RADIONovember 02, 2022

Reporter finds 'DISTURBING' trend while covering Paul Pelosi attack in San Francisco

Michael Shellenberger is doing what all reporters SHOULD DO when covering the attack on Nancy Pelosi’s husband, Paul: He is on the ground in San Francisco, knocking on as many doors as possible, and interviewing as many people as possible to try and piece together all the details. But Shellenberger, author of ‘San Fransicko,’ tells Glenn he’s witnessed reporters from mainstream media outlets being ‘lazy’ with their coverage, which by default suggests either bad journalism or political motivation. He exposes the ‘DISTURBING’ way some news reporters have covered the attack, and he explains how some have essentially swapped this story with the one about Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s near attack just months ago…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Michael, how are you, sir?

MICHAEL: Great. Good to be back, Glenn.

GLENN: Yeah. Thank you so much for all your hard work on this.

MICHAEL: Well, thank you for having me on. I'm excited to talk about it.

GLENN: Okay. So tell me what you've found. What's true? What's not true?

MICHAEL: Well, look, what we know, this is somebody who, according to multiple witnesses, including the mother of his children. Was struggling with mental illness for over a decade. We know he was homeless for a while. We know there was extensive drug use. You know, we -- mental illness. Serious mental illness, like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, are pretty rare. But we do see a lot of drug-induced mental illness, particularly from methamphetamine use, but certainly other drugs over time can cause psychosis, which is of course the classic, you know, insanity of not being able to tell the difference between reality and your imagination.

And so what's obvious here is the alleged suspect in the attack on Nancy Pelosi's husband was in the grip of psychosis. And to blame political ideology is just what you said, it's the equivalent of blaming Martin Scorsese for making the movie Taxi Driver, on John Hinckley Jr's attack on Ronald Reagan.

It's -- the crazy ideas expressed in the blog posts of the alleged attack of Pelosi, are themselves symptoms of the underlying psychosis. It's incorrect to point to them as the cause.

GLENN: So I heard this morning, that he was in the hospital, or was this weekend.

Was those for injuries, or was he in a psych word?

MICHAEL: I don't know. It could be both. It wouldn't -- he wouldn't be hospitalized long-term, if he was in the hospital. He'll be held. He'll be diagnosed by a psychiatrist. And we'll find out soon. I mean, I think that, the good news is that the truth gets out. It was obvious to me. Because, of course, I'm very close to this. I wrote a book about this. Came out last year. It was obvious to me, as soon as I heard about who it was, and I talked to his neighbors and family members.

That this was somebody who was unwell. And this was the result of a sickness.

I was disturbed by how quickly, even so-called mainstream journalists were to even blame conservatives. Blame Republicans. Blame Trump.

You know if somebody were to be, I read Michael Shellenberger's book, and that's why I committed this crime.

It would be inappropriate to blame me for that the crime. And I think everybody knows that. But in this toxic political environment, I think it's important to remind people of that.

GLENN: We never blamed Bernie Sanders, ever. In fact, we were clear on day one. That it wasn't Bernie Sanders's fault that one of his supporters went and tried to kill all the Republicans in Congress. That's ridiculous.

MICHAEL: Right. Of course. Of course. Yeah. I'm sorry to see. Basically, I had one episode in particular. There was a reporter, who supposedly focused on disinformation at NBC News. Who came out and he tweeted at my -- my reporting, and said, oh.

My reporting had been debunked because there are all these blog posts, showing that the suspect in the attack, had written crazy things. Including their right-wing things.

But also, things about fairies. And demons.

It was very disturbing.

I have a hard time believing that that journalist didn't know that -- what was driving the suspect was -- was mental illness or psychosis. It really appeared that he was deliberately misleading people, in order to engage in partisan political behavior, just ten days before the election. And just think, it's not just on Twitter. I mean, if you watch Meet The Press yesterday, the whole program was basically dedicated to this topic. And at no point, in any of the program, did they even discuss the fact that the suspect was clearly in a psychotic state, suffering from delusions, under long-term drug use.

Instead, Chuck Todd made the whole show, about political radicalization and ideas.

And I just think, that's terrible reporting. I think it's very partisan. I won't speculate as to the motives of the journalist, but it's either bad journalism, or it's motivated by politics.

GLENN: Is it worse that they did that, or that when Kavanaugh, the guy from California, came to kill Kavanaugh, they didn't even report it on any of the Sunday night shows.

MICHAEL: Well, that's the other thing. And I wrote a post about this yesterday, Glenn. And you're absolutely right. I mean, it's disturbing.

When the Kavanaugh assassination happened, of course, I paid attention to it. But I will say this, there are many progressive and liberal people in my life, who still do not know that there was a serious fascination plot against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Because it was not covered. In anything close to this. Just as you said, three days after that assassination plot was revealed. None of the Sunday talk shows wrote about it.

The New York Times varied the story on page A20. The Pelosi assassination. Alleged assassination attempts was on the front page of the New York Times two days in a row.

You know, I'll tell you the other thing about it, is that the suspect in the Kavanaugh killing was clearly motivated by his pro-choice and his pro-gun control views. And his own lawyers, last week, said he was mentally fit to stand trial.

In other words, it appears -- again, there's more information to come. And I don't want to get ahead of it.

It appears as though the suspect of the Kavanaugh plot, was genuinely motivated by political fanaticism, not by mental illness.

Whereas, in the Pelosi case, he clearly was driven by psychosis, mental illness, drug induced, or underlying. We don't know. The media basically reversed those two stories.

And did not -- and covered the Pelosi plot attempt, as though it was driven by political fanaticism, rather than by psychosis.

STU: It really is incredible. You are from the area, Michael. And you were down there. Some of these interviews you were -- you were there, right?

