BLOGApril 19, 2017

With Bill O'Reilly Gone, It's the Beginning of the End of Fox News as We Know It

Like him or not, Roger Ailes built a ship at Fox News that could not to be sunk. Rupert Murdoch was part of that, but his children and wives hate Fox News.

"They are embarrassed by the Fox News Channel. They're not conservatives by any stretch of the imagination. And the big thing when I was there was, as soon as Rupert is gone, the kids are going to take over Fox News and they're just going to clean house and stop this nonsense," Glenn said Wednesday on radio.

He also referred to Roger Ailes as a giant bear in the doorway that didn't let anything disrupt it.

"Without Fox News, we probably would not be here today, as a nation. I truly believe that. Without Fox News, I don't know if we would have weathered the storm of the economic crash, if we would have weathered the storm of 9/11," Glenn said.

Now that Roger Ailes is out and Rupert Murdoch has become weakened, what impact would Bill O'Reilly's departure have?

"You better make a decision, America. Because you're about to lose a big conservative ally and voice. And it's not just Bill O'Reilly. I'm telling you, Sean Hannity will be next. Then Tucker Carlson will be next. Until everyone complies with what they say is not misinformation, they will continue to go. And once you have the big bear of Fox News out of the way, then they come for TheBlaze. Then they come for The Daily Wire. Then they come for all of us," Glenn said.

Enjoy the complimentary clip or read the transcript for details.

GLENN: All right. So I want to talk to you about something. I'm going to go into greater detail than I think I've ever gone into on a story on our leaving Fox News. And I'm going to do it for a reason today.

And let me just tell you what the media will say or what Media Matters will pump out to all of their friends, is that Glenn's empire is crumbling. He's just trying to get attention. He's jockeying for a position at Fox. Whatever. Okay.

I'm going to tell you the truth because I believe you have about 24 hours here before the conservative media dramatically changes. And you are going to lose a very important ally in the fight, even though you might not agree with the Fox News Channel.

As you know, no love lost between me and Fox News. And some of the players on Fox News. However, you better stand up now and figure out what's really happening with this O'Reilly thing, or you're going to lose Fox News. And I'll explain exactly how it's going to happen.

In the old days, when I was there, the -- the lineup was a really important piece. And I mean the lineup, not on the air. Off the air. The second floor. It was a well-crafted machine. And what that machine did was honestly not necessarily protect the Constitution and constitutional values. That machine was built to protect the -- the ship. It was an empty cargo ship that Roger Ailes created. Whatever he wanted to put into that ship, he put in that ship.

But that ship was well protected. And you needed to have a well-protected ship because every other ship on the sea was against it because it was a G.O.P. machine. And I contend that it's not a conservative news channel; it is a G.O.P. machine. But it is the closest thing we have in mainstream media. It makes a ton of money, and it makes a huge impact.

Without Fox News, we probably would not be here today, as a nation. I truly believe that. Without Fox News, I don't know if we would have weathered the storm of the economic crash, if we would have weathered the storm of -- of 9/11. After that, when it started all going crazy and everybody was talking about how, you know -- how bad George Bush was in, and Michael Moore was alleging that George Bush was part of the conspiracy. Without a balance to that, I don't know if we would have been -- be here today. And certainly, we wouldn't be here on talk radio because talk radio would have been the only target. It would have been the last -- the last beachhead. And we would have been gone. They would have put us out, but they were busy trying to put out Fox News.

So Roger Ailes, like him, hate him, let's know him for who we think he is -- no matter what, he built a ship that was not going to be sunk.

Rupert Murdoch was part of that. But Rupert Murdoch has children and wives -- lots of them -- that hate the Fox News Channel. They are embarrassed by the Fox News Channel. They're not conservatives by any stretch of the imagination.

And the big thing when I was there was, as soon as Rupert is gone, the kids are going to take over Fox News and they're just going to clean house and stop this nonsense.

So it went Rupert Murdoch, his kids were not in the picture, Roger Ailes, who was a giant bear in the doorway and didn't let anything disrupt it. Then there was Bill Shine, who was, you know, the programming guy at Fox News who worked to execute Roger's vision. And then there was a guy called Brian Lewis and Irena Briganti.

This is the PR department. And I want to be really careful what I say here. But these were not good people, to say the least, in my opinion.

I will tell you that the only meeting that I ever had with Irena Briganti, I will keep to myself for right now. But I left that meeting, and it was on my first day. And I said to my then business partner, I said, "I feel like I've just had a meeting with the mob." And he said, "I think we have."

It was a -- it was a department that let everyone in the building know, "You screw with us, we destroy you." It was made very clear to me on the first day.

I was the only person at Fox News to have my own PR person. The only other person that ever tried to do that and did it successfully was Megyn Kelly, after I left.

And that -- Fox News did not like that. They didn't like that I owned my own company. They didn't like that I was independent. They didn't, quite honestly, like that I -- they couldn't find anything on me. And that too is another story that will remain for another time because it's not important here.

What I want you to know is two things: This was a bulletproof shield for whatever cargo Roger Ailes wanted to carry 24 hours a day, seven days a week. And most of that, we appreciate.

Roger is now gone. Rupert's children are now playing a big role in the future of Fox. That's not going to bode well. Those two things mean the end of the conservative Fox, as we know it, or have known it, is numbered. The end is coming. The days are numbered.

Bill Shine is the next target from Media Matters. And I'm going to get into that in a second. Brian Lewis is already gone. Don't know what happened with Brian Lewis, but there's a book out about Rupert Murdoch. And at the last chapter on this book says: The only two men that Rupert Murdoch are afraid of is Roger Ailes and Brian Lewis. And Brian Lewis because he knows where all the bodies are buried. Brian is a guy who settled for $7 million, a 7 million-dollar settlement. At least that's what I've heard, that he settled for a lot of money after Roger Ailes fired him. $7 million because he knows where all the bodies are buried.

Who brokered that deal between Roger Ailes and Brian Lewis? The head of the PR, which the PR is the one who did all of the fighting in the press, did all of the underhand stuff. Made all these things disappear. Brian Lewis and Roger Ailes. When there was a fight between them and they had to part ways, the media started to salivate because Brian knows all of Roger's secrets.

So who brokered that deal? Who sat in the conference room between those two and said, "What do you have on him? What do you have on him? Okay. I think it's worth this. Both go away happy."

That guy who brokered that deal was Donald Trump. Is it beginning to become clear at all why Donald Trump was treated the way he was by the Fox News Channel, at least when Roger was there?

Now, Brian is gone. Roger is gone. Rupert is weakened. And they're going after Bill O'Reilly.

Tomorrow, the newspaper is telling us, front page of the New York Times today says that Bill O'Reilly is in his last 24 hours.

