GLENNMarch 13, 2017

Mike Lee on Repealing Obamacare and His Wild Curiosity About Wiretapping

Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) joined The Glenn Beck Program on Monday to talk about why the GOP won't resurrect the Obamacare repeal bill passed in 2015, his wild curiosity about evidence the administration might have about wiretapping, and why Republicans are suddenly in love with infrastructure spending.

Enjoy the complimentary clip above or read the transcript below for details.

GLENN: Senator Mike Lee who is at an airport getting ready to board a plane. We're glad you would take the time to hop on the phone with us. How are you, sir?

MIKE: Doing great. Thanks so much, Glenn.

GLENN: Good. Let's get to Obamacare repeal and replace. This thing is nothing like what the Republicans were promising us they would do. Nowhere even close.

Do we have a chance of getting something good out of this?

MIKE: Sure. Something good can come out of it. What happens, whether something good comes out of it, the extent to which it might be good depends entirely on how members of Congress handle this in the next few days, on how they choose to cast their votes.

Now, look, you're right. What we promised was to repeal Obamacare, as much of Obamacare as we possibly could, and then to start trying to find new ways to put the American people back in charge of their own health care.

Well, what this bill does is it doesn't repeal nearly as much of Obamacare as we could. It leaves all kinds of things intact. It leaves most of the Obamacare regulations in place. Most of -- many of the Obamacare taxes remain in place, at least for a time. It leaves expanded Medicaid intact for a period of time. And then doesn't make as many adjustments to it long-term.

Meanwhile, it comes up with a new refundable tax credit, which we don't know the cost of yet. We don't know how many people are going to take it.

There are a lot of unanswered questions, which begs the question: Why are we not just repealing? Why are we not just passing the same repeal bill that Republicans in the House and in the Senate voted for in December of 2015? That's what I'd like to see.

STU: Mike, is it true that you can't just repeal it unless you have 60 votes? You can't do it through reconciliation with just a full repeal?

MIKE: There is some ambiguity as to how many of the insurance regulations of Obamacare could be repealed through reconciliation. So there's an open question on that. But we do that know we could repeal all the taxes and all of the subsidies and possibly some of the regs through reconciliation. We know that because the reconciliation bill we passed in 2015 repealed all of the taxes and all the subsidies.

GLENN: So why aren't we doing it?

MIKE: That's a very good question. That's what I believed we were going to do. That's what many of us were told -- otherwise led to believe.

GLENN: Why aren't we doing it?

STU: He said it was a good question.

MIKE: There are those in Congress who chose to take a different path. Now, I can't speak for them. I can't speak to what their intentions are. I think the easiest, simplest way of explaining it is, they had other priorities that they wanted to attach to this. Priorities that were perhaps higher than simply achieving repeal, at least to the degree that --

GLENN: Can you give me an example of what might be more important than what you promised the American people?

MIKE: Okay. So here's how I think they would explain it, and I want to be clear, I'm always careful not to try to speak for somebody else. But I think if they were here with us, they would probably say, look, we don't want people to be in a state of too much uncertainty and doubt. We don't want them to be afraid. We want them to have a degree of confidence about what comes next after Obamacare repeal. And so we want to provide a soft landing spot for them. And that is so important. It's important enough to them, apparently, that they're willing to go a little softer on some of the repeal and provide more programs through this bill right now.

The problem with that is, it's -- it's not going to pass. And it probably shouldn't pass until they can answer more of these questions, more of these questions about why we can't repeal more of Obamacare than this bill does.

PAT: And the other problem with that, Mike, is that that's not what they promised us. That's not what they said they were going to do. They didn't say, well, we're going to think about this and provide a safe landing spot for people. It's going to take a really long time. We're going to not repeal -- it was repeal and replace. That's what they ran on. That's what they were elected to do. And now, again, as so often happens with the Republican Party, they're not doing it. Frustrating.

MIKE: Yeah, that's right. By the way, I love the Kermit the Frog imitation that both you and Glenn do.

GLENN: Thank you so much. Thank you. That's what happens when your best friend since 1980 --

PAT: Yeah.

MIKE: Well, he has, in fact, been the spokesman for the AHCA, so it's appropriate that we use his voice when doing this. But, no, you're exactly right, this is what we ran on, this is what we promised. Now, to my great dismay, to my great surprise, on many instances over the last week or so, we've had legislators from the House and the Senate somehow saying that this bill, the AHCA is somehow what we campaigned on, what we ran on. Well, that's news to me. That's news to me because we've had this bill for only a few days.

PAT: Me too.

MIKE: That's news to me if we somehow ran on this specific bill, a bill the score of which we still don't know. We still don't know how much this thing is going to cost. We still don't have any idea how many people will take this refundable tax credit. And, therefore, how much it's going to cost. So that's news to me, that that's somehow what we ran on.

What I remember that we ran on was that we would repeal every scrap of Obamacare that we possibly could, the whole thing, if we could get away with it under our procedural rules in the Senate. And that's what we should be doing.

STU: We're talking to Senator Mike Lee. And every time you're on, Mike, I like to ask you the nerdiest, most boring, uninteresting question to see --

GLENN: So please keep this answer short. Please, for the love of Pete.

STU: So I apologize in advance for this.