MICHAEL: I was. I was. I mean, I think it's -- you know I'm a journalist at heart. And you know it's not that far from my heart. And I went down there. And I interviewed all the neighbors. I'll tell you a couple of shocking things. I won't name names, but I was not impressed by the reporting of the other journalists. Good journalism is you go and knock on all the doors, and you interview as many people as you can. I was the only one doing that.

There was a lot of laziness here. And that's also, the partisanship and the laziness are related, because if you have the idea that this was a Trump supporter, who went after Pelosi, then you don't want to go to get to the bottom of this stuff. You don't want to go through these interviews. You want to stick to your story.

So that was part of it. You know it's just -- you know when you get into it, Glenn. As you might imagine. It's a tragic story.

It's drug use. It's pedophilia. The mother of his two kids is in prison for basically child molestation. She was a crazy person. She herself is something -- I think she probably has a personality disorder and long-term drug use. The kids were in that house. They apparently weren't going to school. I mean, this is a real -- it's basically a symptom of exactly the problems I describe in San Fransicko, which is that we stop enforcing basic laws. And when you stop enforcing laws against people that are suffering mental illness or are addicted to hard drugs, they don't get that help they need.

And I think that's part of the lesson here. Is that this tragedy could have been averted if we enforce basic laws and mandated drug treatment. And psychiatric care for the people who need it.

It's not that every time someone -- you arrest somebody for breaking a law, that they have to go to prison or be punished. Certainly, some people do. But other people are just sick. And I think what we'll discover, as time goes on. The suspect in the Pelosi attack was somebody who was very ill. And needed to get treatment mandated. Many, many years ago. But didn't get it. Because we're in the grip of frankly some radical left political ideas.

GLENN: Did you see the op-ed by -- gosh, who was it?

Shoot. Lost his name. The guy who -- who just wrote this weekend, about the you know op-ed about Tom Cotton at the New York Times.

And how -- yeah. He's an op-ed columnist. And he even didn't say anything about it. He said, because we were afraid to.

When you said a minute ago, that you know they don't want to find it. How many are afraid to do their job in -- in journalism?

MICHAEL: Well, I was afraid. You know, my story. I came from the radical left. I considered myself a moderate. I'm politically independent.

But, yeah. I was afraid on everything. And you know partly you worry about losing your friends.

You worry about upsetting your family. You worry about not making a living. What you're describing is a column from Washington Post reporter, Eric Wimple who writes a media column. And to his credit, there was an ambivalent reaction to it, interestingly enough. But basically to his credit, he came out and said it was wrong for the New York Times to fire its op-ed page editor, who ran, of course, this op-ed by Senator Cotton, arguing for the use of the National Guard and US troops to put down the riots.

Well, he was not only -- the New York Times, because of the outrage, by its woke journalist staff. They basically denounced the op-ed. Fired the op-ed editor.

Everybody watched it happen. Knew it was wrong. To his credit. Whatever it was, like two years new. This columnist, at the Washington Post, said that that was wrong.

You know I think it's good. You know it's better late than never.

And he's one of the first people to say it.

Yeah. It's kind of -- it's social fear. You worry about your friends and family. It's also a financial fear. Like, am I getting fired from my job?

This is really serious stuff.

And I think that the partisanship. And you always emphasize this.

I think it's so important. We need to allow disagreements in our society. We need to appreciate and reward it.

I'm always shocked by how many people -- instead of being like, oh. I disagree with you. They're like, you should stop saying that. They want people to stay quiet.

GLENN: Right. Right. We're with Michael Shellenberger. We'll get more facts on -- I have a few more facts on what's true, what's not true. Then, I want to also talk to him about this push from the Democrats, to nationalize our gas and oil.

Hello, Venezuela. We'll go there, in 60 seconds.
(music)
Tracy wrote in about his experience with Relief Factor. He said, you know the first time I encountered the evil clown. I just ran away. And everything was fine. I was pretty sure he grabbed my wallet. So that sucked.

But I was happy to get away with my life. Instead of getting dragged into that drain. Then, he kept coming after me. Every day, over and over. On my way to work. And I had to keep running.

Yeah. Eventually, my knees and my lower back were so sore from running from the killer clown, that I could barely get up in the morning. Then I heard about Relief Factor.

And that voice came from the radio. Not from the sink, in my bathroom. I'm still coming close to death every day, with the clown thing. But, boy, do my knees and back feel better. Thanks, Relief Factor.

Well, thank you, Tracy, for writing in, especially on this Halloween day. 19.95. It's a trial pack. So if you have some crazy clown chasing you, get out of pain. Relief Factor. 800-4-Relief. 800-4-Relief. Get the 19.95 3-week Quick Start developed for you at ReliefFactor.com. Ten-second station ID.
(music)

GLENN: So I think, Michael, because you have experience in your family with schizophrenia. I think it was your aunt.

MICHAEL: Yes.

GLENN: So you've seen it firsthand.

MICHAEL: Yeah. So it's interesting. Of course, when you're a child, and you know she -- she would say crazy things. So your parents have to explain to you, what's going on. And it is a little scary. Of course, it helps to have your parents there to kind of talk you through it. But, yeah. She thought the president of the United States.

I think it was Ford. Yeah. I think it was Ford or Nixon. They were communicating with her.

So I think -- there's a reaction, that they'll have in this case. That okay. Maybe he was like psychotic. But there's all these terrible conspiracy theories out there. And those need to stop.

