RADIOOctober 21, 2022

SHOCKING poll shows voters agree on THIS danger to America

It seems like there continues to be very little ideological overlap between Republicans and Democrats. Yet, a recent New York Times poll found that midterm voters DO agree on one thing. The poll found that 85 percent of participants agree on one, specific danger to American democracy. In this clip, Glenn and Stu reveal that ‘danger,’ and they discuss some of the the poll's other, shocking results…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Let me talk to you a little bit about, let me tell you about the voting data. There is some new actual data, the turnout is pretty big for early voting.

STU: Incredible.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: I would say.

GLENN: Incredible. Because we're comparing this now to a presidential election. Democrats, 57 percent in California, in 2020, 57 percent at this point was the balance of the, that we're coming in.

STU: The ballots that were coming in from registered democrats.

GLENN: 22 percent from registered Republicans. This time, 49 percent are from democrats and 27 percent are from Republicans. This doesn't mean anything other than, I mean, I think that Republicans are less likely to vote early, usually.

STU: Oh yes. Absolutely. We've had candidates encouraging them not to. More democrats are always encouraged to get out there, get that vote in early.

GLENN: Correct.

STU: There's advantages to campaigns for doing this. Not only do you get the vote locked in you also don't have to spend resources getting that person out on that day. It's a massive advantage to get your people to vote early.

GLENN: Florida 57 democrat at this time in 2020. Today it is 42 percent. That's down 9 percentage points. The last time, for Republicans, Florida, 29 percent, this time 39 percent. So the spread is what interests me. You're a guy who loves stats. Does that spread mean anything?

STU: It means something but it's important to not put too much into it. Early voting data has has been known to be misleading when you're trying to draw grand conclusions from it.

GLENN: I'm only drawing from that we are more than that are, we are more motivated to go out and vote than they are. And if that continues all the way through, that a really good sign.

STU: That would be a great sign.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: Again, it's just early. I think you can take this an indication that something might be happening it's a point of data.

GLENN: There's another poll from the New York Times, New York Times poll, asked its respondents to select one of the two following statements that is aligning closest to your view even if they don't match exactly. American democracy is currently under threat. American democracy is not currently under threat. 71 percent say we are under threat, 21 percent say no. The poll then took the 71 percent who thought it was under threat and said where is the threat coming from? Republicans major threat, 28 percent minor threat, 39, not a threat, 29. So the Republicans are a threat to the republic. Major threat 28, minor threat 39. Democrats are a real threat. Major threat, 33, minor threat 30, not a threat, 34 percent. Not a threat for democrat oar or for Republicans was 29.

STU: So basically about equal.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: Both sides are saying the other are threats.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: Which shouldn't surprise you.

GLENN: No.

STU: But you need to read into this a little further.

GLENN: Save that because I want to give you the rest. Donald Trump, major threat 45 percent, minor threat 22, not a threat 31. Joe Biden, major threat 38, minor threat 22, not a threat 37. So not that far off of Donald Trump. Isn't that interesting? Mainstream media, major threat, 59 percent, minor threat 25, not a threat 15 percent. That's incredible.

STU: Yeah, this is a reallying narrative that's developed over the past month or two which is the democrats believed, looking at polling like this, that so many people thought democracy was in trouble. That if they ran on January 6, people would run to them. There's not a, it's not a insane viewpoint from their view.

GLENN: No.

STU: We saw what happened on January 6, people didn't like it, they think democracy's in trouble, let's build that up and have these hearings in prime time, let's launch the hearings when we have nothing, let's make everything about Donald Trump. It's understandable.

GLENN: I think 2008 that would have been absolutely the thing to do and would have won. But because we had gone through a year of setting cities on fire with nothing

STU: In 2008?

GLENN: In 2008, if it would have happened, if somebody had stormed the cam Tolkien.

STU: 2008.

GLENN: People would have paid attention and went whoa. Because we had cities on fire and the government did nothing we weren't as shocked when people stormed the capitol. We all saw it and went this is horrible.

STU: That's an interesting point.

GLENN: It lowered and gave the equivocation of you didn't do anything here, you're doing something here, and these people have a reason to be pissed. It just gave all new wrinkled in the argument that hadn't been there 10, 15 years before.

STU: Yeah. The two things the democrats didn't understand when they saw this polling early on was there is real concern for quote unquote democracy in our country, there are much bigger concerns. People are much more concerned about the economy and inflation, and crime and the border, and many other things than democracy as a voting ish issue. Number two, they didn't realize that half the people saying they thought democracy under threat believed the democrats were the threat. They were the ones who were the problem here. It wasn't that everyone thought democracy was under threat because of January 6 or because of Donald Trump, many of them believe there were problems with the election. Many of them see what is going on when Republicans are being investigated by the IRS, for example. All of the corruption and massive problems that have gone on, even outside of the electoral process just the way the country's run. While it motivates and animates at some level, it's not the top of the mind issue. Also, there's half of the country who see the, let's say the left is doing with the January 6 commission and say you're the ones doing this. You're the ones violating the rules of our democracy. They've really invested a lot of resources in this and it's falling on its face.