Now, I want to make this really clear: I've heard -- I mean, I was not surprised by the -- by the findings or the rumors of Roger Ailes. But until Megyn Kelly came out, I didn't believe it. I thought Gretchen Carlson was pretty credible. But I still didn't know. It was one person. But I thought she was really pretty credible. And I had heard rumors like that while I was there. I had no evidence. I never saw anything. But it -- it didn't surprise me when Gretchen said that. But I don't want to -- you know, that's one person. The other people that started to come out against Roger looked really bad. But I didn't know any of them.

When Megyn came out and said, "Yeah, it happened to me," now I had two people that I went, "Okay. It's Gretchen and Megyn, I believe them." And only because I'm judging it -- I'm not judging it -- because I don't have access to anything else. So as an outside person, I didn't want to believe it until I had two credible people that I knew -- I believe it.

With Bill O'Reilly, I've never heard that. We worked closely with Bill on the road. We would go on the road. And he had access to very beautiful women on our staff. And he worked closely with very beautiful women on our staff. We never saw him utter a word that was even blue humor. He was so buttoned up when he was around us, that I find these charges hard to believe.

And to me, it makes sense that he may have had this one sexual harassment thing that was settled from a producer. He may have -- they may have had, you know, some here and there. Somebody could have set him up very easily. Played into, yeah, kind of flirting back with him. It's just one person. And then she wanted to make a name for herself, make money, whatever. That's what the suit alleged. And he pays out to silence -- Fox pays out to silence.

That's pretty bad, right? They paid money -- they settled.

Let me tell you something: I've just settled a case in Boston that I will go to my grave, I'm right. I'm right.

My insurance company pressured me for over a year. Premier pressured me for over a year. Glenn, settle it. Settle it.

"I'm right."

"Settle it."

When it got to a million and a half money of uninsured money that I had to pay out and it was looking at yet another probably $3 million -- I was willing to take it to the Supreme Court. My partners weren't. "Settle it." So I settled that. But I settled it with the stipulation, nothing is sealed. I want everybody to be able to see all the testimony, everything. Nothing is sealed.

Well, this guy, he was going to Saudi Arabia. He didn't care. Now, has anybody taken the time to read all of that? It's all public record? No. No. They're still smearing me --

PAT: Some day we'll help them with that. We'll tell you the story.

GLENN: We're going to help them. We're going to help them.

But it's still being used to smear me. And how am I being smeared? He settled; he must have been guilty. So settlement in today's world -- and you know this because we've all worked for a corporation where they settle things, and you sit around in the hallway and you say, "Why would we settle this? Don't. It just encourages more." You're right. It does. It does.

But what are you going to do, when you have insurance companies and everybody else saying, "Just pay the freight." Okay.

So far, I haven't seen anything with Bill O'Reilly that -- that I believe. That doesn't mean that there's not something there. But I will tell you, even if there is something there, there is something more important going on at the same time. You want to fire Bill O'Reilly for sexual harassment, then good. Make that case. Make it very public. But there's something else. And you need to know about it. And you need to make the decision. Because in 24 hours, I think they're going to fire Bill O'Reilly. And after they fire Bill O'Reilly, who is the next big dog on the ticket? It's going to be Sean Hannity. Sean hasn't done anything wrong. He'll be the next target.

Okay. Well, we'll lose Sean Hannity too. Well, where does that stop?

This is about right and wrong. And there's two rights and wrongs: sexual harassment. Don't know anything about that, has to be settled. The other is a witch hunt. And it's a conservative witch hunt. And I have the evidence that you might have read about -- if you read anything about Bill O'Reilly, he said he's got paperworks. Okay. So I wrote Bill last night in Italy. "Bill, you have the paperwork? Can I see it?" I'll share it, next.

RADIO

What Europe’s REJECTION of Globalism Means for The World

Left-wing political parties suffered major losses in the recent European Parliament elections, but the media is painting it as a terrifying win for “far-right extremists” who are practically Hitler. Journalist Alex Newman joins Glenn to explain why that’s a “deception.” Newman, who spent over a decade working in Europe, argues that these elections were more proof that people around the world are tired of globalists trying to control their lives. Plus, he explains why French President Emmanuel Macron dissolved the lower house of France’s Parliament after the election: Is this an attack on the “democracy” that he claims to love…or is it just how the weird parliamentary system works?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So we have the Liberty media CEO on with us. He's a journalist. Also an author of Indoctrinating Our Children to Death. Alex Newman is with us.

And, Alex, if I'm not mistaken, you've spent almost a decade, working over in different countries in -- in Europe and reporting on Europe and European policies and politics.

And I thought, you could maybe bring us a better understanding what happened over the weekend.

And what's still to come.

ALEX: Well, thank you for having me, Beck. It's great to be with you.

Yes. I spent over a texted working in Europe. And longer than that. Living in Europe, Sweden, Switzerland, and France. And the media, of course, is being pretty dishonest about what has happened on this election. On several fronts.

For one, they're portraying this as a win for the far right. And yet, they don't actually tell you what that means. They want to conjure up images of Adolf Hitler and goose stepping Nazis, and isn't could be further from the truth. The parties that really did very well in this election are not even close to Nazis. In fact, if anything, they're more closely aligned with like the Libertarian Party. Or conservative parties. With some controls on immigration. So right there, we have a fake narrative from the fake media. And another part of the deception, I would say. Is that this will have some sort of devastating effect on the globalist agenda, or the mass migration. I mean, that's simply not true. Either this was an election for the European parliament.

This isn't a parliament in the sense that we think of, as a sovereign legislative body. In the EU you have the European commission. Which is basically a hybrid legislative executive branch. It's very different from our system.

And the parliament serves more as a rubber stamp, and as a legislative body. So several big, big deceptions. But the results do speak to something very important.

Europeans, I think like Americans are tired of the globalism. They're tired of the mass migration. They're tired of the economic suffering. Because of the inflation and the climate policies and the war on farmers and all the rest.

And they want something different. So from that perspective, this was a very significant election.

GLENN: So what did Macron do, when he called for new elections.

I don't even understand. I don't even understand, that that system. What did he do?

Why was that a big deal?

And how -- you know, how is that going to work out for him?

ALEX: Well, he had to, essentially. After the election results. His party was absolutely crushed.

And I mean crushed. The result was devastating for his globalist establishment political party. And the party that won, by a massive margin, that used to be the national front. Now they call it the national rally, is basically the antithesis of Macron's party.

They're very strong French nationalists. They want to preserve French identity. They want to do deportations. They want to remove criminals and illegal aliens out of France.

In some ways, you might call them anti-Islamic. They are opposed to what they call the Islamization of France. And, you know, they're not necessarily like a conservative Republican Party, if you will. They are on the left, on quite a few issues.

But they want to preserve French identity. In fact, until recently, they wanted to get France out of the European Union. They have now walked that back a little bit. They are more reformist.

Whereas, Macron wants to surrender all French sovereignty to the EU and open up the borders wide for anybody to come in. So the contrast is very clear. And what happens in these parliamentary democracies, like they have across Europe. Is that when you have an election like that in the Prime Minister. Or the president in the case of France, has a party that is decimated in the polls. They really have no choice but to call for a snap election, and then eventually step down. Because they are obviously in a position of weakness. They have clearly lost the support of the public.