But when the Bush tax cuts were passed, they were passed under reconciliation. And because of that, they expired after ten years. Would the same thing happen here? If we repeal all these Obamacare taxes, in ten years, are we going to be talking about the expiration of the Obamacare repeal, and then it's going to be back into effect again?

MIKE: No, not necessarily. In fact, almost certainly not.

GLENN: Good end to that.

MIKE: Because of the fact that we were dealing with taxes in that circumstance, rather than something else. So that wouldn't be it.

STU: I thought it was a tax, which is the only reason it was constitutional. Wasn't that -- tax versus fee. Wasn't that a big conversation with Roberts?

MIKE: I'm sorry. I didn't hear that question. Can you say that again?

GLENN: Good. No, no, let's move on.

STU: Let's move on.

GLENN: So, Senator, let me ask you about the intelligence committee has given the president until this afternoon, they say they can't find any evidence that Barack Obama was spying on Donald Trump. And to present some evidence -- and we'll go pursue that. Any indication that he's going to present that evidence? And is there any reason to believe that he couldn't present the evidence if he had it?

MIKE: Okay. That's a good question. I'll answer the first question, I have no idea. I would love to see what the evidence is. I'm wildly curious about it. As to whether he could present it, that depends on what the "it" is.

I will tell you, my first reaction to this, when I very first learned about the tweet, my first reaction was, he's probably not talking about a traditional wiretap, where somebody actually goes to a judge and the judge orders a phone line to be tapped. Perhaps he's talking about a foreign intelligence surveillance court order issued pursuant to Section 702 of the FISA amendments, which would say, you know, here is an identified agent of a foreign government. Let's monitor this person's communications. And that there might have been some incidental communications with some US citizens, perhaps including people who were involved in one way or another with the campaign. That incidentally got pulled into that. That was my first reaction is that seemed the most plausible possibility. If, in fact, it's that, there might be some reasons why we might be reluctant to share that. Or --

GLENN: No, but he could share it with the intelligence committee, could he not -- or committee?

MIKE: Yes, yes, they've got the clearance to do that. So there's no reason why he couldn't share something like that with them. They've got clearance to see pretty much all of that. But as far as his ability to share that publicly, that would seem less likely if my theory is correct.

GLENN: And there's nothing that the president can't get, right? If he said, I want to show it, but, you know, this agency won't let me, you know, have access to this. There's -- everybody in in the Senate, would be like, okay. We need to see this. Behind closed doors. But you will open these books or whatever it is that he's saying the evidence is -- there's nothing the president couldn't get to, is there?

MIKE: I assume so. Because -- and, look, he's the commander-in-chief. There's nothing that he doesn't have access to. And so if he can -- if he can back this up, if he knows what it is that he's referring to, there's no reason that I'm aware of why he couldn't come up with something that he could produce to these Intel Committees. Now, whether he will choose to do so or not is a different question. Perhaps there are those close to him advising him, hey, you don't have to do this if you don't want to. But that --

GLENN: Why wouldn't you?

MIKE: -- that requires rank speculation.

GLENN: Why wouldn't you?

MIKE: I don't know. If perhaps he didn't want to set a precedent that he could just be required to answer questions every time the Intel Committee wanted to hear something. But I would think in this instance, he would want to, particularly because these questions are going to be raised from time to time.

GLENN: Right. And we're talking about national security. I mean, we're talking about something that he's accused another president of doing. And if that president was doing that, that needs to be stopped.

MIKE: Yes. Yes. Exactly. And that's -- that's -- all the more reason why I suspect he'll provide them with what they want to know because you're right. Look, this is one of the things I've been worried about for years. And I've expressed this concern on your show previously. But if you remember the Church Committee, the Frank Church Committee back in the '70s --

GLENN: Yep.

MIKE: -- conducted a series of hearings to look into abuses by our intelligence-gathering agencies, and what they concluded was startling, which was that in every administration from Ford -- from FDR through Ford and Nixon, who was in power at about the time they concluded their research, that the US government's intelligence gathering apparatus had been used to engage in political espionage. Now, look at what's happened since then. Our technology has improved dramatically. Our technological means of gathering intelligence have grown by leaps and bounds. And our laws haven't always kept up with that.

And so to me, it would be almost surprising if some of this were not occurring. That's why we need to be watchful of this. That's why I was concerned, immediately, when I saw the president's tweet was because I considered it plausible, if not likely that this kind of thing would be going on.

GLENN: One last question, let's go to infrastructure. The G.O.P. went out of their gourd -- and I believe rightly so -- for a stimulus package for roads and bridges and tunnels and everything else for $787 billion. I remember that number. It's burned -- seared into my memory of $787 billion. Now the president is proposing a trillion dollar stimulus package, and the Republicans are very excited about it. Can you tell me what made the 787 billion-dollar stimulus package an affront on the Constitution and this one a dream come true?

MIKE: Well, I can't point to any distinguishing characteristic between the two, as to why this one would be good and that one bad.

In fact, look, when I look at the Constitution, I see the powers of Congress being limited. They're enumerated powers, most of them in Article I, Section 8. And they talk about things like the power to provide for our national defense, to declare war, to regulate trade between the states with foreign nations and with Indian tribes. I don't see anything in there that says that it's the prerogative of Congress to create all infrastructure.

Now, look, it's one thing if we're talking about an interstate corridor here or there. But it's another thing entirely if we're talking about wholesale, top to bottom, soup to nuts transportation infrastructure, even intrastate projects.