Well, no. First of all, we have freedom of speech. And that means we actually have people have conspiracy theories. We let people believe all sorts of things. That's the point of a free society. So the idea that we'll get rid of certain ideas, is a very bad road to go down. The other thing is just that psychotic people will always find some justification for their behaviors. That's different than suggesting that those are the motivations. I do think that this is something that people can get. But you have to think about it for a minute. Which is that -- and we know this is true for everybody. Is that you have a motivation to do something. But you might give a different reason for why you did it. Well, people who are psychotic, they give crazier reasons often. But in many cases, I look at this, and I suspect that what we'll discover is that this was somebody who was lost. You know he lost his wife and kids.

GLENN: Right.

MICHAEL: He wasn't able to hold down a good job. He was using heavy drugs. His motivation was probably to somehow make his life better. As crazy as that sounds. To be a hero, or something like that. He had some story in his head, about how he was going to become a hero. This is how often these guys think, by making this attack. And that's ultimately what was driving it.

Not some political radicalization.

GLENN: Yeah. But there are few things about the story, that I don't know if they're true or not.

You know I -- I look at these things. And the reason why we have a plethora of conspiracy theories, is because we no longer trust the media. We no longer trust the government, to tell us anything close to the truth.

And then there are arming things that just kind of hang out in the air. And nobody explains them. And it doesn't fit in with the -- with the story line, that the media is going for.

First of all, is it that make sense to you? You think that's right?

MICHAEL: Yeah. Sure. The media, they're partisan now. Maybe they've always been. Although, I think there's no doubt, that it's gotten worse. So when this happened, they rushed to make this a story about why you should not vote for Republicans.

I mean, it's just sort of tragic.

How Trump is Playing 5D Chess with Zelenskyy and the World

Glenn makes the case that President Trump is playing 5D chess with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and the world. "I was horrified" by the fiery Oval Office meeting between Zelenskyy, VP JD Vance, and Donald Trump on Friday, Glenn says. "But not [for the same reasons] everybody else was." Trump was right to say that he holds all the cards, and he's using them to win 5 battles: stopping the bleeding of people and money in Ukraine; letting Putin go home declaring a win, while everyone else knows he actually lost; giving Ukraine security, but through the rare earth minerals deal, not NATO; and taking the rare earth minerals away from Russia and China.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Oh, okay. You know, I've been saying that Trump is playing five dimensional chess. Let me show you the five dimensions of a win here for America.

The reason why I -- well, I was horrified by what I saw come out of the Oval Office on Friday.

Not because of why everybody else was.

I mean, it was so stupid. Zelinsky is -- was just playing a game. And you don't play a game against Trump, unless you have a card. You know, he's standing there, going. I don't know.

I'm going to raise the steaks. And he's like, dude. You don't have any cards.

None of them. What are you doing? You're not -- you're not capable of even playing this game!

I don't know! I'm going to push all in. Okay.

So he was just stupid. First of all, put on a tie, man!

Put on a tie. I know this is ridiculous. You know, what? What's the big deal?

He can come in his jeans. You know, Ronald Reagan never came in as jeans. Even Elon Musk wears a T-shirt with a jacket.

Have you ever seen him in the Oval Office with just a T-shirt?

He's put a jacket on top. Wear a freaking jacket!

You know where you are!

The White House. The Oval Office.

Okay.

But that's small!

Don't pick fights unless -- unless you know, you're not going to get clobbered.

But he was playing a game, trying to cozy up. Look like the strong man. Who would stand up against Donald Trump.

And unite Europe, because I should be in NATO!

Hmm. Good luck with that one, NATO.

Let me show you what happened, and part of it, an extra win for the United States might happen just because Europe was stupid, and they threw themselves in with Zelinsky. So here's what Trump is accomplishing with all of this.

One! Stopping a war. Who is against that?

Well, maybe 500 thousand people. Half a million people. Remember, we lost about 60,000. 60,000 in -- in Vietnam.

Remember how horrible that was? Russia has lost 200,000!

Are these low numbers.

Ukraine, 50,000.

Low numbers. So 250,000 people, lost, in this war.

Could be much, much higher. Let's end it. What do you say?

Because I don't even think anyone knows what this one is about anymore.

So it ends then.

Two, it ends the spending of the United States, this Ukraine, where we don't have any idea where any of it is going!

Okay? It is a corrupt country. I don't want to be helping their sock industry!

Do you want to be responsible?

Because you already are.

Under Biden, you were paying for all of the Social Security benefits, for everybody on who has worked in the Ukrainian government.

Are you for that?

Because I'm not.

What the hell are we doing with that?

All right. Ending the killing.

Ending the bleed of money. Now, what does everybody get out of it. Well, let's take Russia. Here's point number two. Number one, stop the bleeding, on people and money. Number two, Russia. It lets Putin go home, while declaring a win. But everyone else knows, he actually lost. How can you possibly say that. Because supposed to go in there, and in two weeks, take Ukraine. Now we are, what? Four years later. Three years later, and he still only has 20 percent. And he is stuck. Societies not going anywhere. Go ahead, Putin.

Cross into Poland, and see what happens to you, if you do that. The idea that Russia can just plow into Europe, has now been proven to be false!

He lost in Europe!

Okay.

So he can go home, and declare he won. Because he's got some land. I don't like that. But that's what happens in war!

Two, with Trump and Putin at the negotiating table, what is Trump doing?

He's siding with Russia.

That's what he's doing. No!

He is getting the rare earth minerals from Russia!

Russia and Ukraine are sitting on a gigantic pile of rare earth minerals.

If you don't know what that is, that's the thing that makes your computer work!

If we don't have rare earth minerals, we cannot compete in the world of tomorrow. Who has 90 percent of them? China! Did we help that? Yes!

Because we gave China Afghanistan. You know why we built that gigantic base over there, that we just handed to them? Because that's near the site of rare earth minerals!

Again, we cannot compete in tomorrow's world without rare earth minerals.