And so the correct thing to do then, is to go on an election and let the people decide their fate.

GLENN: So the people that were -- were elected, they remained. They're just reelecting the rest of parliament?

I don't -- I'm sorry, for sounding so naive. But I just don't care about foreign governments. Because to me, they don't make any sense. So what is -- yeah.

ALEX: So the French system, like many of the other European, parliamentary systems. You know, the whole system is different.

Right? In the United States, we have kind of the two-party system. Every congressional district represents a particular group of people.

So when you have elections in most of these European tells me.

What you have is proportional representation in parliament.

Typically you'll have governing coalitions that take shape.

Like the recent government that just took over in the Netherlands. A huge blow to the establishment. They kicked out the liberals. The liberals by American definition.

The globalists. And replaced them with conservative parties. So what happens then, when you have these kinds of -- the same in Canada. Our neighbors in the north, and Australia.

When you have these elections, it becomes very, very clear, that the ruling party. Or the ruling coalition no longer has public support. The and protect proper thing to do is step down and let people have new elections. This election was, like I said for the European parliament. What it showed, the French people are no longer with them. So he has to do the right thing here.

GLENN: Wow.

Okay. So this vote that happened over the weekend, see if I follow you, the vote that happened this weekend, has very few teeth, if you will.

But calling for a new election, if the results turn out the way it appears they might turn out, it -- it will have some teeth.

The conservatives will have some teeth.

ALEX: Yeah. So if in this snap election, Marine Le Pen's national rally party performs as well as they did in the European parliament election, France will look very, very difficult when the new government takes over. That's a very real possibility. It's possible that the French voters wanted Marine Le Pen's party in the European parliament, but not governing France. That's possible. We'll see what happens in this election.

But, yeah. This could lead to some very, very profound changes in the way France is governed, and that by extension then would lead to some profound shifts across Europe. France is obviously one of the powerhouses of the European Union.

One of the major economies. One of the most significant military forces.

So this could have a very, very profound affect.

If the election goes the way the European parliamentary election suggests it does.

You're right, when you look at the European parliament. The name is kind of misleading. People assume.

For example, the US Congress, that they will have the power to radically shift the trajectory of things. In the European system, that's just not the case. The parliament is I think best thought of as a rubber stamp, almost like a decoration for the Europeans to be able to do feel like they have some kind of influence.

The EU is really governed by unaccountable, unelected bureaucrats at the European which I guess.

GLENN: So have you heard, there's a new summit that's happening at the united nation's annual meeting.

It's called the summit of the future.

Which kind of sounds a little freaky.

And it is -- it will cover everything from climate change.

International security. Science, technology.

Youth.

It's the typical bullcrap from the United Nations.

Except, one of the things they're addressing is transforming global governance.

And action 36. We commit to transforming global governance. Global governance.

Action 41. Will reform and strengthen the United Nations.

They go into all kinds of things like our common agenda. And they're giving the United Nations, extra powers, that can be enacted in emergencies.

And so they're getting around the sovereignty, saying, by saying, oh, this would only happen in a global emergency.

But we all know emergencies are always right around the corner.

Do you know much about this?

ALEX: I do, Glenn. Actually, I broke that story on the Epic Times over a year ago.

It's very, very important. I'm glad we're talking about it. In fact, I will be there covering the summit for the New American magazine, so we will be providing live updates from there.

I think of this as kind of an attempted constitutional convention for the UN. They want to throw off the shackles, that kind of have restrained their power grabs over the decades.

And usurp vast new powers, and that's not speculation.

The secretary general, Antonio Guterres, who, by the way, before becoming the head of the UN. Was the leader of the socialist international, which traces its lineage directly back to Karl Marx's family. And he has put out a series of what he calls policy briefs. One of them, as you mentioned, deals with emergencies.

And I urge people to read this document. If I remember correctly, it's only about 24 pages.
And it is just transparent. It basically says, in any declared emergency, global emergency, the secretary general will assume all these new powers. The decision-making entities will be the agencies of the United Nations, that says nation states, governments, civil society, business. All of them will be taking their marching orders from this secretary general and his minions.

And, I mean, it gets worse.

They give a list of possible emergencies.

And it could be anything.

It could be an economic emergency. A climate emergency.

An environmental emergency. It doesn't have to be a global emergency. It could be regional.

So we're talking about here, an incredible power grab. Where all they have to do to say is say emergency, the magic words.

And suddenly we have basically a basic global police state.

So people need to be paying attention to this.

GLENN: And this is something.

We're covering this tonight, on my 9:00 p.m. TV show.

And in -- in doing our homework on it, it is -- is something that a lot of people will go, oh, well, that's no big deal.

They're voting on this and doing this in September.

You know, before we have a vote here in America.

And if they pass this stuff, what you said is absolutely true.

Any emergency, will just circumvent all of our governments. And put all the power into one government. In the UN.

ALEX: Yeah. That's exactly right. That's a proper subscription of what's going on here, Glenn.

The amazing thing. You can actually read these documents. You don't have to read between the lines. You don't really have to read through the UNEs (phonetic). It's just right there in plain sight. They're talking about global restrictions on free speech. They're talking about globally seizing control of economic decisions.

They're talking about incredible powers. Powers that would be flatly unconstitutional. Even for the US government to exercise. And they're talking about now having these powers exercised at the international level, by people who are not elected by any people. It's, frankly, terrifying. I think people really need to be paying attention.

GLENN: It is.

ALEX: Because most people aren't talking about it.

GLENN: Yeah. Thank you so much for everything you do. And if you missed our last podcast. When was it we did that? Do you remember? I have no concept of time.

ALEX: It was --

GLENN: I know. It's like everything -- there's so many things that happen every day. You're like. I don't know. Was that three years ago?

I have no idea.

But we had a fantastic, fantastic conversation.

And if you missed it, go look up the podcast with me and Alex Newman. And let's see.

It was called -- it's a global cabal. A conspiracy theory.

You can -- you can find the podcast with me, and Alex.
And it is well worth your time listening to.

Alex, thank you, as always.

God bless.

RADIO

Why Hunter Biden's Conviction Could BACKFIRE

Many conservatives celebrated when Hunter Biden was convicted and Glenn think he got a fair trial. But now, there's a chance his trial could be appealed to the Supreme Court and become a gun rights question. So, will gun control activists find a way to spin this? Is there a constitutional argument against this even being a crime? Should conservatives and Second Amendment supporters root for Hunter going to jail for THIS crime? Or will it just distract from all the other evidence we have: "Out of all the stuff he did, this is like the preschool stuff. There's 170 [potential] crimes" he could be tried on! Or...will this all end with Joe Biden pardoning his son after the election?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: The verdict came in. On -- on Hunter Biden. And he was found guilty on all three counts. And I -- I don't know if people were celebrating or what.