I think whether we're talking about under the Obama administration or any subsequent administration, headed by a Republican or a Democrat, I think we've got to look carefully at what we're doing there. Not every transportation infrastructure is necessarily outside of Congress' authority. Because some of them do involve a distinctly interstate function. But where they don't, we have constitutional problems.

GLENN: Mike Lee, always good to talk to you. Thank you so much, sir. Appreciate it.

MIKE: Thank you very much, sir. It's good to be with you.

STU: So positive.

GLENN: Yeah. He is. Boring as snot.

STU: Thank you very much.

Oh, I love him. He is saving my hope in the entire country right about now.

GLENN: He is so good and so smart. And, you know, he's just tickled pink by, you know -- I love -- I love because you know he's accurate. But when you're talking to him -- because he's like this all the time, well, I mean, in section 508, subsection B, paragraph four --

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: -- you'll see -- and he did that like four times during this. You just have to get used to, that's the way he is.

STU: He's that guy.

GLENN: And that's why he is so good and so needed in the Senate. Want to give you this from the New York Post today. Bank fees rise to an all-time high. The average customer now pays $666 a year in banking fees.

STU: Satan.

GLENN: Right. Right.

STU: This is how it happens.

GLENN: The overdraft revenue from the top three banks has surged from 5.1 billion to $5.4 billion. That's what they make if you overdraft.

$5.4 billion. Does anybody remember that we're providing them? It's a service that we're providing them as well. We're giving them our money.

JEFFY: No. No.

GLENN: So they can loan it out to other people. No, they don't care anymore.

JEFFY: No, they do not.

RADIO

Has Elon Musk Gone TOO FAR with Insane New 'GROK 4' AI System?

Elon Musk's new Grok 4 Artificial Intelligence has again accelerated the technological arms race which may soon become beyond our control. Glenn Beck breaks down what’s coming in the next year with AI, which even Elon Musk called “terrifying.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Last night, Elon Musk is touting this -- this AI.

And all of the solutions.

And then he says.

Hmm. Probably three times.

Something like this.

And I'm quoting. This is one of them.

It's somewhat unnerving to have created intelligence that's greater than our own.

He then goes on to call it terrifying, twice.

Now, this is a man who has launched rockets, you know, into orbit.

Going to Mars.

And he says, twice!

You know, after he sees the results of it. He says, you know, it's really -- in a way, quite terrifying to see what it's doing.

But we just have to make sure that it remains good!

Oh, okay.

All right. Sure.

Now, the key point in the announcement was the mention of ARC-AGI.

I had never heard of ARC-AGI. I had no idea what it was. But I noticed AGI. And I went, uh-oh. That sounds important. So this is the gold standard. The bench mark testing for artificial general intelligence.

Okay.

As I've said before, AGI. Artificial General Intelligence is a machine that matches all human cognition, across all domains.

Reasoning, creativity.

Problem solving. Not just specialized tasks like playing Go or analyzing x-rays. Everything. For instance, Musk said by mid-next year to the latest end of next year, it will be able to create a full length movie, just from a text prompt.
And do it all at once!

So, in other words, it will say, create a movie, and you just explain the Godfather.

It will do the casting. It will do the writing. It will do the filming, if you will. It will -- score the music, and it will happen that fast.

Almost in realtime. We are nowhere near the computational power now, to do that separately.

But this will do it all at once. It will make a movie with all of it, simultaneously.

So the arc AGI system is the benchmark on how close we are to AGI. Remember, scary things happen at AGI.

Terrifying things happen at ASI. ASI could be a matter of hours, or days after we hit AGI.

Grok 4 scored 16.2 percent on the ARC-AGI scale.

Why is that important? You're like, well, only 16 percent away.

Because last time, it barely broke 8 percent.

And that -- they took that test, last time with Grok three.

And it took us forever to get to 8 percent.

Now, what is it? A year later.

We're at 16 percent. Remember, these things are not linear. The next time, we could be at 32, we might be at 64.

We are on the verge. This is the last year of -- I can't believe I'm saying this. Of normalcy. Okay?

This year is -- we're going to look back at this year, probably two years ago, gosh, remember the good old days, when everything was normal.

And you could understand everything.

This is how close we are!

Everything you and I talked about last night, Stu, about what we're doing in January, make -- put -- does it make it even more critical that that happens like, oh, I don't know.

Right now.

STU: Yeah. For sure.

GLENN: You are going to need to know your values, your ethics, your rights.

You are going to need to know absolutely everything.

Now, Grok 4 is not true AGI yet.

It lacks the full autonomy and the generalized reasoning of a human mind. But it is the closest that we've come.

It's a system that can adapt, innovate, at a level that outpaces specialized AIs by a wide margin.

This is a milestone. This is not a destination, but it's something that should jolt everybody awake. So here's what's coming over the next six months. By December 2025, that's this Christmas!

December 2025, he believes, Musk, that Grok 4, will drive breakthroughs in material sciences.

So, in other words, imagine a new -- brand-new alloy, that is lighter than aluminum. Stronger than steel.

And it revolutionizes aerospace and everything else, or a drug that halts Alzheimer's progression, tailored to a person's DNA.

Grok will drive breakthroughs through material science. So brand-new materials that nobody has ever thought of.