GLENN: I find it amazing, mainstream media, major threat, almost 60 percent, minor threat, 23, not a threat 15. 15 percent, that's about I think the number of people that work for the federal government and the mainstream media. I mean, that is amazing.

STU: It's really bad.

GLENN: That's amazing. One more thing.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Also from the New York Times, they ranked major issues by importance. Let's see. Economy was 26, inflation 19.

STU: They split those two but that the same issue.

GLENN: Right.

STU: That's 45 percent saying it's the top issue. That's incredibly high.

GLENN: Here's what also is interesting to me, Trump Republicans and crime are in a three-way tie with climate change. I don't believe this poll. Crime is tied with Trump Republicans and climate change? Crime? You know; you're only going to get climate change and Trump Republicans, you get each side. Or you get double because climate change is really important and Trump Republicans are really important. But crime you get both parties saying crime.

STU: Yeah. I mean, again, I think the way the poll is phrased is top issue; is that right? Not just is it an issue. But is it your top issue? I think a lot of people who might say crime or the border are instead saying the economy or inflation.

GLENN: You're right. It was number three on my list.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: You know what I mean?

STU: Right.

GLENN: You have economy, inflation, the state of democracy, immigration, then climate change with Trump Republicans and crime.

STU: And where was abortion again?

GLENN: Abortion was 5th, 4%.

STU: So think about what they've invested in here.

GLENN: I know.

STU: The democracy thing which is not paying off, the trump Republicans and abortion. They've funneled all of their resources and now there's pretty significant evidence that independent women are turned off by all of this abortion focus. Like wait a minute, I'm talking about independent pro-choice woman who are saying well, you know, pro-choice is an important issue for me, but guys like I gotta pay my bills. I gotta be able to afford bread. They're seeing this as you're focusing on that in this time? I think. Important too, and I want to fight for it, but wait a minute, I can't get my kids to school because gas is 5-dollars a gallon.

GLENN: This is, I mean, this is the number one thing, I mean; the number one lesson from political campaigns in my lifetime has been the economy, the economy. People look at their pocketbook first, first, when things are going badly.

STU: James Carvil.

GLENN: Yeah, it's the economy, stupid. If things are going poorly for the average person the party in charge is not going to do well. How they have, I mean, maybe because they just knew the economy wasn't going to do well because we're just dismantling it. We're just dismantling it.

STU: I think people, a lot of times people look at the economy as people just care about money. The economy is your entire pragmatic life; right?

GLENN: It's your family.

STU: It's everything. It's your entire existence. It's how, if you have enough money you can do the things that you want to do, you can spend your time pursuing the happiness yo want to pursue, there's a reason why people like getting rich. It's not just because they want shiny things.

GLENN: It's not even rich.

STU: I know. But this is why people pursue it.

GLENN: I know.

STU: Not because they want shiny things in their apartment or diamonds, that's all nice but you are able to do the things you want to do, to spend time with your kids instead of busting your butt at a second job. All These things are crucial to peoples lives. While, yes, I don't know what the max is, but maybe we can, maybe there's some liberals in our audience that can answer this, how many abortions can you have in a year? How many in a lifetime? Even if you really love abortion, how many times are you going through that? A couple? I don't know how many per week you can have but I know how many times I go to the grocery store. I know how many times I go to the gas pump. You're doing this all the time. These are things that affect your daily life. While you might think abortion is -- again, I do not support this view, you might think this is a good get out of jail free card

GLENN: This is a bad way to put it, but this is where I you're going through, but it's a luxury item. You know what I mean? It's not a necessity for most

STU: To end the life of a child?

GLENN: For most people they're not like -- it's like you said, get out of free, get out of jail free card. It's something that some people look at as a way out of a problem. So that a luxury item.

STU: Right. We know half the country doesn't agree with at all. Half of the country are males. So you're talking about let's say 25 percent of the country that would even consider at any point getting an abortion, and then you eliminate that to the people who actually do it. So what are you, at 5 percent of the nation? Like, I'm not saying it's not an important issue, but it goes back to quickly how Stacey Abrams talked about this the other day. In your minds you can abort your way out of inflation. You can abort your way into a good economy. That's a totally different view than the average person.

GLENN: You lost me at men can't have babies.

Elon Musk is NOT a Threat to "Democracy." He's a Threat to Bureaucracy

Elon Musk and DOGE are not threats to "democracy," like Democrats are complaining. They're threats to the bureaucracy that has taken over the government our Constitution established. Glenn explains how this all originated with Woodrow Wilson, who dreamed of "freeing" the government from the "chains" of the Constitution and replacing it with a government of "experts" and administrators. That's where the shadow government began and that's what Trump and DOGE are "destroying."

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Elon Musk said, that we're not living in a democracy, we're living in a bureaucracy.

When he said that, my response was, yes. Now, I don't know if you know who Elon. I don't know if you know who Woodrow Wilson is.

But, yes!

Living under a bureaucracy, that's the point. Let me give you the quote, the history of liberty is a history of resistance.

The history of liberty is a history of limitation of governmental power, not the increase of it. Who said that?

Sounds like a guy who understands and values freedom. Somebody who understands the delicate balance of power, between the individual and the state. Right?