I think this is -- as I said to Stu, this is comparing to Donald Trump trial, to this one, is comparing apples to eggs. They are completely different. They don't even -- they both don't come from a tree. One is from a really rotted rooted tree. The Donald Trump trial. And this one, I think just comes from the butt of a chicken.

The Hunter Biden trial, first of all, only happened after the FBI did everything they could, to make this go away.

Then, what do they do?

They take on the least important one. Now, I am all for the rule of law, obviously.

I am a responsible gun owner. You don't lie on your form, when you're doing a background check. You don't lie.

I would go to jail. You would go to jail. Hunter Biden should go to jail. I don't know what the usual is, on jail time for this. I know that it's -- I think it says, on the form, I couldn't find it yesterday. I think it says something like a 20-year prison sentence. Twenty-five-year prison sentence for lying under oath, blah, blah, blah. But I don't know what the usual is for a first time offender. But he should get it now.

There's the constitutional part. And I can't believe this. Because I think the left thinks they're going to win because this is going to go to trial. To the Supreme Court perhaps.

And it's going to become a gun question. A gun rights question.

And if he -- if he wins that, then the -- what? The right will get exactly what they want. More rights. Less regulation?

Okay. I'll take that. Yeah. But he'll lose him not going to jail. Yeah. But he's going to jail out of the worst stuff he did.

This is like the preschool stuff. What are you talking about.

There's 170 crimes, that he has been implicated in.

170.

When he was in Arizona, he was on his way to rehab.

He dropped off his car, at the rental facility, near the airport, where he accidentally left personal ID and a crack pipe. Oh, and a bag of cocaine in the car. And nothing was done.

I don't know. I don't know. That's kind of a big deal. A woman who is currently in jail, in Connecticut, for other crimes, apparently arranged a meeting with Hunter to bring him crack cocaine, later that month.

According to Hunter's texts, which, by the way, all the evidence that was in -- used in this trial, all came from the laptop. So I would like an apology from the mainstream media, that there was nothing there. Nothing credible.

That that was totally hyped up. That that was Russian disinformation. I would like an apology. Because apparently, the court system found that it was okay to look at. And was credible.

Later that month, the texts on his laptop, showed that he was not only consuming drugs, but trafficking them.

As well as arranging sex with women. The sex crimes in Connecticut, are -- let's just say. Wow.

In -- I mean, it would take a drug-fueled -- I mean, I don't know how he performs. Anyway, he solicited women for sex.

One after another, as they would leave his room. Then he solicited more prostitutes. The next day, he solicited a third prostitute.

But he didn't stop there. He continued to solstice prostitutes throughout his time in Connecticut. Even recording a video of him having sex with a prostitute and smoking crack.

The money transfers revealed thousands of dollars paid to these prostitutes.

And is prostitution, is doing all of this, is this legal in Connecticut? Are you cool with that?

By the way, he took his crimes to Delaware, where he was doing drug deals. One with a registered sex offender. And smoked crack with them. Hunter made sure that his crack use was on camera. Again, he was caught naked doing drugs at a public spa. He then bought the fun. Lied about his drug use. And continued to have more fun with prostitutes. In Florida, when Hunter sent money to a Ukrainian escort, the transfer was flagged by JPMorgan as possible human trafficking.

Okay. We haven't even gotten to the good stuff yet.

Okay? I'm just going to -- I'm just going to leave you with the note from JPMorgan.

There were 170 times banks sent out a yellow flag, to the federal government, saying, there's something wrong here.

This is human trafficking. This is money laundering. But there's something wrong. 170 times.

That -- that's the crime here!

That's the crime.

And what they're trying to do is -- they only prosecuted when they absolutely had no other choice.

They couldn't do anything else.

I think justice was served.

We'll see what the -- the sentencing is.

But this is not the thing to prosecute him on.

This is the thing to prosecute him, and then say, oh, come on. He's going to jail. He's doing his time.

And see, he was -- he was convicted of a felony. So -- so was Donald Trump. In fact, the health of our republic has never been stronger.

Because look, Donald Trump, he -- he was president. He's probably going to jail. And the first time ever, the son of a president, is also going to jail on a known. That's not good for the health of a republic in the first place.

That shows, if both are true. Shows we have a real problem with the people in leadership.

But both of them aren't true. Again, apples and eggs.

This one was prosecuted on me when they couldn't get away with everything they were trying to do to get away with sweeping this under the rug.

So then they prosecuted him. He was convicted by a jury of his peers.

The one up in New York, every possible thing, every dirty trick. Every twist of the law. Even to the point of making up a law. Where the federal government said, no.

That's not a violation of the law. But then they took it to a state court. And said, yes. That is against the law.

But it would be a federal crime. And so state courts have no jurisdiction. I mean, they did things that have never, ever been done did before.

And I think Alan Dershowitz was right. When he said, the best thing that could happen, is that Hunter Biden could be set free. Hunter Biden would be found not guilty.

He said, because then, at least people would start to realize, that we are the laughing stock of the world.

Aren't -- our justice system, which used to be the most admired, is now the laughing stock of the world.

I mean, how do you go for him, with -- with this gun charge, when he -- we know what he did with Ukrainian and Chinese patrons. He -- he was soliciting money.

He never registered as a foreign agent. He avoided all oversight and regulation that comes with that. They're completely ignoring the, hey, hold back 10 percent for the big guy.

When under oath, several witnesses have said, the big guy was Joe Biden.

I mean, they -- they raked in millions of dollars, selling our country out!

I don't know. I think that's a bigger crime, myself. You know. Jesse James. You know, he wasn't -- he wasn't wanted for jaywalking. Just -- you know.

I'm just saying.

Bonnie and Clyde. You know, they -- when they were at the bank. They wrote the note that said, give us all your money. And they took the pin along with him. Can we get him on the pin thing.

Am I wrong with this, Stu? Is this how we see this whole thing.

STU: They did take the pen.

GLENN: I know. They did take the pen.

STU: The pen was taken. I find it. Yes. I think it was interesting.

As we said before, the verdict even came out: It's the least interesting of all the things against Hunter Biden. There is a constitutional amendment against -- constitutional argument against this even being a crime in the first place.

But, in theory, he should still go to prison.

You know, the -- the -- the sentencing guidelines for this crime. Are 15 to 21 months.

So 2019 to 2023. Just 53 defendants were sentenced in a similar category, as Hunter Biden. But 92 percent of them were sentenced to serve prison time. Median prison term of 15 months.

Only 8 percent of people in that category received probation or a fine. So he should --

GLENN: I would like to see him go to jail for 18 months.

That's fine. Something to jail for 18 months. And you know why I say this. Not only do I want the fair -- I don't want the judge to take into consideration anything else, other than the crime they've just convicted him for.

And if the average is 18 months, then great. Give him 18 months. Whatever.

But Joe Biden, I believe, after the election, is going to pardon his son. To get him away from prison. He probably will serve maybe a month.