Pharmaceuticals that we never thought could be made.

And chemical engineering, putting together chemicals that no man has ever thought.

That's going for happen by December.

Imagine a chemical compound that makes carbon capture, economically viable. The climate change stuff, that's over.

It will be over.

Because this will solve that! These are not fantasies.

This is Grok 4.

Musk said something that he never thought. He believes that within the next year, by 2027, Grok 4 will uncover new physical laws.

So that will rewrite the understanding -- our understanding of the entire universe.

That there will come -- like there's gravity. Hey, you know what, there's another law here that you never thought of. Wait. What?

That, he says, will come by 2027. This is going to accelerate human discovery, at an unprecedented scale.

I told you, at some point. I said, by 2030. It might be a little earlier than that.

Things will be happening at such a fast rate, you won't be able to keep up with them.

And it will accelerate to the point to where you won't even understand what all of this means.

Or what the ramifications are!

Are you there yet?

RADIO

Trump just made a MAJOR CHANGE to his Russia & Ukraine strategy

President Trump just threatened Russia with a massive increase in tariffs if it doesn’t reach a ceasefire deal in 60 days, and also announced a new shipment of weapons to Ukraine through NATO. Glenn Beck and former Department of Defense intelligence analyst Jason Buttrill explain why this is a negotiation tactic, not a push for more war.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: The president is giving a -- a press conference right now. Very severe tariffs coming on Russia, if no Ukraine cease-fire deal is within 50 days. He's also sending weapons to Ukraine via NATO.

Which I don't know if that makes it better, does it, Jason?

JASON: No. It's basically the same thing.

GLENN: I guess it's not -- we know they're not going to be sold into corruption.

It won't go to some Nazi.

JASON: Right.

GLENN: That's an upgrade.

JASON: It's actually a very good point.

Because there was no transparency at all.

GLENN: None.

JASON: Just talk about chain of custody. I saw, was it Lindsey Graham over the weekend, talking about he was expecting an announcement today?

I don't know if this was what it is or not.

GLENN: Yeah. I think it is.

JASON: We all know at the core what President Trump is about.

Which is stopping war. Which is not having it happen.

I've seen a lot of negotiating power shifting in his corner.

Especially after the-Israel thing.

GLENN: Yes.

JASON: He's definitely got the -- I don't know. It's hard to describe his negotiating.
Or the way he does foreign policy. It's almost like shock. Shock --

GLENN: It's Overton window.

JASON: They don't really know what to expect.

I think this is feeding into that. I think that's part of it.

We know Trump is not wanting to go to war.

But now Vladimir Putin is not so sure.

So I think this is the president testing the waters here. Letting that, you know, what he's done, especially with Iran and Israel.

Let that speak for itself.

And see --

GLENN: This is one of the things that kills me about the critics of Donald Trump.

The ones who like him.

I heard all kinds of people saying, oh, now, look, we're going to go to war. Do you really think that's what Donald Trump is doing.

Do you really think he spent his whole life talking about two things.

His hatred for foreign war. And his love for tariffs.

That's been a lifetime ruse, just so he could get in, and then bring us to war?

He -- he is doing everything he can to stop this war.

You -- you saw it in the frustration he had, what was it?

A week ago. Where he let the F bomb go be into the reporters with his he's going into Marine One.

He just thinks, this is just stupid. This is just stupid in Israel and Hamas and Iran. And also, with Ukraine and Russia.

But he's got to -- you know, you -- peace through strength.

He's not going to send, you know, a pallet of cash to our enemy.

Not going to be like, hey, Glenn, you're Putin. Look what showed up on your tarmac. A trillion dollars, and expect that to work.

It's not going to work. It's not going to work.

He knows that has to be tough.

And that's what's got to happen.

I don't like sending arms to Ukraine. I guess I'm better with them going to NATO.

But then NATO will give them to Ukraine.

And what difference does that make. And I don't understand that one.

I will tell you, he is meeting with the NATO secretary general of the White House right now.

And he's talking about this.

And, you know, you've got to give the guy some credit on being a negotiator.

GLENN: Oh. Absolutely.

He's -- he set all of this up, through how he's dealt with all of our situations that has come before this one.

He's actually in a very, very good position. He's shown that he's willing to -- not only willing to -- but prefers to go to the negotiating table.

He tried to force Vladimir Putin, which he did a little bit. Got some concessions.

But they did something that they have not done since Russia invaded Ukraine. They sat down and talked.

GLENN: Yeah.

JASON: If anything, he should get credit for that right there.

But now, since this is not really working.

He's also showing, that he's willing to get tough.

He's willing to say, okay.

Fine, that's not working.

This has to work. Now the Russians will have to weigh these two things.

I don't want to see a B2 flying over some area. Any time in the near future.

No one wants to see that.

Maybe we should start looking at this negotiating thing a little bit more.

Now, all of the options appear to be on the table. And that's a good thing. The confusion is a good thing on the Russian side.

GLENN: So there's a lot of talk about, you know -- from our side.

On Donald Trump, and he's really -- and I've got to tell you. I don't see it this way.

I see Pam Bondi making some bad. And, you know, maybe I'm signaling her out, unfairly.

I don't think so. But maybe I am.

I see a real problem on that. Real problem.

And that's not a problem they can't correct. They just have to do it.

