuclear weapon.

He wouldn't. He's a psychopath.

And I'm -- on Thursday night, I got a call from the president's people saying, would I meet the president at Yankee stadium for the 9/11 game?

And I said, when a president calls and asks you to meet them, sure.

GLENN: I'll be there. What time?

BILL: It will take me three days to get into Yankee stadium, on Long Island. But I'll start now.

GLENN: Especially because the president is coming. But go ahead.

BILL: Anyway, that was a very, I think that Mr. Trump values my opinion. And it was -- we did talk about Putin.

And the change in Putin. And I had warned him, that Putin had changed from the first administration, where Trump controlled Putin to some extent.

Now he's out of control. Because that's what always happens.

GLENN: Yeah.

BILL: It happened with Hitler. It happened with Mao. It happened with the ayatollah. It happened with Stalin. Right now. They get worse and worse and worse and worse. And then they blow up.

And that's where Putin is! But he couldn't do any of that, without the assent of the Russian people. They are allowing him to do this, to kill women and children. A million Russian casualties for what! For what! Okay?

So that's why this book is just in the stratosphere. And I was thinking object, oh. Because people want to understand evil, finally. Finally.

They're taking a hard look at it, and the Charlie Kirk assassination was an impetus to do that.

GLENN: Yeah. And I think it's also an impetus to look at the good side.

I mean, I think Charlie was just not a neutral -- a neutral character. He was a force for good. And for God.

And I think that -- that combination is almost the Martin Luther King combination. Where you have a guy who is speaking up for civil rights.

But then also, speaking up for God. And speaking truth, Scripturally.

And I think that combination still, strangely, I wouldn't have predicted it. But strangely still works here in America, and I think it's changed everything.

Bill, it's always food to talk to you. Thank you so much for being on. I appreciate it.

It's Bill O'Reilly. The name of the book, you don't want to miss. Is confronting evil. And he takes all of these really, really bad guys on. One by one. And shows you, what happens if you don't do something about it. Confronting evil. Bill O'Reilly.

And you can find it at BillO'Reilly.com.