Maybe a month. He's not going to be sentenced, until when? October.

STU: I thought the sentencing will be a little bit more than that. That doesn't mean necessarily he goes to prison. Like for example, he also could stay out, while his appeal is pending, which would definitely push past the election.

GLENN: Correct. Right. And after the election, Joe Biden will do what this dad has done, that has made his son into the monster that he is.

And that is pardon him, lessen the consequences.

You know, help him out, because I really believe in you, son. You know, at times, you just have to let them fall.

STU: Yeah. And that's a normal parenting move, if you don't have a large international illegal business working with the guy that he's the kingpin of.

Like, you need to have him covering for you.

GLENN: On your side. Yeah.

STU: Every step of the way. So you really can't do the thing that a parent should do. And let him fall.

You can't do that.

GLENN: Yeah. So yesterday, Joe Biden gave a speech about gun control. Of all things.

STU: And didn't mention. Incredible that he doesn't mention this at all.

He doesn't mention the Hunter thing at all. While he's pushing for this new restrictive laws. Incredible.

GLENN: Right. Right. Right.

But, again, in this, he talks about.

Let me give you a couple.

Here's the gun sense speech. Cut four.

You can't be pro-law enforcement. And be pro-law enforcement. And abolish the AFT.

GLENN: Now, I don't know what the AFT is. Do you know what the AFT -- I know what the ATF is.

I don't know what the AFT is.

STU: The American Federation of Teachers.

So he's talking. I don't know why that was relevant, per se, to this.

That's what he --

GLENN: Yeah. But he went through.

Cut six, please.

BIDEN: By the way, if they want to take out government, if they get out of line. Which they're talking again about.

Guess what, they need F-15s. They don't need a rifle.

STU: Oh, God.

First of all, it's hard to understand anything anyone says. Secondly, that's the dumbest point in the world.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

Tell that to the people who are now running Afghanistan.

And if anybody should have learned that lesson, it would be Joe Biden.

I don't know. They must have F-15s. They seemed to do pretty well!

STU: They weren't really as well off as the American people are.

GLENN: No. No. They're not.

STU: They were able to do that against the world's most powerful military, because of one terrible leader, who happened to be the commander-in-chief.

GLENN: No. Right.

Let me -- let me go to -- let me go to Biden here. One more time.

Play that. You need F-15s. Play that again.

By the way, if they want to take on government, if we get out of line. Which they're talking again about. If we say what, they need F-15s. They don't need a rifle.

STU: That's so stupid.

GLENN: Is he the Biden. Have we mixed this up? Is he the Biden that is on crack?

STU: I don't know that crack makes you that lethargic. Again, maybe never having done it myself. Just for the show, do something.

Just understand.

GLENN: Right. Let's try to actually -- one more time. Try to understand, what he is actually saying there. Go ahead.

BIDEN: By the way, if they want to take on government, if we get out line, which they're talking again about. Well, guess what, they need F-15s, they don't need rifles.

GLENN: I don't know what he said. I have no idea what he said.

STU: Oh. I think he said, if you want to take on government. And then he says something like an aside where he says, and they're talking about all doing that again.

So he's trying to basically say that they're --

GLENN: Who is talking about that?

STU: Oh, it's a huge piece of conversation.

GLENN: It's happening daily?

STU: A lot of people online, talking about that.

GLENN: Let's take care on the government.

STU: This is so specifically designed to say, they just want that picture.

You look down your driveway. And tanks are rolling up. And all you have is your AR-15.

And it's like, again, I guess there is a scenario, where they could defeat every American by just nuking every city.

But like, what is the use of -- of govern over such a society? After it's a nuclear wasteland.

Like, yeah. The whole point --

GLENN: We won!

STU: Yeah. We won. Hang on, my ear fell off.

STU: I mean, this is -- over and over and over again, we've seen people with small arms, be able to repel.

It's really hard to go door to door and overwhelm a population. Really freaking difficult to do.

We found it very difficult. The land war in Asia from Princess Bride was specifically designed to remind him --

GLENN: Land war in Asia!

RADIO

The REAL Reason Why Glenn is On a US-Funded Ukrainian 'Enemies' List

Glenn Beck and The Blaze were both placed on a list calling out Americans who DON'T want to endlessly fund Ukraine without oversight. The list, compiled by a Ukrainian NGO called "Texty" or the "Data Journalism Agency," features hundreds of individuals and companies, including U.S. politicians. But why would Glenn — who is no fan of Vladimir Putin — be on the list? Well, Glenn has a good idea why he might be: He recently exposed the U.S. government's long history with fueling color revolutions around the world, including in Ukraine, and how America might be next. And Blaze Media managing editor of RETURN, Peter Gietl joins to expose how all the usual suspects from previous color revolutions are funding this NGO as well...including Spooky Dude himself, George Soros.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So let me just give you this story first.

Ukrainian publication with the editor-in-chief who has ties to the US State Department, has placed dozens of American politicians, activists, and media outlets, including Blaze media and Glenn Beck, on a list of those allegedly known to have shared Russian disinformation or otherwise made anti-Ukrainian statements.

On Thursday, texty.org, an independent media outlet. That fuses data journalism projects, with traditional journalistic genres.

This is according to their website. They published an article entitled rollercoaster entitled, From Trumpist to Communist. The forces in the US, impeding aid to Ukraine. And how they do it.

Now, there's 75 of us on this list. But nearly 400 entities, that have opposed sending aid to Ukraine, in its war against Russia.

We were mentioned. Blaze media, and myself. Mentioned on Pages 34 of a 47-page list. The anti-Ukrainian Blaze media links are all from 2023.

They include one which Blaze news article. There's one Blaze news article. Two tweets. One of which is just showing a clip and a tweet from Tucker Carlson. Who is also on the list.

And then three segments with Blaze media's Glenn Beck.

Okay. Okay.

Now, what were the clips?

Well, the first -- the first clip that they had a problem with was that I had said, that the plan to go into Russia, or to have Ukraine fight Russia and us to back them up, was in the works in 2016.

And texty came out and said, that is an absolute lie.

He's just making this stuff up.

Well, the reason why I said that is because we found a clip, that I had never seen before.

This is Lindsey Graham with John McCain in the background. During election 2016 in Ukraine, talking to the general and the troops, listen to what he said.

VOICE: Your fight is our fight.

VOICE: 2017 will be the year of offense.

VOICE: All of us will go back to Washington, and we will push the case against Russia.

VOICE: Enough of a Russian aggression. It is time for them to pay a heavier price.

Our fight is not with the Russian people, but with Putin.

Our promise to you, is to take your cause to Washington.

Inform the American people of your bravery.

And make the case against Putin to the world.

GLENN: Okay. Isn't that what happened in 2020?

Isn't that exactly -- or 2021?

Isn't that exactly what happened?

Now, Russia did invade.

You know, I -- I am not going to make a case for Vladimir Putin being a good guy.