But I see, you know, now people are saying, see, he's just getting us into a foreign war.

You really -- maybe it's just me.

You don't understand what this guy is doing.

And, quite honestly, tell me one thing that is easy for him to solve?

How is he going to solve -- how do you solve the immigration thing?

How do you solve that?

He's already solved.

Nobody is coming in.

He solved that. Now he's got to fight with these kangaroo courts, all over the country. Where the Supreme Court said with be you can't do it.

You're still doing it.

You're dealing with actual Marxists and communists. Who are funded by our own government, in some cases. Who are putting radicals on the streets to burn things down. And to cause havoc and chaos.

You have -- you have people now in the press who would rather take down Donald Trump, and start a -- some sort of a ground war against ICE, by using video of children running from ICE, most likely not because of ICE. But because they were trying to escape. They were there without any parents.

They were there, as individual children.

God only knows what these people have -- what these kids have gone through.

And they were working illegal in the pot fields.

So I mean, it's bad enough, California. You have pot fields.

On top of that, now you have children.

You know, picking the pot fields for you?

And you're still standing with the communist radicals?

I mean, what do you do?

What do you do?

I mean, it's easy for an authoritarian. They say, he's an authoritarian.

He's, you know, Mussolini, he's Hitler. No, Hitler would have had all of this taken care of a long time ago. Trains would have been running on time by this point.

He's not. He's doing everything he can constitutionally. And, I mean, tell me the thing that is going on his way.

We wouldn't have to -- we wouldn't -- he wouldn't have had to waste his time, today, on Ukraine. In Russia.

He wouldn't have to waste his time on Iran, and Israel.

Had Biden not screwed both of those places up!

He's been working on other things.

Look how much time it's taken. And they love it. They love it.

And they love it, that we're tearing each other apart.

It's hard. You have to question these things. But you have to question them in a way, that you're not tearing them apart. And I don't know how to do that. I don't know if I'm doing a really good job or a bad job.

I don't know if, you know, you perceive me as a giant sellout. Or, you know, too tough.

I have no idea. No idea.

I don't really care. Because I'm just saying what I believe to be the right thing.

But the one thing I don't want to do is cause more problems. Because look at the problems, that the left is causing. And, no, we were not paying attention to it. We're not paying attention to it. We've got Mamdani.

Who is -- is -- he might be the next -- he's a communist! They're shooting themselves if the foot, over and over and over again.

I don't know. I don't know.

I don't -- I mean, you know, we talked earlier about, there are some things that we can do.
That we should be doing.

VOICE: I think that you always said to me way back when I started doing this job. When I was just -- came on with the chief researchers.

When you were finally -- if you're stuck, just start following the money.

GLENN: Yeah.

VOICE: That will tell you so much.

I feel like right now, we are stuck with the Epstein thing. Whether it's because of chain of custody.

Whether it's because it's been 15 years. Whatever it is.

I think that's something that a special counsel. And a grand -- a grand jury focused on weaponization of government, as a whole, so Russia-gate. Everything. I think a lot of the Epstein stuff will come out with that. I think if you just started following the money just on the Epstein stuff.

We can block out a lot of the other things that seem suspicious. Let's say the intelligence connections. Things like that. That we can't prove.

We probably will never prove.

We all think are there. Let's not go there for now. Let's just concentrating on following the money.

That could lead us to the intelligence connections.

That could lead us to a lot of the other things. Look at Epstein's financial network, for instance. It is a maze.

This is not how things are supposed to go. Offshore Shell companies?

These are facts. Offshore Shell companies in places like Bermuda, where we get money coming in by the millions. Then we get black. They're black coming in. They're black going out.

Why is that, Glenn?

Isn't that something that our financial experts, nerds can say, wait a minute. Let's focus on that. Maybe that will lead us --

GLENN: Yeah. The question to the Treasury, were there any warnings from banks. Because banks were supposed to warn. That's what happened with Hunter Biden.

Remember, there were 80 some.

Or 180 some warnings to the treasury, from banks, saying, this looks like money laundering.

I would like to know from the treasury.

Were there any warnings on that?

Because with that many offshore accounts.

That's what those are for.

You know, it's either sheltering money against taxes, or something really nefarious is going on.

Money is going in and out, that shouldn't be going in and out.

And where is this money coming from?

And where is this money going to?

JASON: Yeah. Banks that were supposedly. Turning a blind eye to some of these transactions.

Maybe we look at some of those.

What about the charities. This is another thing.

I want to put some of these things -- maybe we can share it on Wednesday, on TV show.

Just the money alone. Is just a total mine screw.

It's insane. But like charities. Why were major billionaires, going to Epstein, to then funnel money.

Not -- I don't want to say funnel money.

But to have Epstein do major contributions to some of these charities.

Why?

Why would major billionaires. After Epstein has already been outed through a case.

What was that?

2008. 2009.

He's already been outed as this person. Which you then go to this guy. And then say, let's funnel money into some of these charities.

Why?

Unless you're trying to hide money. Unless you're trying to direct it many ways.

Again, these are tangible things that you can follow. This is money!

It tells a story. We can follow it. Now, why isn't the mainstream media concentrating on that?

Why isn't the New York Times saying, Bermuda?

There's money. And show companies in Bermuda.

The US Virgin Islands.

This makes no sense.

