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MIKE: There is some ambiguity as to how many of the insurance regulations of Obamacare could be repealed through reconciliation.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 --


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.

Media Sympathizes With HAMAS After Israel Frees Hostages?!

Media Sympathizes With HAMAS After Israel Frees Hostages?!

Israel has freed 4 hostages after 245 days of captivity in Gaza. But despite this, many reports in the media are sympathizing with Hamas at least as much as with the hostages! This is something Glenn and Stu have never seen before. Instead of focusing on the hostages, the reports focus on the damage Israel is doing to Gaza (according to Hamas and other Gaza groups). And some have even complained that Israel didn’t WARN Hamas before the raid! Glenn asks how media outlets can continue to take these stances, even with reports that Hamas is using some of these hostages as slaves!


Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Wow. The hostages at least four of them, the hostages have been rescued from two different locations during an operation that happened Saturday, during the day.

The medical condition is -- is normal. I guess.

Hamas-run ministry of health in Gaza, said at least $274 Palestinians were killed, and more than 400 injured in the operation.

Gaza Ministry doesn't differentiate between fighters and civilians. So, yeah. Spokesperson for the military, put the figure fewer than 100.

You know, what I really liked is the fact that the -- all the reports start coming out about how bad it was for Hamas.

Dozens of injured people are lying on the ground. And medical teams are trying to save them. With the simple medical capabilities that they have.

Said the Gaza health ministry.

You know what he should have done? He shouldn't have built the headquarters for Hamas underneath your hospital.

You know, might have worked out a little better for you and your people, you know.

STU: Do you think, Glenn? Is there -- and this is not -- I've never been in this situation, so I don't know. Is there a path to avoid bombings, that include not taking hostages?

Is there something about taking the hostages that leads to this -- these --

GLENN: No. Those are totally separated.

STU: Totally separate.

GLENN: Totally. You're talking apples and eggs.

STU: Apples and eggs. Okay.

Yeah. I just wanted to make sure.

Because at some level, it almost feels like, when you take hostages and you torture them. And you keep them against their will. And do all these horrible things. That might actually be the reason why the -- the -- the Israelis would come in. I don't know if it's tied.

GLENN: No. Apples and eggs. And I say that, because oranges like apples, come from a tree. And then you can trace their roots down.

STU: Right.

GLENN: But you can't compare that to something that comes right out of the butt of a chicken. And I think that's what this is.

Is -- these guys. You know, the other thing is. You don't want civilians hurt, that don't keep your hostages at civilian homes.

STU: At all.

GLENN: You want us to believe that all the Gazans are also oppressed. And they just don't like Hamas.

Then why are you hold them in people's houses?

By the way, in one case, enslaving them. I think it was a doctor.

And gosh darn it, he was killed.

But he took -- he took one woman, and enslaved her at his house.

Made her -- forced her to take care of the house, and everything else.

Which is a better fate than honestly, what I think a lot of them would get. But I'm not giving them credit for this.

I am now giving them credit to add slavery to the list.

However, he was killed.

She -- she apparently was in the house. The IDF broke through the door. She thought it was Hamas. She freaked out. Just froze.

And they said, we're with the IDF. She didn't believe them. Then one of them came up to her and said, ma'am, we have to get you out of here.

May I throw you over my shoulder? And she started crying because she knew, that's not Hamas. And he threw her over the shoulder, and got her out. And yet, they're the bad guys somehow or another.

I don't get that.

I really liked the comment that I saw on the news, that Israel should have given Hamas some warning, that they were coming in.


Yeah. Me too. Me too. Me too.

STU: Those worked out well. The element of surprise. When you tell people about it. Is always a good part of it.

GLENN: Yeah. I thought it was unfair, on D-Day. Hitler slept through it.

We didn't call him up. And say, hey. This a couple of hours, we're come up, you might want to prepare. We didn't give him any notice. You know.

STU: Yeah. And it's weird. Just because we have many, many reports and such, about how -- what Hamas' directive is -- when -- if someone comes from the IDF. Or Israel should come for the hostages.