Because he's an absolute monster.

However, you know, when you have the State Department, doing a Colour Revolution in 2014 in Ukraine, to get rid of the Russian, that they say was running Ukraine.

And then you have Lindsey Graham, and John McCain, during the election. Saying 2017 is the year we go on offense.

It's time they pay a -- a heavier price.

Well, I would say, that that kind of sounds like, you know, we're for going right after Russia.

Our fight is not with the Russian people. Just Vladimir Putin.

That sounds like regime change. Does it not?

Now, why didn't it happen in 2017?

Because the unthinkable happened.

Donald Trump was elected.

That's what happened. Donald Trump was elected. In 2017. He became the president of the United States.

And what happened? He all of a sudden was painted as a guy who was for Russia. And the Russian interference.

Forget the Chinese. Just the Russian interference alone. So the enemy of Hillary Clinton and the State Department and everybody else. The enemy became Russia and Donald Trump, tied closely together. So the offense had to wait for four years.

But they continued to smear Donald Trump with Russia. That was the whole case. Okay. So now let me go on. Let me tell you about a show we did a few weeks ago. Regime change.

It's been United States' policy for a very long time. Covert CIA operations. We go in.

We manipulate the foreign media. We meddle in elections. We topple governments. And then, you know, we go back to saying, we didn't do that. What are you talking about?

This started with the Cold War. But nothing the CIA pulled off comes even close to what their successor began doing.

Who was the successor to the CIA? Covert ops? Well, it was the United States government.

That includes the CIA. Along with NGOs. Trade unions.

And people like George Soros.

Colour Revolutions. The first one that was really successful was the Middle East.

The Arab spring.

Right?

I told you, the Arab spring, was -- had its roots in communists.

The European spring. Back after the Communist Manifesto was written.

They tried to overthrow all of Europe.

And it was called the European spring.

How could this peaceful union, suddenly have the roots in revolutionary Marxism.

Well, Colour Revolutions. Middle East.

Then Latin America.

And eastern Europe.

Ukraine is one of them.

And here's what they do.

The United States. So they can keep their distance. Goes through NGOs. And trade unions.

They train and mobilize street movements.

Kind of like, let's see if I can think of a street movement that seems like it wasn't actually real. BLM. Or the Palestinian street movements.

By the way, as we've shown you, funded by these same kind of people.

So we showed you, all of the evidence on a Colour Revolution. And how it was done.

And they did it all out in the open.

And they even bragged about it. I showed you the people, and the organizations at the top of the Colour Revolution spear.

I also showed you some of these people. NGOs. Trade unions. Are now active here in the United States.

And they seem to pop up every four years. Totally coincidentally.

Their money and their actions usually come at a time of massive civil unrest, right before an election. Now, there's usually some kind of government element at the top. Could be the CIA. Most likely, it's the State Department and USA ID.

But ultimately it's the office of the president.

So we did a chalkboard on this. We showed that that has to happen. You have to have those in the government. That are wanting to overthrow the government.

Then the operation is privatized to give it distance from the government. This is where the NGOs like the National Endowment for Democracy come in. Okay.

The NED is composed of four different entities. The National Democratic Institute, the International Republican Institute, the American Center for International Labor Solidarity, and the Center for International Private Enterprise. You see what's happening?

You have both sides. So it looks fair. Republican and Democrat.

Plus, you have labor. And private enterprise. Everybody coming together.

So this is a bipartisan kind of cover story. Next, on the food chain, you have to have the multibillion-dollar financiers, and their organizations, that partner in the entire radiation.

This is where George Soros comes in. The Open Society foundation. The Tides Foundation.

Then there are the people that spread the message. Demonstrate in the streets. And the media to report what the government wants you to report. Wants them to report.

To the masses. This is the blueprint. We've done it over and over and over again.

And I make the case, that these same people are doing it here in America.

So why is the Blaze -- why am I on this list?

I'm on this list, because I believe I'm telling you exactly what's happening.

We have a Color Revolution happening within our own government, within the NGOs and George Soros and all those people.

This is what they're doing. And there's a possibility this time, they succeed, because you have to have a, quote, illegitimate president. You have to have street movements. That are not only saying that it's illegitimate. You also have the media saying it's illegitimate.

And it doesn't work if Donald Trump is the one saying that he stole the election.

It has to be their side saying, the election was stolen.

Now, let me go back to the outlet, and who these people are.

The ones that put this miss, dis, and dangerous information out. You'll be surprised to hear that there's some of the same exact connections, to Colour Revolution.

Okay. So texty.org. That has provided this list, they do note that they couldn't establish direct proven ties between most of the people and outlets on its list. And the Russian government. Or known Russian propagandist.

Instead, they say, it just gathered evidence that these people same people and outlets have spread Russian advertise information by echoing key messages of Russian propaganda in their arguments against ending Ukraine further aid.

Okay.

So who is -- who is the -- who are the people behind texty.org. Texty.org, the cofounder is Antoli Bonde -- I could say it earlier. Bondenero (phonetic). Still wrong.

Anyway, who is he?

Has he ever been involved in anything?

Well, yeah. He was involved in the tech camp.

A public diplomacy program established by the Bureau of Educational and cultural affairs at the US Department of State.

What is the tech camp?

The tech camp is when they go into these countries, where they'll do a Colour Revolution.

And they find all these tech savvy people. And they show them how to build movements dependence their government.

That's what our State Department is doing.

Okay!

Do they -- would they like to clarify this?

Would anybody like to make a public statement on why we're there?

And, you know, curious why the editor-in-chief, and the cofounder, was trained by the State Department!

I mean, it's -- it's really interesting, that this organization has ties to the State Department and USAID.

Their founder was part of the tech camps.

I mean, it's weird. It's almost like we're -- we've been outed for saying bad things about the State Department, and the US government, perpetrating Colour Revolutions.

And saying, this is how they do it. And so then they have a Shell organization, that they themselves have created. To what?

Prove me right. Is that what's happening here. In hopes that you will never understand why names are on this list.

They say it's not a kill list. It's not an enemies list. It's just a list demonstrating the evidence supporting the thesis presented in the article. The article is not an accusation, but a study of the political and media context that influences government decisions regarding further support, for the Ukraine and the Ukrainian/Russian War. They don't deny, condemn, or dispute the right of American citizens, media, or institutions to express any opinions or hold any political beliefs.

Well, that is so great of them!

I wonder which State Department class, or USAID class they learned that one from.

Telling you, go back, it was last month. It was on the 29th of last month.

Look for my Thursday night special. It was all about Colour Revolution. And I urge you to watch it.

Because this -- you understand this. It was like -- you remember when I first said, if you understand Woodrow Wilson. You'll understand the progressive movement. And you'll see what they're after. And everything will start to come in clear?

It's the same thing with color revolution.

And I think texty. Just proved that. At least gave me enough -- enough of a nudge to remind you, you should watch that special.