Why do you think China is all cozied up to Russia on this? Not just because they're against the United States. They want the rare earth minerals.

What are they doing all over the world?

They're making deals and saying, hey. So we'll kind of, you know, juice your economy here. And you give us the rare earth minerals.

They're smart! They're thinking ahead. Oh. I'm not used to this. So is the president of the United States!

Thinking ahead. We need the rare earth minerals. So we win. But because we win -- well, I'll get to that here in a second. So we win.

We're giving money. It really is Russia's anyway.

We're giving money to Russia. To buy the rare earth minerals.

That's a win for us. Because we're getting them at a discount.

China, we have to buy them from them, at a higher rate. Money doesn't talk to Putin, it screams.

He wants the money, from the United States, for the rare earth minerals. And he goes away, not happy, but not vengeful.

Kind of an important thing.

So there's win number two. Putin and Russia.

And rare earth minerals for America. Three, Ukraine.

Okay? They didn't get the NATO thing. They'll never get the NATO thing. It allows for us to now buy rare earth minerals, from Ukraine! They make money, we get something in return, and here's the really important thing for Ukraine.

If we have our companies, and rare earth minerals, those are extraordinarily valuable to the United States. Do you think we're going to let -- infrastructure and minds, and everything else, to get rare earth minerals out, and then we'll just say, oh, Putin just took them all?

Nope! We're not sending in troops. But you will understand soon, in the coming days, months, and years. How important rare earth minerals are!

We would send troops, if that was our stash of rare earth minerals.

Okay. So a win for Ukraine!

They didn't get the guarantee. But they get it another way. America's interests are now in Ukraine.

You should have taken these things. Four, Europe. What -- what has been the goal of Donald Trump for Europe? He's been saying, we're going to get out of NATO. He doesn't -- that's not his goal. I don't think he would mind getting out of NATO. Because it's an old alliance, that no longer is necessary.

But what does he really want?

He wants to stop paying 70 percent for the defense of Europe.

We pay 70 percent of everything that Europe has in defense, we pay 70 percent of that! No! No!

We're not going to do that anymore. So what happens? Well, because of the WEF, you know, strategy over in Europe, you have them coming together on Zelinsky's side. That's not going to make NATO stronger.

Because America is not going to go and get involved. And if you think we're going to blink on that, Donald Trump -- Donald Trump will sew his eyelids open, before he would blink on, okay. We're going to send some troops into NATO.

It's not going to map not going to happen. That weakens NATO, yes.

But it also does, what?

It forces NATO to spend more money on their own defense. A win for America!

NATO pays more, okay. What's the other win? The World War II plans. The World War II model for the world. Takes a major hit.

That's another goal of anybody who wants to get out of NATO. Anybody who wants to say, you know, the world has changed. Why are we still doing it that way?

Which is Donald Trump. The downside on this one, is that the EU because of where they're headed with the World Economic Forum, they're headed to a very unpleasant place. I mean, they just said, when J.D. Vance was over there. They just said, we don't have anything in common with America. If they're going to be for free speech. And freedom of press.

And not changing the results of elections. I don't think we have as much in common. Well, you know what, I don't want to be your ally, if that's what you believe.

You're an enemy to freedom. No. I don't want to be here. I don't want to spend money for your defense.

It could cause a Cold War, between us and Europe.

Which would not be a good thing. But morally, ethically, and strategically. If that's who they're going to be, how do we remain their friends?

Wouldn't mind being a trading partner. But not your friend. And the fifth win, five-dimensional chess. The fifth win that Donald Trump is getting.

China loses Russia. China lose the rare earth minerals, that Russia just captured! China loses its grip, not just on -- on Russia, but also on us!

Why did Trump. One of the first things he said -- you know what, we have to buy Greenland. Greenland, come on. There's always a price. How much? How much?

Why? Because we needed ice cubes. We needed rare earth minerals.

The downside on all of this stuff is if Russia and Putin -- and Zelinsky don't make a deal with the United States. Greenland. Sorry, you're going to be seeing a lot of us in the future. Because to compete for America to win, for America to advance, for America to be a superpower, for us not to be slaves of China, we must have rare earth minerals.

That's what this whole thing is all about!

At least for Donald Trump. It was about bribery, graft, war with Europe and with Biden.

With Trump, it's about peace. It's about everybody can win here. And the United States will win, to quote him bigly, because we need the rare earth minerals.

Anybody who says that Trump is stupid. Trump is causing a war. No, he's not. No, he's not.

But the world is changing. And for once! Finally, we have a president that knows how to negotiate, is negotiating on so many levels, it's mind-boggling.

And a president that's going to win, not for him. Not for his cronies. But for America's future.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

The Secret Hack to Understanding Women | Alex Clark | The Glenn Beck Podcast | Ep 247

“MAHA will transcend MAGA,” says ‪@RealAlexClark‬ wellness influencer and host of "Culture Apothecary with Alex Clark." After Big Pharma “zombified” an entire generation and put Americans on a “never-ending treadmill of pharmaceutical interventions,” Americans are waking up to the fact that “hundreds of millions of people are dying from chronic disease,” “fertility rates are dropping 1% to 2% every year,” and “we have medicalized the human experience” with SSRIs and antidepressants. Alex says we are “edging towards a society” where it will be “nearly impossible” to marry someone without autism and explains why Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move: America” campaign was a failure. “Millennials are guinea pigs in an experiment we never consented to,” Alex says, exposing how Big Food and Big Pharma have wreaked havoc on the rising generations and why she is excited about RFK Jr. leading the HHS. She shocks Glenn by telling him that hormonal birth control affects who women choose to date, why the keto diet can be “lifesaving” for brain cancer patients, and what the heck a “seed oil” is and why everyone is talking about it. In the end, they agree that “food that can’t expire isn't food,” and maybe it's not necessary to give our dogs Prozac.