This is like cypress. And gangsters. And Ukraine. For crying out loud.

GLENN: Which they also didn't cover.

JASON: It's right there. Which they didn't cover. Come on, guys!

GLENN: I know. I know.

Well, we'll cover it, on the Wednesday night special.

Don't miss it. This Wednesday. Only Blaze TV.

And my YouTube channel. YouTube.com/GlennBeck.

RADIO

Everything the FBI is investigating about Democrats EXPLAINED

“Just The News” CEO and Editor in Chief John Solomon joins Glenn to explain the FBI’s new investigation into an “ongoing conspiracy by the Deep State and the Democrats” over the past 10 years. Could this investigation finally give us justice and answers on stories like the Russian collusion narrative, the raid on Mar-a-Lago, and the cover-up of Joe Biden’s mental decline? It might come down to Pam Bondi, he argues …

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: John Solomon, welcome to the program. John.

JOHN: Good to be with you.

GLENN: Hey, I just looked at the last time you were on with me was 2023. And I keep thinking, we have to have John Solomon on, more than that.

JOHN: I would love it. Count me in, any time you want.

GLENN: You are the best.

Okay. So I saw this report, and give me some hope. I so desperately want to believe, John.

Give me some hope.

JOHN: Yeah. Listen, this is a very real thing. The FBI has opened a predicated investigation. That means, there's enough evidence to support a belief that crimes occurred.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

JOHN: Viewing the last ten years as an ongoing conspiracy, an ongoing conspiracy by the Deep State Democrats to protect Democrats from possible criminal prosecution, people like Hillary Clinton and Hunter Biden and Joe Biden.

And to foist upon Donald Trump and his supporters. Investigations that weren't warranted by the evidence. And when I go through that, you can cycle through this. At the end, put a very clear pattern and time line.

Hillary couldn't get that off, on the email cases, even though the FBI got new intelligence early. Just a few weeks ago, before James Comey cleared her. That said, maybe there was a criminal matter. They ignored it.

They cleared her, on the same day, they start working towards putting Donald Trump under the boat. This Russia collusion investigation.

Fast forward to 2020.

There are three events that protect Democrats

The effort to call Hunter Biden's laptop disinformation, the impeachment scandal to make it look Donald Trump had a Ukraine problem when it was Joe Biden. And in August of 2020, the FBI gets an extraordinary piece of evidence, that China is trying to hijack the election. By creating bogus mail-in ballots for Joe Biden.

And they don't investigate. They pull back. And actually turn a blind eye to it.

Then you go all the way down to 2022. Jack Smith stuff. Joe Biden. Sticking the prosecutors on Donald Trump. When he himself has a classified document. And instead, they will project that on Donald Trump.

And you go all the way to '24, where Joe Biden's mental decline is covered up by the White House, to try to influence the election. Kash Patel's document. Or the FBI's document treats this as an ongoing conspiracy. Now, why is that important?

It allows you to go back and charge events that are outside the statute of limitations. And you can do this in DC. Many of the overt acts occurred in Florida, with the raid of President Trump's home. So you could potentially have a grand jury in the trial in Florida, where the jury is probably more likely to consider the evidence fairly.

GLENN: Okay. I don't want to get my hopes up. John, I heard this in the ongoing conspiracy, that that is remarkable. That will take care of everything that we have -- I mean, because nobody has been prosecuted. For anything.

And you just -- and you just list a lot of really important possible crimes.

And most of those are past the statute of limitations. But if they say this is an ongoing conspiracy, they can go all the way back, past that statute of limitations. And charge everybody.

However -- oh. And the other good part is, you could possibly do it in Florida.

So if you're not doing it in Washington, DC, or New York, you have a chance of actually a fair trial.

But we have been let down over and over and over again.

JOHN: Oh, yeah, many more times, than we've ever been given -- a moment --

GLENN: Right.

JOHN: I think this is going to turn on two very important events, in the next week or two. The first is, well, Pam Bondi appointed a special prosecutor, to give them the full authority and resources they do. You can't do this at the FBI, while you're also trying to stop criminals.

GLENN: Yes.

JOHN: You have to break this off. Give a person to focus on this full-time to do it. You panel that grand jury, and then treat this as a real investigation.

The second is there are two pieces of evidence.

It's remarkable given all the Russiagate. And other documents that we've gotten.

That these two highly classified documents have ever been released. But they are the admission point.

They are the events that would help the jury understand the beginning of the repetition of this pattern. In -- there is a set of documents. The inspector -- DOJ, inspector general report. Hillary Clinton being let off, in the email scandal.

That shows, that just before James Comey cleared her, the intelligence came in and suggested there was a serious criminal matter. And the FBI chose under James Comey not to investigate them.

The Democrat gets off in the face of perhaps really damning evidence. The second piece is a document --

GLENN: Wait. Wait. Wait.

Do we know what that evidence was?

JOHN: We only have the description of Chuck Grassley in one letter. Chuck Grassley has spent eight years trying to get this information released, and I think he is about succeed with President Trump. But basically they say, our intelligence came in. The FBI should have investigated, and it didn't. Instead, it just waved a magic wand and exonerated Hillary Clinton.

We don't know more than that. It's highly classified.