Why would -- I mean, really.

Why -- why would we be on that list?

Hmm. Why would so many be on that list?

Now, some are just really anti-you know, Ukraine.

I'm not. You know, they put -- they put, what was it?

Ten people on the list. That were Congress men and senators, that were just calling for an accountant to be sent.

That's Russian disinformation?

You want an accountant -- you know what that says to me?

If you want to make that person an enemy of your cause, you're doing something with the money that we should know about.

If you're just asking for -- I mean, want accountability.

We'll send the money. I mean, want accountability.

If you call them an enemy. I think they're right. We should have accounts. You know what I mean?

Maybe it's just me and more disinformation.

Peter Gietl is the Blaze media managing editor for return.

And he has been looking into the -- the story that we were just telling you about. That this texty.org, put a list together. Of people that, you know -- I don't know, Peter, what -- what do they even say their motivation is? If it's not an enemies list?

PETER: They're trying to claim that, oh, this is just compiling information of people repeating Russian disinformation or propaganda.

But it's clear, they're -- they're conflating, you know, Russia today. With Blaze Pennsylvania and Tucker Carlson.

Anyone else who has any sort of questions about the funding, including left-wing organizations like Code Pink.

GLENN: Yeah. So I've been talking about Colour Revolution.

And I don't know where you stand on that.

But I really believe that that's what's happening in America and the left. And George Soros. And everybody else are doing what they've done in country after country for the last 20 years.

They've just perfected it. Examine now they're doing it here, to the United States. To topple her.

And make her into a democracy, instead of a republic.

But it -- it's interesting to me, that the -- the cofounder, is a guy who has deep ties to the State Department.

And to Colour Revolutions by hosting tech camp.

In one of those countries.

Am I far off base on that?

PETER: No. Absolutely not, Glenn. I completely -- completely agree with you on that.

And I found this weekend, originally, that we had been placed on that list. Along with you, and Blaze media.

But last night, I was able to dig deeper and uncover some pretty interesting stuff about this organization.

GLENN: Okay.

PETER: First of all, texty.org, they also go by Data Journalism Agency. Same board. Same email. Same address. And through the data journalism agency, they're funded by the global investigative journalism network. Which, in turn, is funded -- has been given $2 million, by the Open Society Soros Foundation.

So they're tremendously tied in.

GLENN: Right. Right.

PETER: But there's more. So then once you dig deeper. They openly admit.

Again, this organization that has placed dully elected members of Congress.

Media members.

Across America.

This foreign organization. Is also funded by the Eurasia Foundation.

Which is a United State government funding apparatus, including the transparency and accountability in public administration services.
And the US agency for international development.

And those are --

GLENN: On USAID. And those are always -- they're known by anybody who pays attention, as CIA fronts.

This is -- you know, the USAID comes into a country. They start doing things.

And next thing we know, we have a revolution on our hand. Because that's the CIA. Correct?

PETER: Absolutely. Well, and they were also funded by the National Endowment for Ten months. Which is absolutely -- it's also --

GLENN: Also. Also on that list of everybody who has participated in a Colour Revolution.

This is crazy!

PETER: So all the usual suspects were here. Funding this organization.

GLENN: Right.

RADIO

Why Glenn is SHOCKED Hunter Biden Was Found Guilty

A jury has found Hunter Biden guilty on all 3 federal felony gun charges and Glenn is shocked. Is this proof, as the media is immediately claiming, that our court system was right about Donald Trump too? Or is there still reason to be concerned? And will Hunter serve a prison sentence – up to 25 years – or will his father, President Biden, bail him out again? Joe has promised not to…but Glenn wonders if that will change after the election is over. Glenn and Stu also discuss whether this is just the beginning of Hunter’s legal troubles as rumors start to circulate about his art and possible money laundering…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Well, it's quite a day! In Wilmington, Delaware, a federal jury has convicted Hunter Biden of federal gun charges.

Historic first for the offspring of a sitting president.

His trial had his ex-wife and his sister-in-law, talking about his drug use.

He faces now up to 25 years in prison. He's not been sentenced yet.

So that's what he faces. Up to 25 years, for three charges: Lying on a federal screening form, about his drug use. That is -- I mean, that is -- I think it even says on the form, this is a federal crime of like 25 years in prison.

You don't lie when you're buying a gun.

Don't do it!

Then lying to a gun dealer, and possessing the gun.

Although, first time non-violent offenders typically get shorter sentences. They'll give him his sentence here soon.

STU: Yeah. It's interesting -- about three weeks, they expect this. Three to four weeks.

Now, that sentence is, you know, one of those situations, that, you know, depends on how long it is.

You're right. First time non-violent offenders. The term is usually not too, too long.

If it's anything longer than let's say five or six months. You would assume despite his denials that Joe Biden will pardon him, the second the election is over. Is that your expectation?

GLENN: Yes. Of course he will. Of course he will.

STU: Yeah. I can't imagine he wouldn't. He's been getting his kid in and out of trouble, for the past 30 years.

GLENN: Yeah. Why would he change his -- you know, his parental habits?

STU: Yeah.

New York Times is reporting, that Hunter Biden's team was feeling, they say bullish about a non-guilty verdict before it was delivered.

So this was a surprise.

One of the interesting reactions to this, Glenn. I would love to get your take on this.

Now the left saying, well, I guess we won't be seeing anything about a rigged jury system, anymore. Today.

Will we?

Obviously, referring to the Trump case, when people were saying the -- the system was rigged.

Although, I don't know -- was that your take on that?

Do you think the system was rigged against -- with the Donald Trump verdict?

GLENN: No. First of all. First of all. I would have said, the system is rigged.

When the Justice Department, you know, colluded with the White House.

And came up with some bogus, you know -- bogus plea deal, that nobody in the world, would have ever gotten.

This is -- now, there's no sentence. It says up to 25 years.

There's no sentence, so we don't know.

You know, but it's -- it -- this is normal.

This is the way it works!

Usually, just usually happens to people, much, much faster than this.

And when -- when Donald Trump was at trial, we weren't saying the system was corrupt. We were saying the system in New York City and Washington, DC, is corrupt.

Because just -- because of the voter base. You can't get a fair trial.

If you're Donald Trump.

But that doesn't mean the whole thing is corrupt.

You know, my point is, you have to play ball, the people in power, in New York, want you to play ball.

That's corrupt.

You know, I -- I think generally, we get it right.

STU: Yeah. I think often that happens.

I still think we have the best system out there.

Even though, there are massive problems with it. Specifically, in this case, when it comes to Donald Trump.

In that, I actually have legitimate hope, that the system. The legal system gets the Trump verdict right. Eventually.

Right?

I don't. I think there's a good chance it gets overturned on appeal. The problem with that, though.

Is that the time line of the legal system in our political system, are not -- are not working together.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

STU: Very well. Unless you happen to be a Democrat.

And of course that is intentional. But I do think that eventually, the court system will probably suss this out.