But the guy who said that, was the 28th president of the United States, Woodrow Wilson.

Now, does that sound like somebody that we know, maybe on the left, that is now saying things like, we've got to save democracy? We've got to save democracy?

He's killing democracy, by cutting the bureaucracy.

Wilson was exactly the same kind of politician. Except, he was the grandfather of all of this.

He was the architect of a vision, where government would no longer be confined by the rules, the outdated rules. And the chains of the Constitution.

He was the guy who said the Declaration of Independence needed to be cast aside, because it's an outdated relic. He was the guy that wanted you not to be governed by the laws of nature. And nature's God. But by an elite ruling class of scientists, experts, bureaucrats.

That's -- that's what he wanted.

Isn't that what we have right now? We're not -- we don't elect the president. You elect the president and nothing changes. Why?

Not just because both parties are alike. But because the bureaucracy is set in stone!

It's a ruling class, of scientists, experts, and bureaucrats. Wilson believed that the government was no longer the machine of our Founding Fathers, that needed to be shackled and restrained.

He thought government should be a living organism, an evolving entity, free from the so-called outdated principles of 1776. This is where we get the Constitution is a living, breathing thing.

No, it's not. No, that's Woodrow Wilson.

He looked at the Constitution. The greatest safeguard of liberty ever written. And didn't see it as a beacon of freedom. He saw it as an obstacle that needed to be overcome. He -- let me paint you this picture.

Imagine, you're sitting in a grand lecture hall. It's early 1900s. Gaslights are flickering. And a young professor steps up to the podium.

He stands at the podium, everybody starts to be quiet. It's all -- you're in the crowd, everybody there is the future rulers of America.

And he starts in to thunderous applause, with something that, I don't know.

Me. It would -- the back of my neck, the hair on the back of my neck would stand up.

He said, quote, the makers of the Constitution constructed the federal government upon a theory of checks and balances. Which was meant to limit the government's power.

And therefore, its ability to govern.

This was a great mistake. The Constitution was founded on the Newtonian theory of the universe.

But we now understand, that the government is not a machine. But a living thing.

It must evolve. It must adapt. And it must be freed from its chains!

End quote.

Freed from its chains. When I read that line, I -- I thought to myself. I thought of setting the monster free in Young Frankenstein.

You're free! You're free! It didn't work out well.

Okay? When you take something that is like fire. Hello, California. And just release it. It is a very bad thing.

Washington said, government is like fire!

It will be the master of you, if you're not the master of it. Are we the master of our government, or is it the master over us?

What do you think happens, when you -- when you have a government, I free it from its chains?

Does it become a benevolent force?

Does it look out for your best interest. Does it even know who you are, let alone answer to you?

Wilson wasn't just a professor. He was a man on a mission.

To change, and this is his words.

To change a man or a boy, to be the most unlike his father, as possible.

Isn't that what our education system is doing?

Wilson believed that we needed to move away from the messy system of self-government.

And have it all placed into the capable hands of an intellectual elite, that he called administrative experts.

So you can see this throughout our whole government. Anthony Fauci.

The law was, that we are not supposed to do gain-of-function research!

We now know, through all kinds of records, that have been released, that Anthony Fauci disagreed with that. And he made the decision, that we were going to do gain-of-function research!

Because it's not up to him, to answer to the people!

He answers -- he's the expert!

He's the administrator. He knows better than the average person. Even if other scientists disagree with him, he is science!

These experts, that are unelected, and unaccountable, Wilson saw this. This is -- these are the people that need to run the country.

Not as representatives of the people. But as scientists, technocrats, bureaucrats, who know better than you do, on how to live your life.

For Wilson, and now you're seeing his finished product, that Trump and Elon Musk are beginning to dismantle. You are now seeing, that his vision was that the American people were not individuals that were given God-give up rights.

They were just parts of a collective. A mass to be organized. To be managed.

To be directed.

He viewed the old principles of liberty and self-determination. Those are relics of an ignorant past.

Things that have to be replaced. By science. And numbers. Cold, efficiency of science and government regulation.

Now, our founders would say, that's all well and good.

We understand that, let's just take you, at face value and say you're honest in that. But what you're forgetting is that men go bad with power and money!

All men can be corrupted.

So it's not that we are putting chains on the government, because government is bad! No. Government is made up of the people that are in it.

And if you don't limit it, if you -- if you allow them to gain more and more power, and more and more money. It will go corrupt.

And it will begin to oppress you.

The government -- the founders weren't anti government. They were anti-out of control large government. Where the people were servants of that government, not the other way around.

Wilson wrote, the Declaration of Independence. That the -- the foundation of our freedoms.

He said, it was outdated.

He called the principles for all practices and purposes in the Declaration, meaningless.

Meaningless is his word.

The words that inspired the American Revolution, the ideas that all men are created equal, that our rights come from God. Not from government. Were to Wilson, irrelevant. And meaningless in the modern world.

Why? Because you're too stupid to understand what's really going on. You're too stupid to be able to manage the affairs, of not only the nation. But the world!

Every time we try to manage a nation, or the world, we go wrong!

Every single time!

He didn't believe you really have a right to property. To speech. To life itself, unless the government allowed it. If that doesn't terrify you, let me tell you something darker than that. Not morality.