I believe it's top secret, compartmentalized level, so it's sensitive. But I think Chuck Grassley may have the president's attention, and this may happen. Now you know that maybe Hillary Clinton, there's another piece of evidence, that we didn't know about that Hillary Clinton perhaps got off on -- in fact, she might have been prosecuted. That establishes Democrats getting off, like Hunter Biden afterwards. All the other things happening. The flip side is that a piece of evidence. That John Durham, the special prosecutor, who tried to indict on DC but couldn't get them convicted. He writes in his final report about the Clinton planned intelligence. It's an intercept of the United States intelligence. Intercepted, in July, before -- before the FBI opened up the clearly corrupt crossfire hurricane investigation.

An unwarranted investigation of Russia collusion. A couple of days before that, the US intelligence community intercepts that Hillary Clinton had personally approved a plan, to hang a Russian shingle on Donald Trump's campaign. So basically create a scandal, to make it look like Russia is trying to help Donald Trump win the election, so they can get by Hillary Clinton's own Russia problems.

Remember, Bill Clinton, the 500,000-dollar speech fee from Russia. They got all the money for the foundation from Russian interest.

So the government knows before it opens up on Donald Trump, before it opens up on Donald Trump, that Hillary Clinton is concocting the very thing they are about to investigate.

And they go ahead and proceed with that.

Now, we don't know what the intercept is specifically. But if we get that released, and John Durham clearly was begging for it to be released in his report.

Those two pieces give us the ignition of this recurring cycle. Of let Democrats off. And pin down Republicans with a bogus scandal.

GLENN: The FBI has both of those?

JOHN: They do.

Well, they're both, believe it or not, in classified annexes of the report.

So the first one is in the possession of the justice department inspector general. He got access to that -- that intelligence. And that would be the easiest place to declassify from.

Pam Bondi and the president could do that. The second is in the John Durham Report.

He also created a classified annex to his report, that has that explosive Clinton planned intelligence. So Pam Bondi and the president could do that. The FBI is well aware of this.

It's part of the reason why Kash Patel and the FBI opened up the conspiracy case. But unless you can share it with the grand jury because it's declassified, you can keep the grand jurors in the dark in what may be two of the most explosive pieces of evidence, we haven't had!

GLENN: What makes you believe -- I'm really trying. I'm trying -- I'm trying to keep hope alive here.

What -- what makes you believe that this will actually happen.

JOHN: Oh, listen. I'm a reporter.

I start with a cynical look on everything. I do not know that if it will happen. I do know the events that they identify in the story, have happened.

Now, the investigation was opened about three months ago, by the FBI.

I had talked to some people that were consulted by the Justice Department.

Would you consider being a special counsel. Or deputy special counsel.

Now, remember, special counsels have to be Senate-confirmed so it would be better to have the US attorney and if you don't have a US attorney, maybe you go and name someone who is a cabinet secretary, who is a former prosecutor. Lee Zeldin at the EPA was a prosecutor earlier in his life.

He's Senate-confirmed. He was part of the team that broke the Russia collusion, delusion, out in the public.

GLENN: Wow.

JOHN: What if you named him and you just sped things up?

Those are the things that have happened. Now, the only reason I will believe it is if Donald Trump declassifies and Pam Bondi appoints the special counsel. Well, see if they do that, it won't take long.

Listen, this is not rocket science.

They can do this tomorrow, if they chose to.

GLENN: Do they have to do it before the statute of limitations runs out on people?

JOHN: Well, a lot of the events. Comey it goes back to '16. They would be wrapped into a conspiracy.

You can bring them forward.

There are plenty of events that have occurred in 2022, '23, and '24 that keep the statue alive for several years.

The raid on Mar-a-Lago, over the objections of the FBI. That could be an -- the -- there's a very small window left. On the China intelligence. The China intelligence comes in, in August.

That's still about six or eight weeks out.

If you open the investigation now, you might be able to toll the statute on that.

But there are several events that occurred between 2022 and 2024. The cover-up of Joe Biden's mental decline. That keep a long window for a special prosecutor to bring the whole kitchen in. This is basically a kitchen sink conspiracy case.

But that's how you point out to the mob, back in the '80s and '90s with Rudy Giuliani. You can tie them together. There are several years of statutes that are part of the alleged conspiracy. So they have time to do this.

But time is ticking, and it's up to President Trump and Pam Bondi. If they want to pursue what Kash Patel started. Just announce it this week. Get it going!

GLENN: Is there any reason you can think of, that Donald Trump would not want to do this?

JOHN: I haven't talked to him yet. I will try to interview him the next day or two, if they will allow me to. But I would like to find out. Would you declassify it?

What do you think about it?

At the end of the day, the president usually will keep my hands off the Justice Department. So it will come down to Pam Bondi, who has had a bumpy start to her tenure, for sure.

GLENN: You think?

JOHN: But at the same time, you know, she is smart. She understands things.

This could be a gift horse just showed up at her door. And if she runs with it, I think the American public will get an accounting that they've never gotten for it. Potentially, some of these bad actors, who had a fight, but they just kept going over and over again. Commit a crime.

Adjust the crime on the other guys. Create a false scandal. They did that several times.

Now is that time to unravel that. Great punishment so it doesn't -

GLENN: John, I -- I started the podcast earlier today with a phone call from somebody who I think really expressed what a lot of us are feeling.

About the Pam Bondi, you know, debacle here on Epstein.