2017 Las Vegas Shooting COVER-UP? FBI Whistleblower Suggests Feds Know the Truth

Did the government lie about the 2017 Las Vegas massacre? FBI whistleblower Steve Friend tells Glenn his theory which, if true, is infuriating: “I think that Stephen Paddock was probably working with some government agency, was selling weapons to a t*rrorist organization, laundering it through the casino...and then, he happened to sell to the wrong people who perpetuated the attack at that moment.” Steve Friend also weighs in on the Epstein files and the other major cases that he wants the Trump administration to reveal in full: Hillary Clinton’s email scandal, James Comey’s honeypot scheme against Trump’s 2016 campaign, and the assassination attempt against Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Steve Friend. FBI whistle-blower. And a guy who honestly should be reinstated at the FBI, and be running a few things I think. Along with all the other whistle-blowers, that were ushered out by the last administration.

Steve, welcome to the program!

STEVE: Great to be here, thanks, man.

GLENN: Thanks. Do you have any comments on what's happening with -- or what we should expect from the client list from Epstein today?

STEVE: Well, I mean, I've just -- there's no expectation of privacy. Because Jeffrey Epstein is no longer alive. So I've always kind of scratched my head at the fact that it was kept back. And if there's any sort of continuation, wealth, that could compromise and jeopardize ongoing investigations. I think we're at a level, in this country, that we need to have the transparency, and it should have been good out there. You know, I -- I was looking -- listening to your numbers, Glenn. One, four, five, six. I will put it at a 6.66. I think that's probably --
(laughter)

GLENN: So to a expect that there's information in there that we don't know? That's meaningful?

STEVE: I do. I think it will be meaningful. It's -- it went through the lengths that they did. And if memory serves. I mean, I've always been. This is an unpopular opinion.

Jeffrey Epstein was charged in violation of double jeopardy.

And so, I mean, I'm not crying for the guy. Because he was fundamentally an evil person. Who is probably burning eternally in hell right now.

GLENN: Right.

STEVE: But the fact that this has been used to charge jizz lane Maxwell for trafficking. But we don't know to who.

The way it was handled. It never passed the smell test. This is one of those big filler type of moments. Where they can throw over a new leaf. And push forward that transparency is a new rule a day.

Keeping in line with what we see with DOGE.

GLENN: Right. And it doesn't mean anything if it's released and there's no action. I think that's why Kash passed it to Bondi. Because if there are, you know, pretty significant names in there, I would imagine the prosecution has to follow pretty quickly. Or it will just look like a nothing burger. Because nobody expects anything.

Any bad guy to ever go to jail in the government.

STEVE: It does. And he's keeping in with what James Comey did. That is when James Comey stood up and said, no reasonable prosecution was ever changed against Hillary Clinton. But that was never his call to make. That goes to the Department of Justice.

So I think Kash over to the attorney general, Bondi over here. Let her make that assessment. It's probably the right way to go.

GLENN: So they were apparently, another whistle blower was saying, that the FBI, you know, as Kash was getting ready to come in. And coming in. I mean, they were -- they were shredding documents like they were, you know, going to do a ticker tape parade for the astronauts over in New York City.

And I'm wondering how much may have been lost. And can we get the FBI back on track? Are there -- are there enough good guys in there? And are there enough good guys that know where to look, and know who the bad guys are?

STEVE: The level of subterfuge that went on during the time transition, even during the Trump administration. Before Kash Patel was elevated to become the director, was enormous.

I mean, it wasn't just limited to document shredding, as Garrett O'Boyle brought forth.

I mean, when it comes to the ICE deportation raids, the FBI at first was letting people opt out. They still are.

They are saying the moral objection to going after -- you don't to have participate in it.

They're openly --

GLENN: Who the hell has a moral -- who has a moral case against arresting those guys?

STEVE: I think you just have to look no further than the hiring practices over the last ten to 12 years, when they really elevated and prioritize diversity. I mean, that's the core values of the FBI. Obedience to the Constitution used to be it. They put that last behind diversity. And they just fundamentally changed the personnel who was in there. So the subterfuge is enormous. But I think it is going to be contingent on how guys like Garrett O'Boyle and Kyle Seraphin, myself and others who are handled now.

Because if we set the precedent that if you come forward for the right reasons, the right time, and the right way.

GLENN: They're rewarded.

STEVE: Not even just rewarded. Just you aren't having your life completely crushed. I mean, Garrett and I are both one week apart on our suspensions indefinitely. We hit 29 months this week. So, I mean, there needs to be some movement on that.

And if it does happen, then people will know that the bureau now is going to have the back of people who come forward for the right reasons.

And I think there will be more people coming forward because they know where the bodies are buried. They will not have to launder it to us. Just a few of us out here, in the Twitter space, or the content creation space, so hopefully, we can bring it out.

GLENN: Have you been contacted by carb or anybody at the FBI?

I mean, because I think -- one thing I like about Kash is, he knows, first hand what the FBI is capable of.

Because they did it to him.

And the same thing with you guys. Has anybody reached out about the possibility of guys not only coming back, but leading some of this House cleaning?

STEVE: We haven't had any of those conversations, no, not at this point. And I don't think any of us are aspiring to do that. Fundamentally, we're in sort of an Isaiah 6:8 moment. Where, whom shall I send? Send me.

It's recognition of I'm on the hill. And if called to serve, I will. We certainly have a lot of information. We have a lot of thoughts. And if they want that, that would be great. Fantastic.

But I live in Florida. And I wear shorts every day. I don't know how I feel about going out --

GLENN: Right. Right. By the way, I so agree that I heard the other day, that it's an insult to swamps. To call it -- it's more of a sewer. A swamp is -- is not bad enough.