Not faith, not the Constitution. But science should be the guiding force of government.

Well, we saw that with COVID. Didn't we?

Follow the science!

What kind of science?

The experiments that Fauci has been doing on animals and everything else. It's -- it's -- it's -- it's Mengele stuff.

It's really evil stuff! Because it has no medical purpose to it at all. The science that Wilson was talking about. Was eugenics.

And that's the same kind of stuff, that just named it something else. But it's the same kind of medicine that we're talking about now.

The kind that kills those who are unfit. Look at what's happening in Canada!

It's the kind of politics that led to policies of forced sterilization.

And racial segregation.

Which he put into practice. He was the guy who reseparated -- resegregated the military.

He segregated the government.

He praised the film, birth of a nation. Which we don't need to be the Klan. He believed in an America where government, led by an enlightened few, would decide who was fit to participate in society, and who wasn't.

Does that sound like America to you at all?

Or does that sound like the birth of something entirely different?

When he left office, it grew!

It took root in Washington, because they figured out, companies could go to Washington and lobby and get their way.

This was the beginning of all of the lobbyists in Washington.

And it -- it just grew. Ever expanding bureaucracy. A shadow government of unelected officials, who now control almost every aspect of your life! From what kind of car you drive. To what you eat.

To what stove you can have in your house. How you can build your house.

His dream was that a government would no longer be by the people. But by the experts.

The people would be managed. Guided. And nudged in the right direction.

So when they're saying that they're destroying democracy, no. They're destroying the bureaucracy, which is the antithesis to our founding documents.

PBD Reacts to Glenn Beck's Prediction the Epstein Files WILL Be Exposed | Glenn TV | Ep 413

Radical transparency IS coming to America, Glenn says, but only if Kash Patel is confirmed to head the FBI. In fact, Glenn makes one of his boldest predictions yet: Kash will release the Epstein client list on his FIRST DAY leading the bureau. On tonight’s episode of "Glenn TV," Glenn is joined by ‪@PBDPodcast‬ host Patrick Bet-David and co-hosts Tom Ellsworth, Adam Sosnick, and Vincent Oshana. They discuss the damning ramifications releasing the Epstein list (or the Diddy list) may have for those who were associated with the island but were not guilty of partaking in criminal activity there — something President Trump expressed concern for before becoming elected. Plus, what will releasing the JFK files do to the CIA? We now know the CIA was in Miami following Lee Harvey Oswald, so why then didn’t the CIA stop him? Public trust in our federal government dropped substantially after the JFK assassination, and it continued to plummet over the next several decades until it hit a new low (14%) under Biden. Can Trump — with the radical transparency Glenn predicts is coming — turn that all around? PBD predicts Trump could increase that number to 50% or even 60%. Democrats see it coming, too. Their meltdowns over the DOGE and Elon Musk ending wasteful spending now are on fully display: “Accountability is here, and they’re panicking.” Lastly, Glenn and the "PBD Podcast" guys discuss how the first assassination attempt against Trump changed him as a person, providing him with both laser focus and an understanding that his job in the White House is much bigger than himself.

Trump’s Treasury Secretary SHUTS DOWN Reporter Trying to Attack DOGE

The Biden government hired 80,000 new IRS agents to make sure YOU followed every one of their complicated tax laws. But when President Trump ordered DOGE to audit the government, politicians and the media squealed! That should speak volumes about what their true priorities are, Glenn says. Glenn and Pat review some of the latest pushback from the establishment, including how Democrats are whining about Elon Musk and how a judge tried to block even Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent from accessing Treasury data.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: You know, it's astonishing how many people have found a very clear common sense voice and a lack of fear.

They seem to be all over this administration.

Stephen Miller is one of them, don't you think, Pat?

PAT: Definitely.

And he was talking about the angry Dems. And had some things to say about them. Deputy chief, Stephen Miller, cut 14.

VOICE: The Democrat use of the term unelected is really quite remarkable here. Donald Trump was elected in an overwhelming landslide.

These are Donald Trump staffers. It's like saying that Mike Walls, National Security adviser is unelected. Or Susan Wiles, the chief of staff is unelected. Or Donald Trump's communication team is unelected.

This is presidential staff that serves at the pleasure and for the president, just as I do. I am a staffer, for the president of the United States. He is elected. He is the one that the American people have chosen to implement his agenda. This is the agenda the American people voted for.

That he is asking his staff. His subordinates. His employees. To implement.

The unelected power in this country is the rogue bureaucracy.

USAID is unelected. The FBI, that persecuted President Trump for eight years, is unelected.

The CIA and those who have laundered intelligence to try to change the foreign policy of the United States are unelected.

President Trump is restoring democracy, by controlling the federal bureaucracy.

There is one man in the country, who is elected bit whole American people, to implement an agenda they support. That is the president.

Every other officer in this country, members of Congress and Senate are elected at the state and local level. The Constitution puts one man in charge of the federal executive branch. And that's the president.

GLENN: Understood. Understood.

PAT: Let him finish.

GLENN: He's absolutely awesome.

And absolutely right.

I mean, that's the thing -- I just don't understand. When they were -- when the federal judge tried to block and did for this weekend.