Shoot the hostages in the head.

It will be interesting why we wouldn't give them a heads up. Like, hey, we need to get these people shot before we get there. Or you're not going to be living up to your bargain with Hamas.

They're letting Hamas down!

GLENN: Right. Right. Right.

And you know what also is interesting?

Is, you know, we didn't give the heads up on D-Day. And nobody says that's wrong.

But then we did give the Japanese ten days of notice, about the bomb.

And named the cities, that we were going to drop it in.

And we still get blamed for that one.

I'm trying to understand.

It seems like, it doesn't matter what you do.

STU: Again, just like the whole thing we were talking about earlier. I don't have any internal knowledge here. But it almost seems like. Seems like, when Americans -- when Jews are involved, that side always gets blamed, no matter what the circumstances are! It can't possibly be that simple.

GLENN: Yeah. Especially the Jews. When the Jews are involved. By the way, any of us the Czech Republic. And do you remember the documentary I did on Kurt Garren, the movie actor from Germany who was Jewish.

He thought he was going to survive it. But he would been making fun of Hitler and the Nazis for like five years before they came to power. No. Not really.

And he was forced to make this propaganda film, at this concentration camp, that they had in this city, and it looked fantastic. I mean, everybody who was anybody in the Jewish -- you know, the scholars, the scientists, the -- you know, orchestral players, et cetera, et cetera.

All the people that the German people might know, they were all set to this one city in Czechoslovakia. It happened to be, I didn't know it when it went. It's right outside of Prague.

And it is terrifying. Absolutely terrifying.

It's a city. It's not like a concentration camp. It's like this beautiful, little city. But if what you know they used it for. You're like, oh, my gosh. This is creepy. And people still live there.

They moved in afterwards. And it's almost, you would like it, Stu. Because you and I are fascinated by things like Chernobyl. That have this horrible history. And then they're just vacated for a long time. People just started living back in this city. And it's really -- really weird.

But one thing I noticed. Is that we're doing a lot of the same things that they're doing back then.

Which is, you know, a little bit disturbing.

STU: Disconcerting.

GLENN: Yeah. A little bit. By the way, so we apparently provided support, for the raid.

Do you believe that?

STU: Normally, I would say --


STU: Yeah. That's like our main -- like that would be the thing.

Especially considering Americans were at stake. American lives are at stake, with the hostage lives as well.

You would think, it would be the main focus of our country right now. To make sure we get our hostages back.

I don't know. Now. It's so strange. I don't understand. Biden seems to be very, very back and forth on this.

Where he will sometimes say things that I think are actually pretty good. And then completely reverse himself, as soon as Ilhan Omar says something. Because I don't believe necessarily that we helped. But also, I don't know why we communicated that to the media, as well. If we didn't help. It doesn't seem to be the message that Biden wants to send.

GLENN: Here's the bigger thing.

Would Israel take our help, for something like this?

One leak, and it would have been all over. One leak.

STU: Yeah. Would you trust?

GLENN: You're going to bring the United States military and Intel into that world, and trust them to keep their mouths quiet?

No way. I don't believe it. I think Israel said that.

You know, to -- you know, kind of keep up the pretense that we're all in this together. But I would be shocked, if it was the administration that said, yeah.

Let's do this together. And let's keep it quiet. And it kept quiet.

STU: It's possible, we gave some guidance as to where they thought they were. Maybe some surveillance that supported the operation.

But you're right. I think as far as telling them, when it was going to happen. I mean, just think of every schlocky intern that works for the Biden administration.

But there's so many of these advisers that are so anti-Israel.

Even if you believe Biden is an old-school Democrat, and has some friendliness to Israel still.
Even if you buy that. You buy that he's Chuck Schumer, 1997. If you want to believe that, or Joe Biden 1997. He's changed so many times.

But like, if you believe that, maybe you would think, he would still be in favor of this.

But you can't trust any of the people around him. I mean, they're -- they're all like 28-year-old bloggers.