The -- the -- what do you think we need to see, from Kash Patel, that would say to us, this is -- we're serious.

We're correcting that?

We're -- we're cleaning this thing out.

What -- go ahead.

JEFF: I think a very public firings of some of the worst actors, who we do know names of.

We brought forward. Would be great.

I think a very public announcement that the FBI is going away and completely ending its intelligence collection apparatus on the American people. Doing away with the quota system that they have for the last 11 years.

Called Integrated Program Management that's driving it forward. Reinstating how they're going to bring in people of merit, and no longer going to prioritize diversity. And use the FBI Academy as some sort of washout program. Just make it a competent law enforcement shading program that makes meritorious people capable. Those are the sorts of changes that you can have. And I think as long as we're on the top of it. Like an Epstein list.

If I can have my choice of any of those stories that you have. And there's a lot of them. I want to see the Butler, Pennsylvania case, completely opened up. Again, that individual has no expectation of privacy. He's no longer alive.

The fact that the FBI purposefully said it was potentially domestic terrorism. And they to justify that said, it was because of the Congressional baseball shooting, because they have erred in that decision to call that not an assassination attempt.

They said that the Bernie Sanders support will arrive on the baseball field and ask for the Republicans. And then try to murder them all.

It wasn't an assassin. It was suicide by cop. They labeled Butler domestic terrorism. And that was a classic. And they can't comment on that. I'm sorry, Senator and Congressman.

It's an ongoing investigation. Well, the victim is at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. He's entitled to that, as are the people who are on there.

GLENN: Let's just come up with a quick list here, if you don't mind, Steve.

Okay. Butler. What else -- what else should be opened up?

Butler, I think the --

STEVE: The J6 pipe bomber. The weapons of mass destruction. The sole act of possible terrorism on January 6th, 2021. Who never struck again for the last four years mysteriously. And the FBI claimed the increasingly data was corrupted.

Then the cell phone data said, no. It wasn't. They're still lying about that. I think we can go to Vegas. The Vegas shooting, one of the worst mass shootings in the country, which they memory holed pretty quickly after that after they got the bump stock.

GLENN: What do you think that was? What are your thoughts on that, Steve?

STEVE: If I had to put off theorizing past speculation. I think there was a de-confliction agencies there where multiple agencies were involved. I think Steven Paddock, who interestingly his father was on the FBI top ten most wanted list. That paddock was probably working with some government agency. Was selling weapons to a terrorist organization. Laundering it through the casino, to justify having it.

And then he happened to sell to the wrong people. That said, there would be an attack at that moment. And they said, oh. We may have just supported terrorism ourselves.

GLENN: Good heavens!

I hadn't even thought -- oh, I don't want to live in your brain. That is -- that is a frightening thought!

STEVE: This is what happens when you're at home for 29 months, Glenn.
(laughter)

GLENN: The Clinton -- the Clinton case, with her email servers. I -- I would like to see that. What else?

STEVE: Also, I think it's worth getting into the fact. We have the exposé. It just didn't get the public awareness, was the honey pot scheme that James Comey ran on Donald Trump's campaign in 2015.

GLENN: Yeah. Explain that. That just came out a couple of days ago.

STEVE: Well, it actually came back October of last year. That James Comey ran off the books. So nothing was officially opened up. He had two female agents infiltrate Donald Trump's campaign to put themselves out as sexually available, to try to elicit information that they could then open up criminal investigations on members of the Trump campaign.

And when it came to light, because media actually took a photograph of one of the agents. They pulled the plug, promoted one to a high level senior executive position. And moved the other one over to CIA. So that they wouldn't have to be called to testify.

And this is James Comey, acting -- calling the shots on this, as the director of the FBI, trying to impact the Presidential Election.

GLENN: You know, one of the things I thought of, if we go back to the Epstein case.

If you look at the Epstein file, we all know that one way or another. Prince Andrew's name will be on there.

And I believe, today, the Prime Minister of England, is visiting the White House.

How unbelievably awkward would it be, if our Department of Justice has released information, showing that Prince Andrew was involved in something this horrendous.

I mean, we all know he was.

But, I mean, for the government to make it very clear. That yep!

Here's how many times. Here's where he was. Here was in the room. Here was on the plane with him.

On the day the Prime Minister of England comes, wow. That will be an awkward meeting.

STEVE: It will be fun. But I think if anybody can handle that in front of media, it will be Donald Trump.

GLENN: Donald Trump.

STEVE: And conduct of Prince Andrew, I'm sorry. That's on you.

GLENN: No. I know that.

STEVE: I'm just revealing that.

GLENN: I'm just saying, I -- I don't like conflict so much. I would be the guy who is like. I will leave you guys here for a minute.

I'm going to go -- which guys like a Diet Coke, while you guys just chitchat here for a moment.
It will be awkward.

Really awkward.

STEVE: It's extinguishing the Tiki torch.

GLENN: I know. I know. Steve, thank you so much. Thanks for all your service in the past, and thanks for keeping us up to speed.

FBI whistle-blower Steve Friend.

5 Theories to Explain the Epstein Files “Bindergate”

What really happened with the “Epstein Files Phase 1” binder controversy at the White House? Glenn lays out 5 theories that could explain why the full files weren’t released: Was Trump or someone in the administration protecting friends who were on the list? Did Deep State agents in the FBI and SDNY actively withhold the documents, as Attorney General Pam Bond claimed? Is the Trump administration using this controversy to gather support for mass firings at the FBI and SDNY? Was it just a combination of incompetence and people promising too much on Fox News? Or is the Epstein List conspiracy theory just that: a conspiracy theory that we already have the answers to? Glenn, Stu, and Jason Buttrill discuss …

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Jason Buttrill, head of research is in here. Stu Burguiere, our -- our executive producer with the radio program. And we've -- I mean, I talked until I was blue in the face today. Outlining treason. Because I think, if what is being told is happening in the southern district of New York, with the FBI. That is treason! And it should be treated as that. Constitutionally, listen to that case.