But it's not going to last long.

Tried to block the secretary of the Treasury

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: From even looking at the data, that is produced by the Treasury?

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Who is running things? My gosh.

PAT: Well, Treasury secretary Scott Bessent was interviewed over the weekend, and he had some things to say about -- just about that!

VOICE: Mr. Secretary, we are inside the cash room in the Treasury department. It's almost impossible to overstate how important the work that's done in the US building. Is the US financial system.

Yet right now, there is widespread concern about the DOGE teams access to sensitive payment systems.

Are you worried at all, that that access and that tinkering of the payment systems, could affect the Treasury's market or cause any disruption.

VOICE: Well, good. Thank you for asking me about that.

Because there's a lot of misinformation out there.

First of all, when you say the DOGE team, these are Treasury employees. Two Treasury employees, one of whom I personally interviewed in his final round. There is no tinkering with the system. They are on read only. They are looking. They can make no changes. It is an operational program to suggest improvements. So we make 1.3 billion payments a year. And this is two employees who are working with a group of long-standing employees.

VOICE: The letter that the treasury department sent earlier this week, talked about how the team currently does not have access to change the system.

Have they, at any point this year, had the ability to make changes?

VOICE: Absolutely not. This is no different than you would have at a private company.
By the way, the ability to change the system, sits at the Federal Reserve.

So it does not even lie in this building. So they can make suggestions on how to change the system, but we don't even run the system.

VOICE: And if they ask her, they request the ability to change the system. Would you grant that?

VOICE: No. Again, they have no ability to change the system.

I have no ability to grant that change. That they can make suggestions. Then it would go to the Federal Reserve. And just like any large system. There would be tests.

There would be this. There would be that.

And then the fed will determine whether these changes are robust or not.

VOICE: As the Secretary of Treasury, you also oversee the IRS.

Do you know what kind of access the team has to IRS data or individual taxpayer data?

VOICE: Well, I'm glad you asked that too.

Because, look, the IRS, the privacy issue is one of the biggest issues. And over the past four years, we've seen a lot of leaks out of there. The IRS systems are quite poor.

When I started in college in 1980, I learned the program. I think, there are 12 different systems at the IRS that still run on COBOL. But as of now, there is no engagement at the IRS.

VOICE: Elon Musk just a few -- half an hour ago, tweeted out that Treasury needs to stop approving certain payments. Has your staff tried to block any payments at the Treasury?

VOICE: We have not.

And I'm glad you asked that too. And just to put it in perspective, Elon and I are completely aligned in terms of cutting waste and increasing accountability and transparency for the American people.

I believe that this DOGE program in my adult life is one of the most important audits of government. Or changes to government structure, we have seen.

That when I was in my 20s, we had the grace report. And there's some great suggestions that came out of that.

Never implemented under Clinton and Gore.

I think it was to government efficiency. Or to reduce government. Nothing happened.

So, you know, President Trump came in. There's a big agenda.

And I think there are gigantic cost savings for the American people here.

And I think it's unfortunate the way the media wants to lampoon what is going on.

PAT: Yes.

GLENN: Thank you.

VOICE: These are highly trained professionals. And this is not some broken band going around doing things. This is methodical, and it is going to yield big savings.

PAT: Jeez. And what's wrong with that? Is there anything wrong with that? I don't think so.

GLENN: Right. Did you hear a nonhostile question coming from the Bloomberg reporter?

PAT: No. A nonhostile? No. But he handled it in a nonhostile way.

He was great, wasn't he?

GLENN: Yeah, very well.

I mean, yeah. And it's a little scary, that the Treasury Secretary can't make any of these decisions, they're all made by the Federal Reserve.

That's a problem, which is why DOGE wants to bring Ron Paul in for an audit of the Fed, which would be fantastic.

PAT: It would be great.

GLENN: Can you imagine what we would find at the Fed now?

PAT: Oh, my gosh. I can't imagine it. And it's the fed with the power to make these changes.

That's amazing too.

That they can't even do it from the Treasury. That's kind of eye-opening.

But I think they need to use that term audit of government more. Because what's wrong with that.

GLENN: Yes. That's why they're going into the Pentagon. The seventh audit failed.

Let me ask you something: You know, she brings up the IRS.

The government hired 80,000 new IRS agents, to go over your records. To make sure nothing -- no funny business is going on with you.

That you're paying every dime that you're supposed to pay. Because there's a shortfall.

No! There's not a shortfall.

They're spending too much. When we go in, and try to send accountants in, to say, how did you spend this money?

The same thing the IRS does to you, every year, they squeal like little pigs.

I don't know.

If -- you know, you went in to the IRS every year with the attitude that the Democrats have.

You would be audited every year. Because somebody, probably rightfully so would go, wait a minute.

Why are you panicking so much. Why are you saying we can't have access to your records?

This is a legal operation. What's happening here?

And it -- it kills me that the media is sticking up for corruption.

Whose side are they on?

PAT: Well, they're on the side of corruption. Because they're benefiting from it.

And that's been the problem for how many decades now?

How many centuries now?

GLENN: I know. I know.