GLENN: Yeah. I know. And the Intel agency, which is hand in hand now, with the State Department. And none of those people want to do anything for Israel.

I just -- I would find it -- I would find it irresponsible, on Israel's part, to include anyone in the Biden administration.

Into their plans. Other than, hey. Would you help us do some surveillance -- you know, satellite surveillance.

Sure. When? Well, we just started the operation about 15 minutes ago. And here's what we would like to you surveil. You know what I mean?

Because that's the way some countries will do that with their allies. We start a war. We'll start something, and we'll call them up, just as we're launching the war, so there's nothing they can do to stop it or hurt it.

STU: Yeah, and, of course, that would be certainly a main concern of Israel.

I will say, Glenn. Have you ever seen another example. I couldn't come up with one off the top of my head.

But another example in history, where you have an operation. A wartime operation, to free hostages, that the -- the side that freed the hostages, is the one getting criticism.

I can't -- I can't think of another example.

GLENN: I know.

STU: Ever. Like you mentioned the camps.

Like, you know, we killed a lot of innocent Germans in our effort to see free the camps.

Right? Like, a lot of them.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

STU: Maybe more than we actually freed. That was never -- that's something we make movies about, to honor the memory of those efforts.

You didn't criticize the army that's going in there freeing the hostages. Immediately after this, there were like four hostages freed. But the Gazans said 200 people were killed.

Like we're supposed to compare those numbers and say, oh, well, 200 was more than four.

So the Gazans said it, so we believe it.

GLENN: And even if it is true. Even if it is true.

By the way, you were keeping those four in the homes of regular people.

You're the one putting them in danger! You're the ones that built the -- the -- the infrastructure underneath the hospital.

You did it, because you like human shields.
That's why there's -- that's why they're there. So any of that stuff is just garbage.

Alex Jones & Glenn Beck WARN: Trump is the Next Lawfare Target

Alex Jones & Glenn Beck WARN: Trump is the Next Lawfare Target

In a surprise move, Alex Jones has agreed to liquidate his ownership of Infowars. He joins as a guest on the Glenn Beck Program for the first time to explain why: Just a few days ago, according to Alex, the chief restructuring officer overseeing Infowars after his $1.5 billion Sandy Hook case “got so desperate” that he tried to go around the court and seize Infowars. But this is just the latest stage in a massive series of lawfare attacks against him, Glenn and Alex believe, which also included an attempt to get Alex to “sell out” and let a board control Infowars. So, why are they trying to destroy him? Glenn argues that Alex was the guinea pig for the Left’s lawfare machine that it’s now turning against former president Donald Trump...and then, against the American people. So, what’s next for Infowars? Why did they try to silence him NOW? And is the Left now beta-testing a new kind of attack that’s “outside the law?”


Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: This weekend, I read that Alex Jones is having to divest himself of Infowars, released his share in it.

I don't know what that exactly means. He also said that the feds were going to seize it, if he didn't do something.

I read that yesterday.

We wanted to have Alex Jones on.

We have a podcast planned in September. So I want to kind of keep this narrow here, on what's going on, with him. Because I think this is -- I think this is -- he was the guy, the left tried law fare out on.

You know, the -- the early days of boycott, Sharyl Attkisson said, that trying to get somebody off a network and mainstream media. They tried to perfect that on me.

I was their -- their first real to guinea pig.

I think Alex Jones was the first guinea pig in lawfare. And it's exactly the same thing that's happening to Donald Trump now.

This is -- this is the way they're going to fight in the future.

And if anybody thinks.

You know, whatever you think of Alex Jones. What he said. He's apologized for.

And he said, he shouldn't do it. Their damages. I don't know.

But certainly, not 1.5 billion. What is Dr. Evil.

Was he in the jury box.

What the hell was that?

$1.5 billion. We talk to Alex Jones.

So, Alex. What -- what is going to happen now?

Because I read you are going to sale your assets. But if you sell. There's nothing left.

And, you know, who is going to -- honestly, Infowars without you, is nothing.

You are the asset of Infowars. So what -- what do you have -- are they forcing you to sell all of this stuff?