You can hear it, if you missed it. Grab the podcast. Wherever you get your podcasts today. So we are talking about the options.

The different options.

STU: What could explain this?

GLENN: That could explain what happened yesterday. So let's start -- the first one was...

STU: The first of three were, there -- Trump is just protecting friends on his list, or someone --

GLENN: I will put a zero on that one.

STU: Then you have the FBI is withholding documents, essentially the Pam Bondi story here is true. Okay?

They're withholding documents. There is really crazy stuff out there. The FBI is withholding it. That's why you don't have it.

Three would be your -- I mean, this is maybe the most -- you're speculative on this one.

That this is sort of a -- a -- a plan.

GLENN: A useful.

No.

A useful -- what was it? Never let a tragedy or crisis go to waste.

STU: Crisis go to waste. Right?

GLENN: This is a crisis that is useful.

STU: Yeah. And they're saying, what we're going to do with that information. Is use it a way we could clean out that office, in way that we couldn't necessarily get away with, if they weren't hiding Epstein documents.

GLENN: Correct.

JAMES: Just a blanket, the FBI is withholding documents, doesn't make sense with Kash Patel as the director. Because he's already seen. If he's gone off these statements. He already has seen it. He knows it. And he's vowed to release it. That has to be knocked off.

GLENN: But if they hold it, they may have moved his access to the information. They may have quartered it in New York.

JAMES: Yeah. And I think that kind of goes towards point three. Because if they know how New York is going to respond on this, that field office. They're just pushing them into the corner to react. How they know they are going to react.

GLENN: Correct. Correct. Correct.

STU: Let me give you a couple of others. And these may be uncomfortable for our side. But I think they should be considered here. Okay? A common, if -- possibility number four, a combination of incompetence, and a bunch of people in really high-profile roles, who say a lot of things on podcasts and Fox news, that sound good on podcasts and Fox news. But don't necessarily have the backing of the facts.

GLENN: Okay. First of all, incompetence. I've not seen this administration act incompetently. So it would be the first act of incompetence that I have seen, I think of any note, in the first, you know, whatever. Forty days.

STU: There's bits and pieces. Generally speaking.

GLENN: There's nothing.

This is a major problem, if -- if that was true.

STU: But -- go ahead.

GLENN: However, on that.

I -- I don't know anybody in this administration, that is part of this. That would be Kash Patel. J.D. Vance.

STU: Pam Bondi.

GLENN: President. And Pam Bondi. The only one that I can't vouch for, that would write -- would write checks with their mouth.

STU: Oh.

GLENN: You know what I mean? Can't be cashed.

Is Pam Bondi. Only because I don't know her. Doesn't mean she's not like that. I just don't know her.

STU: I'm not saying I necessarily think this is the end of the story. Let me just push back on that gently. Kash Patel also said on day one, he was going to close the FBI office and turn it into a museum for the Deep State. As far as I know, it's not occurred. That's a Donald Trump thing.

STU: And because you're saying it's a Donald Trump thing, I must also bring up that Donald Trump also says a lot of things. And he says things that sound great on podcast, and sometimes they're negotiation tactics or whatever. But he often does that.

There's a lot of overpromising, from some of the people he has put in these positions. That is, I think inarguable.

GLENN: That would leave me to believe that it's option three. That there is a method behind the madness. When Donald Trump says those crazy things, usually because it's negotiating or positioning something you don't understand.

And that's what number three is.

This is a well-executed op, that is made for people to think one thing, but it's actually setting up -- it's like his negotiation for trade barriers.

STU: Yeah. Yeah. That's possible. Right?

What's interesting, I think. And you point out the incompetence. To pause on that for a second.

With the exception of number three, which to remind people, is this sort of idea.

Using this as a precursor to go into the Deep State.

GLENN: A useful crisis.

STU: Yes. Every other option has to have incompetence included in it because of the way they sold it.

She was on TV the night before, saying it was going to be this dramatic thing. And then the next day, she said, they didn't send me the documents. That's a terrible way to talk about that publicly.

At the very least it's bad messaging. And bad --

GLENN: Correct. And that is why I hesitate on any of this.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Because -- and I specifically say, I would think the weak link here would be Pam. A, because I don't know her. But, B, I saw that live.

I saw her say that live. And it felt weird. I'm like, that's weird.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: You know what I mean?

STU: She didn't seem all that comfortable saying it. To me, looking at her. She didn't feel like, I know exactly what's coming here.

It felt like it was a big promise.

It was the opposite of what you have told me, seven million times. Never overpromise and underdeliver. You always underpromise and overdeliver.

GLENN: You never do what she just did.

STU: Right! Because it gets people pissed off. So, again, I don't know if that's true. But that needs to be at least the discussion here.

JAMES: She immediately deflected. They immediately deflected because they knew there was going to be outrage on this, because it's one of our main issues on the base is the Epstein files.

GLENN: Yes.

JAMES: She immediately directed all that rage towards one specific point, New York.

STU: Benefit.

JAMES: There's only two reasons to do that. One, to deflect.

STU: To deflect. Which would work with the one that I described.

JAMES: Two, to set off point three.

STU: True.

GLENN: And I think, I'm hoping, because I don't know Pam. But I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt. I mean, she was the attorney general with Florida, with Ron DeSantis. I mean, he's not an idiot when it comes to law.

He won't have an idiot attorney general. But I -- can I -- I tend to think it's number three.