And I'm not at all surprised that Hunter Biden is guilty in this case. It's pretty blatant. That's overlooking what you just brought up.

They tried to completely brush this under the rug.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: The political system tried to get involved in this. Multiple times.

To make sure this didn't occur.

This he got caught. And so now, we have a jury, who actually does come to the right conclusion here.

Obviously, he was guilty of this. So --
GLENN: Yeah. There's no. You know, they weren't saying, you can't bring up this person, to prove that he was innocent.

This was his gun. That is his signature on the paper, where he lied. That is a huge penalty.

Then when his sister-in-law, lover was found that, you know, that his gun was in the glove box. She went and took it.

In a bag, that had cocaine powder in it.

Threw it into a garbage can, behind a supermarket. She should have been charged, quite honestly, as well.

But she took the gun and threw it into a garbage can. Because she was afraid their kids might find it. Well, so you will let somebody else's kids find the gun?

What are you -- you know, there's no --

STU: Not great.

GLENN: There's no question, that this is exactly what happened.

And you didn't have to make up laws, to say, or -- or skirt around whole sections of the law. To get this.

You're just enforcing the law. What's ironic about this, is dad is such the big anti-gun. You know, throw the book at them forever. You know, if they've ever had a cap gun, in their life. And he's going to end up. I truly believe, he will end up pardoning him.

STU: I think he will as well.

Of course, you know, these penalties are for thee, not for me.

And so all of these hard-core, I'm Mr. Tough anti gun guy. This is the exact type of stuff that happen Joe Biden was pushing for.

Larger penalties for these types of actions. I think the best defense for Hunter Biden. Which they didn't really get into on this trial. Probably will come up on appeal. Is a Second Amendment defense.

I don't think it's a winning defense. But I think it's a good argument. The question itself is not properly represented in our histories and traditions.

GLENN: Whether you're an alcoholic and drug addict, and you can't have a gun if you are.

STU: Right.

Like, if you go back and look at the early machinations of that, there's very much, in our histories and traditions. For example, you go into a bar. They take your gun as you go into your bar, and they give it back to you when you leave.

That type of stuff was common. Going back to the -- you know, when guns were first being buried.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: Typically it was not one of those things where they would do the same thing if you were an alcoholic. You would never get a gun if you were even sober.

GLENN: Yeah. I think you could even make a really strong case for that.

In saying that, you know, I'm -- I'm a recovering alcoholic. Should I own a gun?

You know, it's -- it's the practicing. Are you using drugs, are you using alcoholic.

We could argue about that. And there might be a case to do it.

However the left would not be for that. The left would be for -- for all alcoholics. No matter in recovery or not. Should own a gun.

STU: And all teetotalers as well.

GLENN: Yeah. And all teetotalers, yeah. But that is not what this case is built on.

This case is built on, you lied. On this federal form.

You cannot lie.

Everybody knows that. Everybody knows that.

STU: And it's true. And it's one of those things that I find this case to be the least interesting part of the Hunter Biden saga.

GLENN: Oh, this is -- yeah.

STU: It might not even be a constitutional question. I don't think there's -- he didn't shoot anybody.

Like, there's a lot -- he should have -- he should be -- the law should apply to him. Like they apply to everybody else. Much more interesting is the tax stuff. The financial stuff. And the stuff that ties into international business dealings that seemingly involve many of his family members. Including maybe his dad. Certainly his dad in my view.

Legally, we don't have that approved yet.

But can I ask one other question. This came up when you were gone, Glenn.

And I've been meaning to ask you about this, every second.

Since we talked about this story.

GLENN: I've never had sex with Hunter Biden.

STU: Oh, okay. You cleared it up.

No. This is the story that came out. And I was -- Pat and I talked about it last week.

And we both said on the air. The only person that we know, that can possibly answer this question is Glenn Beck.

The story is from the New York Times. And it's painted as this like, sob story about how we're so mean to Hunter Biden.

Right?

That's the tone of the story.

The headline is Hunter Biden's paintings, not quite the refuge he sought. The president's son started selling his artwork years ago. Drawing potential ethics concerns that were discussed in congressional testimony this year.

And it goes through a very long, you know, feature about his credible painting.

But it gets into details on the finances that I've never seen. Before.

And if you remember, they were talking about these paintings going for $500,000 a pop.

GLENN: Correct.

STU: In testimony, it came out. They found that actually, the most money he made was 85,000 for any of these paintings.

Okay. Which they -- they -- they hilariously say, is not common for a novice painter.

Really?

It's not common for a novice painter to make 500 or $80,000 on a painting.

GLENN: Right.

STU: But they go through the details here, right?

And they say, all in all, the gallery sold about $1.5 million worth of his art. Okay?

Just thrown in there, with no crinkled eyebrows at all from the New York Times. Is Mr. Biden's earnings proved more modest than the early hype had suggested.

He reported $130,984 in gross income from art sales, during the first two tax years, that he was represented by the gallery.

Then they go on, as if it's nothing. But is this the normal arrangement?

$1.5 million in art sales. Only nets 130,000 to the artist.

He's getting eight percent of the sales. Is that even possible?

GLENN: No. No. No. No.

If you are -- if you are bringing something to the table, which he is. He's bringing fame. He's bringing -- people will come to the art show, just to see him.

STU: Right.

GLENN: You can negotiate for a better rate.

Because I was a new artist. I negotiated with my gallery. 50 percent.

They take 50. I take 50.

Because they're doing work. I'm doing work.

Whatever.

And if you're a new artist, you would do that.

He's a new artist, and this guy is bringing a lot to the table. Hunter is. He's bringing not only the art.

But he's bringing I'm the president's son and I'm in the newspaper. All the time.

So people are coming into this guy's gallery.

However, you know, it might be shady. You know, you -- you're -- I don't -- you know, I don't know. If this was somebody who knew Hunter Biden, who he did. And knew that he was on the up and up.

And everything else. He should not get 8 percent. It would be more likely that he would get hmm.

45, 55 percent.

STU: Yeah. Like I can see, you getting a really good deal with the gallery. Because you also are bringing like some level of notoriety.

Right? And he would have a similar deal. But even if he got half of what you got, it would be much, much more than -- than what's reported here in the New York Times.

GLENN: 8 percent. No. That's ridiculous.

That's ridiculous.

STU: Ridiculous.

GLENN: 8 percent is ridiculous.

He obviously -- if that's the real deal. He obviously made it while smoking crack.
(laughter)
That's -- I mean, honestly, that's ridiculous.

Glenn's Show Prep

With Bill O'Reilly Gone, It's the Beginning of the End of Fox News as We Know It

What Europe’s REJECTION of Globalism Means for The World

Transcript

Why Hunter Biden's Conviction Could BACKFIRE

Transcript

The REAL Reason Why Glenn is On a US-Funded Ukrainian 'Enemies' List

Transcript

Why Glenn is SHOCKED Hunter Biden Was Found Guilty

Transcript