ALEX: Yes. And thanks for letting me give you the backstory so it makes sense.

So I told you exactly what is happening. Okay. I'm an LLC sole proprietorship. And so I own 100 percent of the shares of the company. That's why under law, the CRO cannot just shut this place down.

That's illegal. And so that's what my lawyers have told them. So I agree to pay 55 million over ten years. Which is protected. What extra revenue there would be. They said, no.

We want a board. We want to control what he says.

This is in meetings he had. But I couldn't talk about it, until outside of me, they now told my lawyers, a few weeks ago.

Right to their faces. My lawyers said, you can talk about it now. We can't believe it. They want you to start by talking about the Second Amendment.

They wanted me to he sell out.

So they told lawyers. They told Reuters, the most accurate story out there.

Some of it is wrong. It's still pretty much true.

The headline is: Sandy Hook families agree to Alex Jones' bankruptcy liquidation. Well, they had already filed for that.

And then in the article, they say, while liquidation will yield only a fraction of the money he owes the families. They have objected to his proposal, because it would have kept him in control of both Infowars and his wealth for years.

While also tapping the total amount to be paid towards the defamation claim. So they refused. And it goes on, that they wanted to have a board control this place. That they appointed, where I would work with them.

And, of course, if I would play ball. Then, of course, I can make money.

So my operation has been taken over. For whatever reason, they decided to try to shut it down eight days ago, outside of court. Which is totally insane. Because they feel like, well, this guy is a target. And we can do what we want.

And now they're so panicked to get me off the air, for whatever is coming for the rest of the country. So that's what's happening. So what's going to go down is, the judge will either give it back to me on Friday.

And it will just come to the state and shut it down, in a week or quicker. Because Austin is as bad as New York or DC. One of the worst in the country. I'm going to move out of here. Even though my family is from here.

GLENN: Austin is awful.

ALEX: It is. It is. It's all woke. Soros controls the DA on record --

GLENN: Yeah, it's awful.

ALEX: It's totally controlled.

So Infowars will --

GLENN: So hold on. Hold on just a second. I'm sorry to do this to you, Alex. I have to take another network break. Back with Alex Jones to see where he's headed they can say. What his options are.

And where the country is headed. Because of all of this.

Make no mistake. What they did to Trump, they first tried on Alex Jones.

And they will do anything to silence anyone that has impact.

For the first time, I've asked Alex Jones to come on the program.

I know Stu heard inklings of this last week, and did probably about 20 minutes of tremendous defense of -- of you, Alex. On this whole case.

Being just nothing, but -- just a show trial. That's all it is.

What they did to Donald Trump. They first tried out on you. And they're still going for it.

So I don't understand how a judge could suggest that we violate your First Amendment right, by forcing you to not talk about the Second Amendment. I don't know how that's even possible.

But is this something that they suggested, will stop demanding the billion dollars, billion and a half dollars, if you let us control what you say and don't say?

ALEX: Yes. Before I got sued, now six years ago, I was in DC for meetings. And I had meetings with some of the Bilderberg members. Some major billionaires. I'm sure you got reached out to by as well, when you were exposing Soros and trailblazing on Fox, before they targeted you. And they literally would beat around the bush. And say, well, this major billionaire, richest man at the world around the time, he wants to give you $50 million a year for a free speech foundation. And you can still do your show, if you just talk to us about, you know, cleaning up what you do. And so it was all thinly veiled payoffs.

And then when I wouldn't do it, that's when they cooked all this up. And the project veritas spin-off group. FBI. CIA agents all admitted, bragging how they engineered all this.

And then, again, even in the Sandy Hook show trial case, they got the FBI agent up, won $95 million from me. I never said his name. Didn't knew who he was, until he sued me.

And he said, the reason he was suing, was one person called him office, that was real one time. But he admitted that he basically helped organize, organize all of this. So as we said before on the break. This is all about targeting the American people.

But even in Connecticut and Texas. This is all on TV. This is all on the record.