STU: Anyway, can I give you one more. I have one more here.

What if

GLENN: What if.

STU: Just throwing this out here.

GLENN: All right.

STU: What if the truth is, that not every famous person we know has sex with children.

I'm just throwing it out there as a possibility.

What if the Jeffrey Epstein story is a wide-ranging conspiracy of Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, Prince Andrew, several others. Doing all sorts of terrible things. But maybe we kind of know all of it already. Maybe there isn't that much left for us to uncover. And they're not -- we're not going to find.

GLENN: Not with 250 victims.

STU: I --

JAMES: Not with the CIA director going to meet him twice. I think that's kind of a big thing as well.

GLENN: I just --

STU: It's possible. So you don't think there's any -- because we knew about what?

70 victims, or so?

That just in the initial 2018 reporting.

So 250 is a high number. But it's not absolutely absurd. That that --

GLENN: All we heard is what he did.

We have not necessarily heard what others have done.

And we --

STU: But we have heard a lot of that. We have heard a lot --

GLENN: Why haven't they been prosecuted then?

STU: For example. Some people have been accused. And they've withdrawn their accusations. Think of how central, to bring up a friend of the program.

Who was on here, often.

Alan Dershowitz was on this case.

He was one of these guys who did all these things according to the accusations.

Then the girl. The woman now, who came out -- who accused him all this time. Said, maybe it wasn't him.

Like, maybe it -- maybe a lot of these people that were tied into this. Had connections with him.

But really, we don't have videos of them having sex with 14-year-olds. Maybe that's not the reality.

GLENN: You know what? I find that more implausible, and this is saying something!

STU: Yeah. Yeah.

GLENN: Because this is one that really just bothers me like crazy.

I find that more implausible, than we just didn't go to the moon.

JAMES: What! Wow!

GLENN: I think we just didn't go to the moon is more likely than that one.

STU: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Come on! We have a ton of people are known. We know. With incredible, line by line detail.

What that man did, in multiple different areas. We know a lot about this case.

And the fact that we have not uncovered that Bill Gates did it.

You know --

GLENN: Where is anyone that went to jail, other than those two?

STU: I mean, I would have to go back and look at it. I don't think there's been many. Not a lot of high profile people. That's what I'm saying.

Maybe -- maybe just maybe. I know --

GLENN: We staged the moon landing.

STU: I know. Maybe.

Like, I -- and this is, by the way, the best option for all of us. I will point out. The best option for all of us.

GLENN: I did. When you said it, I said, immediately, moon landing.

And then I thought to myself, wow. Am I that jaded. That I dismissed the happy option?

As no way!

JAMES: Okay.

STU: Hold on. Let me finish my point, real quick. Real quick. Maybe it's possible that, you know, wanting to -- the desire to have sex with underage children is a little bit more rare than we believed.

And that would be great information.

Maybe not every rich and powerful person is doing this.

And I know there's a lot invested in that theory.

But to just go off of this for just a second.

We have had multiple politicians.

GLENN: Go ahead. Go ahead.

STU: Multiple sides.

By the way, as we've been told. And talked about, many of our people believe.

That Donald Trump, the ultimate truth teller on this stuff. Right?

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

STU: And he's been president twice through this period. And every time we're promised it. They can't come up with it. So it could be that there's some mass conspiracy hiding it. Or maybe. Just maybe. It's not there in the way that we believe it is. Maybe just maybe. It's a little bit less sexy, and that's a weird word to use there.

Salacious, I suppose.

GLENN: Yeah, that would be great.

STU: It would be.

GLENN: It would be great.

STU: Again, I think it should be discussed. I'm not saying this, necessarily.

GLENN: Well, let's -- let's. You know what, let's get on to the moon landing set, and we can talk about it.

JAMES: I've not seen it floated around a lot, and especially yesterday on X. I spent years doing intelligence. Actual intelligence operations. I'm going to go on full-on conspiracy theory here. I've seen how misinformation. Disinformation works.

I was warning people, that once information started coming out. Listing random names. Like, oh, my God.

Let's tie every single name to Epstein. That was a big op.

She was not involved. Oh, look.

Rihanna was at a party. She was on the list. Well, no. She's not. She could be eventually. I don't know. She's not on the list. Just because she was there. Some random person was there.

STU: Right.

GLENN: And just because you were invited there. Just because you flew on his plane.

Does not mean that you were part of that.

STU: Right.

GLENN: However, the way he made that kind of into his bread and butter, leads me to believe there are many more people involved.

JAMES: It might have been nap that is a big distraction. That is to blow it up to make it look like it's a vast right-wing conspiracy. To hide the fact what was going on. What was going on?

I don't know. But we know that members of the royal family were involved. We know. I'll say this again. That the CIA director!

At least twice! Went to meet with Jeffrey Epstein. He does not do that on some random dude that they have charged for a crime that didn't exist. Why would the CIA director meet with Jeffrey Epstein?

STU: I don't know. I mean --

GLENN: That doesn't happen!

STU: Yeah. I would agree. It could be very well, they were looking at something. And there could be more.

Let's say. Prince Andrew, would be a pretty big thing for them to look at. We know, at least allegedly, he denies this. He was involved in some of this stuff. Right.

So, but -- and there could be five -- ten other names. Saudi Arabian kings.

GLENN: Right. Right.

STU: Who knows. I'm just saying, maybe it's not where we -- where the biggest version of it is.

GLENN: I think that would be great. Here's the only thing that I think we can walk away, we know to be true.

STU: Yeah, you're a jerk. I know what's coming. I'm going to say, I was involved in the list.

I'm not going to let you get away with it.

GLENN: You Stu was on the list.

JAMES: We see what's going on, Stu.