PAT: Have we run the nation in a way that the Founding Fathers intended, since, I don't know. 1830. Probably not.

GLENN: No. So, you know what, I have a copy of the first budget. It was on the front page of a Columbia newspaper from South Carolina.

And it -- it lays out George Washington's budget.

And it actually asks Congress to increase the budget for firewood, because the Capitol was cold.

And they needed extra firewood to keep things warm.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And I don't even know if that got passed. I have no idea if that got passed.

PAT: Jeez.

GLENN: But that's the way we should be. Oh, you know what, put a sweater on, Congress. Oh, you're a little cold in there. Put a sweater on.

PAT: Exactly.

GLENN: They're the ones that should be putting the sweater on. Not us. Not us.

PAT: Look how Thomas Jefferson struggled with the Louisiana Purchase.

I mean, we almost didn't do it. Because he thought, it wasn't proper. He thought it was unconstitutional.

But it turned out to be too good a deal, and we did it anyway.

But they had a completely different mindset. You know, the funds that the federal government had, that they got from American taxpayers, whether they pay in excise taxes, or wherever their taxes came from. Those were sacred funds.

And they didn't just throw them out to anybody for any reason.

GLENN: Yes. And look at --

PAT: We've got to get back to that.

GLENN: We can spend a trillion dollars and have it all just vanish on us.

But if Donald Trump says, let's take $2 trillion and buy Greenland.

Everybody would freak out. Which one should you freak out about?

The investment, or the loss?

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: It's -- it's -- it's an unspeakable horror, what is going on. And how the people are reacting to it.

You know, everybody in America should be happy about this.

One other truth speaker. Somebody else who is just very good at saying exactly what he means. And getting right to the truth. Is Hegseth.

Here he is, talking about our strength. Cut 22.

VOICE: I think the single dumbest phrase in military history, is our diversity is our strength.

I think our strength is our unity. Our strength is our shared purpose. Regardless of our background. Regardless of how we grew up. Regardless of our gender. Regardless of our race. In this department, we will treat everyone equally.

We will treat everyone with fairness. We will treat everyone with respect, and we will judge you as an individual by your merit. And by your commitment to the team and the mission.

That's how it has been. That's how it will be.

Any inference otherwise, is meant to divide or create complications, that otherwise should not and do not exist.

GLENN: I've got to tell you. How is that controversial at all?

We're -- you know why they keep teams together.

You go through buds and you keep that team together, because their strength is their unity. You don't send them into war with a bunch of people that are all different with each other. You send them into war that all have different skills, yes.

But are acting as one, with one purpose.

New Task Force Could Expose The Government's DARKEST Secrets

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna has been tapped to lead the House Oversight Committee's "Task Force on Declassification of Federal Secrets." This task force will look into declassifying information on the JFK, RFK, and MLK assassinations, UAPs/UFOs, the Jeffrey Epstein client list, the origins of COVID-19, 9/11, and more. But Glenn has a few questions, including whether getting Congress involved will slow the process down. Rep. Luna clears up the confusion and says that Trump appointees, like AG Pam Bondi and, hopefully, FBI Director Kash Patel, will still make the big decisions. Plus, she addresses criticism of her promise to subpoena witnesses related to the JFK assassination.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Anna Paulina Luna is with me now from Congress.

She's just been appointed to lead the task force on declassification of federal secrets. Anna, welcome. How are you?

ANNA: Hey, Glenn. Happy to be back on. Thank you!

GLENN: Okay. Now, I just have to say, yesterday, unbeknownst to me before you are appointed, I was on a show with Patrick Bet-David.

And I said, within 15 days, they are going to release the client list for Jeffrey Epstein. No way! That can't be true. And I said, I'm telling you, Kash Patel, I talked to him over the summer. He is for radical transparency. It's in the hands of the director of the FBI.

I think he does it day number one. Let's give him a few days to settle in. They didn't believe me. They said, we're going to track this.

So, Anna, you're going to make me look bad.
And I don't care if lives are destroyed or whatever. But you can't make me look bad.

VOICE: No! You know, we actually also sent a letter yesterday to the Department of Justice. As you know, Pam Bondi is heading up that organization, and we also asked for it there. But I also -- I'm in the same belief, that Kash will get confirmed.

I think he will absolutely be pushing for radical transformation. I also too like to point out, you know, at the same time, that we're basically announcing our press conference at the declassification passports, we actually also found out that the SPI just so happened to locate thousands of pages of previously undiscovered JFK files.

So, look, I know a lot of people are like, well, the American people need to see the information first, and you actually will see it.

It will be declassified. But the reason why we're doing the task force is, A, just because President Trump signed an executive order doesn't mean that bureaucrats and even Intelligence agencies won't attempt to block it.

So we want to make sure that's followed through. We do have punitive authority to hold them accountable, if they don't, A.

And then, B, I think it's incredibly important to look at the evidence that we know now. Which is sure as heck a lot different than what they had even 60 years ago, and what we're finding. What we're finding, and from what I have looked at.

To stuff that's already out there. Also, too, taking into account, many of the doctors that were actually at that initial responding -- or at that initial hospital. I do think that there were two shooters.