The lawyers for the case, this all worked for high-powered Democratic law firms. The same ones suing you on Musk right now.

They went on TV at press conferences when they won. Because the judge already said they won.

But definitely on our show trial.

Never sent Alex Jones money. Don't buy his products. We don't want money. We want to shut him down.

And so they make good on this. The judge is appointed by Trump.

He's just following the law. They won't settle.

So they have this judgment.

And so he said, he was just kicking back in the state court.

Which they'll just instantly grab on operations. Or they have to settle. And they just admitted in the newspapers, they don't want money.

He's a bad person. We want him off-air. They're so arrogant. Just like what we see with AOC, and a bunch of other Democrats last month. Say, we have to keep Trump in court, so he can't campaign.

And said, it's an ankle bracelet. So they're so pained. But also a mix of hubris at the same time. They're admitting what they're doing.

That's what -- what -- is so crazy.

STU: But, Alex, they can't -- I mean, maybe they can.

They can't hold a judgment, that you have no way to ever pay. Nobody -- no individual -- you know, unless you're Bill Gates.

Is paying $1.5 billion in a judgment.

Especially this one.

And I contend. No matter what, Bill Gates could have been on pedophile island, on TV. Doing whatever he was doing.

And he still wouldn't have to pay 1.5 billion, for that.

And I'm obviously not saying he was doing anything on pedophile island.

I'm just making that as an example.

Anyway, so they can't keep -- they can't force you to not make any money at what you do for a living. Can they? For the rest of your life?

JULIO: No, you're totally right. They're showing they don't want money.

But let me just explain this quickly. One week after they won the fake show trial, where the judge already said I was guilty. She issued an order, to seize all my assets. Even stuff under the Texas Constitution on my house. That was protected. And immediately ordered me to, quote, bring all my property and my keys to Connecticut or face imprisonment. That's why I had to file bankruptcy, hoping the federal courts would be better. So the last two years, I've been battling there. Then they got so desperate eight, nine days ago. Two Fridays ago, to literally have the federally appointed COO close the and building kick me out. So that's the level of this.

And that's why I go back to this, Glenn. This is totally desperate. You're absolutely right. They beta tested getting people off networks with you. They bragged about it.

They made a test against the law fare against me for Trump. Now they're beta testing, just grabbing stuff outside of law. That's -- this is just -- it's probably said a thousand times.

They're not trying to get me. They're trying to get through me, to get to you.

And that's why -- I'm a canary in the coal mine. They take me in the big audience. I'm also flamboyant. I've been on here thirty years, and you can dredge up some stuff and make me look nuts.

Because I have said I wasn't joking around or whatever, being a jerk. That I'm a different guy.

That's taught me a lot. Before this, I was already cleaning up my act. But now, I'm like a totally different gray-haired attitude, who just tries to do a professional show.

And these people are so wild-eyed they don't care. So I appreciate you standing up for the first Amendment. I don't know where I'll be. I haven't entertained other jobs.

I've tried to save this. I feel like I have a family member that's on death's bed. People can find me @RealAlexJones on X.

And, you know, they've said they will hunt me down, and try to shut me down. No matter where I go.

But the law is very clear in Texas, and federally.

I will be able to work for somebody in the future. Glenn, with this billion and a half dollar fake judgment, I won't be able to ever own the company, which is fine with me.

But here's the larger issue. We still have appeals at the state of Texas and Connecticut. And even part of the judge's ruling, taking the law license of my lawyer, who did a good job, as a criminal lawyer. The Supreme Court of appeals, overturned, her -- her suspension of his law license.

So people are starting to wake up. Mark Twain said a lie goes halfway around the world, before the truth puts its pants on.

But once the truth puts its pants on, it tends to win, and catch up. So people are getting this danger now. And if we can just get Trump in, if we can just not let them stage a race war and all this stuff, that they're trying to cook up.

And conservatives. You just pray, and be focused and be vocal. And just move forward and stay non-violent in the face of a mostly peaceful summer. That we know is coming. We're going to take this country back if we have to.

GLENN: Yes. Yes. It's already happening in Europe.