And he said, look, there's nothing more important than crimes against children.

And all of our guts are saying, this is -- there's something really wrong here.

And now we're being told to shut up and sit down.

And we're -- and we're being told this, without giving us, as he said, help me believe. I want to believe.

Help me believe. What is your take on the Epstein thing? And why it's -- I mean, is it just Pam Bondi that has bungled this thing, or was it?

JOHN: Listen, the FBI has turned in everything it has. There's no doubt about that. I've done reporting on that.

I think Pam Bondi simply raised the expectation of this, maybe to have a Fox News moment, or just to have one of those excitement moments.

And wasn't well-prepared. And so overstated what was there. And then they've been rolling backwards ever since.

Now, I think there are two places that president Trump, Pam Bondi, and the American public could benefit by focusing on.

We focused on what the FBI got.

But probably the most interesting evidence is still under seal in the grand jury and the southern district of New York.

GLENN: Yes.

JOHN: Every time you see someone talking about this. Those documents aren't mentioned.

I think that's what people like -- the lawyers for Epstein were talking about Alan Dershowitz. They were talking about it the other day.

I think you look at the grand juries. There's two grand juries. And there's one in the Southern District of New York. State of Florida is out of Pam Bondi's control now. Though, it would have been in her control back then.

Get that information out. Get the information at the Southern district of New York.

Create a bond index of all the documents so that the people see, what's been releasing, what's not being released, the reason it isn't being released.

You have a moment of transparency, that would reboot the confidence of the American people. The trust going forward.

The second place to look, is that it is clear that Jeffrey Epstein had some interactions with the United States intelligence. I do not believe he was an asset. He wasn't a knock. He wasn't a controlled source for the CIA.

But at various times, he would have had interactions with the CIA, and the people around the CIA. By Jeffrey Epstein's own admission in an interview he did several years ago, before his death.

He admitted that he was working with the Saudi Arabian businessman named Khashoggi back in the 1980s, when Khashoggi was the main man for the Iran-Contra transactions between the Reagan administration in Iran and Contra rebels. It's impossible that Jeffrey Epstein, that level of relationship, didn't run into the CIA. And most likely, ran into the CIA.

Excuse me. Again, a few times, and my sources say, there were a few other interactions. But check that out too.

He's dead. There's no reason behind this information. So Florida Grand Jury.

Southern District, New York grand jury, it's unsealed. And whatever the CIA has on Epstein.
I think that would give great accountability.

Would get Pam Bondi and Donald Trump. And the FBI focused on other bigger things than this.

I don't think it's going to be a lot of surprises, but the lack of trust that they have created can be easily fixed with that.

GLENN: Thank you. Thank you.

This is why I had John on today.

Thank you. You gave me hope on Friday. You gave me hope today.

Thank you, John, I appreciate it. You've got it. John Solomon.

Just the news.

If you don't follow his reports. You should, justthenews.com. Justthenews.com.

He's also on X. J Sullivan reports. He worked for the New York Times and the Washington Post.

And the Wall Street Journal.

And he finally said enough is enough.

And he left. And he started his own thing. Because they wouldn't let them cover things.

And he does an outstanding job. An outstanding job. That's what we should be asking for. I wrote those things down.

Those are the things that we should be asking for.

And I think we should also perhaps start to ask the president and Pam Bondi, to open a grand jury on a grand conspiracy.

They'll know exactly what we're talking about.

And the FBI has done all the groundwork.

Now it's just up to Pam Bondi and the president to allow those two documents to be unsealed. Or to be declassified.

When it comes to Epstein, unseal the documents. In the courts!

And I don't need to know everybody's name. You can redact all of the names.

You know, when it comes to -- anybody who is a possible victim, just X out their names. I have no problem with that. I don't think anybody wants to know that.

We just need -- help us help you. Please.

Help us, help you. Because there is a real lack of trust. And if we don't repair this, the republic is once again at stake. As much and if not worse, than it was before.

Because we're now taking all of the people who believe in the country, and we're dividing them even more.

We can't continue to divide!

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

Jeffrey Epstein's SHOCKING connections to intelligence agencies | The Glenn Beck Podcast REPLAY

Journalist Whitney Webb has worked to uncover some of the most dangerous stories of our lifetime, and she joins Glenn to reveal just how eye-opening it’s been. Her new two-volume book, “One Nation Under Blackmail: The Sordid Union Between Intelligence and Crime that Gave Rise to Jeffrey Epstein,” examines Epstein’s elaborate network of corruption and power, from Bill Clinton to Ghislaine Maxwell and many more. Her research into transhumanism has given her a terrifying perspective on the World Economic Forum and tech elites, including Elon Musk. And she tells Glenn the dark truth about Biden’s push for electric vehicles that she noticed while living in Chile.

Watch Glenn Beck's FULL Interview with Whitney Webb HERE

Glenn's Show Prep

Mike Lee on Repealing Obamacare and His Wild Curiosity About Wiretapping

Has Elon Musk Gone TOO FAR with Insane New 'GROK 4' AI System?

Transcript

Trump just made a MAJOR CHANGE to his Russia & Ukraine strategy

Transcript

Everything the FBI is investigating about Democrats EXPLAINED

Transcript

Jeffrey Epstein's SHOCKING connections to intelligence agencies | The Glenn Beck Podcast REPLAY