And I think the whole Magic Bully theory that the Warren commission pushed, I think that was faulty.
I know another president at the time, also believed that that was a faulty theory.

And so, you know, I'm eager to accommodate this. I know that there's many Democrats and Republicans that also want to get to the bottom of this.

And I am simply asking the questions that every American has been asking for decades.

GLENN: So I have a very good friend, Paul Biets (phonetic), who has the museum of the American soldier in Texas. And he had -- he spent a long time to get the exact right gun, the way it was modified. A scope and everything else, and he just had it redone. And I have to tell you, I've held it.

I will take it out to the range next week. I've held the gun, looked through the scope.

I just don't think you could do it. I mean, it's just so difficult!

ANNA: There were reports from doctors at the time, some of which were first and second-year med students who were at the hospital, in the room where Kennedy was brought. And they reported an entry wound in the neck. From some of the footage that you can see.

Video of Kennedy being shot.

But also the doctors that ran the autopsies at Bethesda, Maryland, had reported seeing an entry wound in the back. And so we're talking about multiple shots here.

I think the whole idea that they would try to just ignore the evidence, or at least try to bury that, and not even answer the question. Is suspect to me. And so I think the whole idea of wanting to push against declassification or even trying to pooh-pooh the evidence that has now been brought to the forefront.

Look, the obligation of the US government to release this to the American people -- Kennedy was arguably one of the most popular presidents, and he was assassinated.

So why did they try so hard to push back against any questioning?

And that's where I come in.

And where the task force comes in.

You know, I'm also telling people, if you're seeing people with large -- especially, pushing against declassification or attempting to discredit. And I thought, immediately after my press conference, try to discredit the efforts of Congress to actually follow through and get this done.

In my opinion, bad actors are just on both sides. If you really have nothing to hide, then you should not be afraid of the questioning.

You shouldn't be afraid of information getting out to the American people.

GLENN: Let me push back on a couple of things, just from, you know, playing devil's advocate.

ANNA: Yeah.

GLENN: Why would you start with the JFK? Why is that even important?

It happened a year before I was born. Yesterday was my 61st birthday. How is this relevant? How is this relevant?

ANNA: I think -- so when we chose to kind of go through the timelines. It's the MLK files and the JFK files that are going to be released first.

So we wanted to help go through that information. And then also clip some of the historical narratives that were painted on these assassinations.

Obviously, confirming -- or holding hearings to actually present you evidence, I think is important for knowing and fully understanding the story, right?

So that's the first thing.

GLENN: Are these going to be open hearings?

ANNA: Yeah. These are all open. And the reason I want them open. Is because I think the American people will go through the evidence. I am also going to be doing something similar to what I did, to the UAP hearings, which allowed people to ask questions. We're also bringing in experts.

There's a few individuals that I want to bring in. From the previous investigations. That actually were pointing out some pretty incredible evidence, that pointed potentially second shooter.

And they were pooh-poohed. And I think those people deserve a platform.

And if we find anything, it's -- you know, having Kash confirmed is incredibly important. He's also going to bring forward -- I would argue, that have been hidden from the American people.

So this is obviously a big effort. We're not perfect. But we do know that the American people deserve this.

And what we're fighting for is total and complete transparency.

GLENN: The other pushback question I have. And this one is actually pretty sincere from me.

And that is, once we get Congress involved. Then we're re-litigating everything.

The more Congress gets involved, the slower it will happen.

And the higher the percentage is.

It's just not going to come out. We will just get pages and pages of redacted crap.

LINDY: Well, so the whole purpose and objective of this task force is to actually ensure, with President Trump's executive order. That the agencies and the bureaucrats in those agencies, do exactly what that executive order says, which is to declassify it.

So we're not going to be siloing or holding any information, that won't be available to the American people.

So this is all going to be out there.

You will be able to go through it yourself. It will be online from what I gather.

Similar to how they've declassified previous documents from the FBI and the CIA.

So, again, we are simply, reopening the investigation with new evidence. Also, bringing in credible witnesses that will be verified and confirmed via House Oversight, the committee itself.

And we are going to be opening this up to the American people.

So you will access to the same documents that we are looking at.

We are simply ensuring, we will not get blockaded. Or this information is not siloed.

GLENN: Unbelievable.

And when do we get to the things?

By the way, the answer for me, the answer to my first question to you, was, it's relevant. Because I think they've been doing this kind of stuff forever.

And it shows a pattern. If they were doing it in 63. What are they doing now?

I just don't think -- go ahead.

ANNA: You know what is interesting is, if you ask those questions. There are some people.

And to be clear, these people largely exist in the media. And they're largely bad actors.

When you have someone, instead of answering the question, and having a respectful dialogue. To discredit something as a conspiracy theory or try to gaslight into you thinking, you should not be asking the question. That's when you know they are hiding something.

GLENN: Right.

ANNA: So I've talked to many Democrats. Many well-known Democrats. That are just like, we want in on this task force. Because we have questions.

And it just doesn't sit right. Look, this -- this entire task force. I don't believe that this would be possible. Had President Trump not gotten into office.

Had our CIA director not been confirmed. Had there not been people placed in positions of power, that are true ideologues like you and I.

You know, to be clear, I think that also Marco Rubio played a part at -- the Secretary of State's office.