Alex, one thing. I want you to look -- have your lawyer look into a case. Disney against digital -- not Digital Angel. It was. It became Angel Studios. What was that thing called Stu?

STU: VidAngel.

GLENN: Look for a court case against VidAngel and Disney. They said that they were going after VidAngel over copyright, but they weren't.

They were going after them. It was a personal vendetta. A lot like this. Disney was going to put these people out of business, forever.

And the court appointed a restructuring. Because Disney won.

And the guy who came in said, one of you is lying.

Either Disney is lying. And they just want to put you out of business. And they just want total control.

Or you're lying. But when I find out which one it is. I'm going back to the judge.

And the judge ruled against Disney, and changed everything. Okay?

You -- you could prove.

Just look at that case.

Because I think if you have somebody who is intent as you're restructuring. Their job is to not put you out of business.

Their job is to restructure and get their clients, or their people they're supposed to be working for, money.

If this -- if their intent is to shut you up. I bet you, the Disney versus VidAngel court case, may help you.

ALEX: That's why I love listening to your show. And that's why I love being here. Because, Glenn, I would have never thought of that. One of my lawyers did -- did basically file something a year and a half ago to the judge.

Saying, look, here's the video. Here's the links where they say they don't want money. They're here to shut him down.

And then the judge said, I'll hear that later. But I think it's time to add Disney versus VidAngel with that. We have them saying. We have like 20 minutes of them saying in the courthouse, in front of a huge --

GLENN: They can't do that.

ALEX: Saying, this is not about money. We want him off the air. Boom. There you go. That's genius. Thank you so much, Glenn.

GLENN: Yeah. Thank you, Alex. And we will sit down for a longer conversation. When I get back to Texas in September. So I appreciate it.

Thank you so much. God bless.

ALEX: Thank you so much, Glenn. God bless you.

GLENN: By the way, I would -- look, I stood for Bill Maher, when he was fired in ABC, and what I said at the time was, what part of politically incorrect ABC do you not understand?

They fired him because he said something politically incorrect. I took a lot of heat.

It was new in my career, and people didn't trust me as a conservative then.

And I started sticking up for Bill Maher.

And I took a lot of heat. But it was right, because it was about the First Amendment.

I did the same thing for Roseanne Barr. I did the same thing for, what was his name? James Gunn. The guy who was the writer/director of Guardians of the Galaxy. You cannot only stand up for the people you agree with.

You must stand up for those people you disagree with.

Otherwise, the First Amendment, second. All of the amendments, mean nothing.

I -- I don't care what you think of Alex Jones. And I say this to every conservative outlet.

You should stand by the case of Alex Jones.

To make sure this injustice. Because this is law fare. And if you think they won't do it to you.

You are sadly mistaken. And unless, each one of us, at each of our own locations, stand up, and say, this is an injustice!

This is wrong. They'll put each one of us out of business. And silence us.

And it will happen faster than you can imagine.

I challenge every podcaster. Every radio broadcaster.

To stand up and defend the right for a man to be able to speak.

"All the Players Are In Place": Max Lucado On End Times Prophecies

"All the Players Are In Place": Max Lucado On End Times Prophecies

"All the players are in place" for the final End Times prophecies to be fulfilled, pastor Max Lucado tells Glenn on The Glenn Beck Podcast. Israel is a state again, the world is turning against it, and technology is more advanced than it has ever been. So, we must start looking at the world stage through a spiritual lens, not just a political one: "Something is happening here that has never happened in any generation in history."

Watch the full podcast HERE

Why The Elites MUST Discredit Any Claim of a "Global Cabal"

Why The Elites MUST Discredit Any Claim of a "Global Cabal"

Is the idea of a "global cabal" just a conspiracy theory? Or is there any truth to it? Award-winning journalist Alex Newman joins the Glenn Beck Podcast to separate fact from fiction and explain why it's "absurd" to dismiss any claim as anti-Semitic: "Some of the biggest victims of these people and these agendas are actually Jews!"

Watch the full podcast HERE