I think that, you know, there are going to be many people. And some of these investigations that will at least give us access to whatever information.

Look, we've asked to declassify everything I've list in that press conference.

COVID-19 origin. 9/11 files. Look what just came out yesterday.

We find out that the FBI was basically ordering lunch for someone that was working with the pilots that crashed the plane into the twin towers. I mean, that's ridiculous. And that's all coming out now.

And that's why we ask these questions on the 9/11 files.

How could it have been prevented? How much did the government truly know?

I mean, look, I could care less if people think I'm crazy for doing this.

I can tell you, I am joined by many high-profile people in Congress, Democrats who have the same questions. And so we are not going to stop.

GLENN: Jeffrey Epstein. When is that coming out?

ANNA: Well, I have the letter out to Pam Bondi. I know Kash Patel has been supportive of it.

So hopefully, once they're confirmed, previously they said that the Epstein list could not be released. This is mind you, under Biden's Department of Justice because there was an open case.

Right? That's what they kept pointing to.

You hear that Pam Bondi. Before she was confirmed.

She called for the release of the Jeffrey Epstein client list. So we're pushing for it. Go ahead.

GLENN: So will Pam and Kash be the ones to make the decision, we're going to release it? They will be the ones.

ANNA: Yes, they will be the ones.

Again, I'm going off what we were told as the previous administrations. But what they were saying, that there was an open investigation.

So I believe that Pam has the authority to release that. And, look, I don't believe that any of that should have been classified.

If there are people that were doing bad things. We should know about it.

GLENN: It's unbelievable.

I mean, radical transparency.

It is the only thing that will heal our nation.

Is if we deal with all of the corruption that we have been dealing with. That we know has happened.

And if we can get an honest look.

You know, maybe. Maybe the Warren commission was right.

I don't know.

CAROL: We should be able to know that, and look at the evidence for ourselves. Yes.

GLENN: Yes. All of the evidence. All of the evidence. Without protecting anybody.
Anna, thank you.

It's got to be -- what was it like to be -- did you get the call from the president?

How did this work?

ANNA: Initially, in full transparency, this was actually supposed to -- the task force looked a little bit different. And I chose to expand it. Because even our investigators said, there's a lot here. If we're truly -- our absolute objective is to begin restoring trust in the relationship with the American people.

We have to go into these, you know, different theories. Going to these cases. And investigate. And actually find the truth. And let the American people decide.

I agree with them.

Also, Glenn. There were two other members that were potentially going to be taking over the initial task force.

And they turned it downed, because there was a climate of fear, that it was considered dangerous territory.

And what I will tell you, I do not believe that it's dangerous territory. Because we have, you know, the 800-pound gorilla in the White House, and our allies in the Intelligence Agencies. That are pushing for this.

So it's not just one person. I think where you had, you know, previous historical -- it was one person that was leading up the charge.

But when it's a group effort pushing for this, it's -- it's a systematic change that occurred.

And so in my opinion, I think I'm going to be okay.

But, you know, a lot of people. I had a reporter that called me actually, a very well-known reporter from Fox News yesterday said, it's interesting.

One of the initial reporters that had reported that there were three shots heard at the JFK assassination. One that was -- one of the prizes for writing. And he actually committed suicide several years later.

Stuff like that has happened in the past. And I just -- I'm in the perspective and belief, that right now, we have a very small window of time. To bring true change. You see everything happening with USAID.

Mike Benz has been uncovering a lot. Elon Musk has been uncovering a lot.

But there are a lot of good people that are really cleaning the system. You saw 40,000 federal employees resigned. Or not resigned, but chose to leave the workforce.

So you're seeing a big change happen, and I'm not saying that this is a complete fix. But it definitely is going to change I think our country long-term and historically.

I'll also tell you this, Glenn. Yesterday, after we made the announcement, I felt a massive orchestrated campaign, specifically coming from a lot of other people that had typically been political on social media. That were trying to discredit what I was saying about potential witnesses, and trying to spin it.

And the reason why they were doing it, is because the Warren Commission presented a faulty theory on the bullet. The magic bullet theory.

To think that that was how Kennedy was taken out. And the Texas governor --

GLENN: But they were -- they were saying, nobody is alive. So who were you going to --

ANNA: Yeah, that's not true. First of all, I was using the Warren commission, as an example of the commissions that have been set up. The hearings that have been set up. But who we are actually looking to subpoena. I don't want to say their names yet.

GLENN: No. No. No.

ANNA: Are individuals that, A, were -- are at Bethesda, in the room during the 8:00 p.m. autopsy that the military did. Individuals that were on the assassination board, that that did not agree with the findings initially with the new evidence coming out. I think that they will -- it will reflect their government employees, that should pass backgrounds. And then there's another individual who is going to be very key, in I think resetting the narrative upon Kennedy.

GLENN: Interesting. Anna, thank you so much. Interesting.

And you sound like you are. You know exactly what you're walking into. There's a new stat out this morning.

Over three times more people in DC are Googling criminal defense lawyer than anywhere else in the US right now.

So you've got a lot of people who are freaking out.

Keep up the good work.

God bless you.

Thank you.