BLOG

Jake Tapper Doesn’t Back Down From Asking FL Sheriff the Tough Questions

What’s going on?

Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel seemed certain when he debated NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch in a CNN town hall last week and advocated for police officers to get more control and power to take away guns from people. But in an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper on Sunday, Israel revealed how little he knew about the school shooting in Parkland, Florida before he appeared in the town hall.

Remind me:

Seventeen people died when a shooter opened fire in Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School on Feb. 14. As teenage survivors advocate for gun control, investigators and journalists are pointing out more and more red flags that show the shooting suspect should not have been able to keep his gun.

The Broward County Sheriff’s Office is being investigated for not acting on a tip that the teenage gunman could be a “school shooter in the making.” Israel’s office reportedly received 18 calls about the shooter before the tragic incident.

Glenn’s take:

The office heard about the “school shooter in the making” in advance and did nothing. As we learn about the sheriff’s department’s incompetence, we should be even more leery of handing over more control.

“He wanted more law enforcement power. That should always scare people,” Glenn said. “What are you doing with the power that you do have?”

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: All right. So I want to talk to you about the school shooting and where we go from here, but I want to do it with this in mind: If it meant -- if it meant that we could stop all shootings, would you consider an infringement on your Second Amendment right? If it meant?

To me, the answer is yes. But I know the evidence shows that it doesn't work. So no.

If you could show me real evidence that this was an outdated mode of thinking and that, you know, we had somehow or another solved the reason why you should have guns in the first place, and that is against tyranny, and you need it for self-protection, well, then you could talk me into it.

But I've never seen that evidence. I've looked for that evidence. But I'm open to hearing new evidence. Share away.

If you are on the other side and I could show you evidence that we could do a few things beside not taking away guns and it was effective, would you change your mind? Would you say, well, let's start there.

And for both sides. If we could get to a place to where I could just say, look, you know, we want to have this gun debate, that's fine. But this is one of the oldest debates in American history. What is a militia? So we're not going to solve this in the next couple of weeks.

Do we all believe that more -- that more shooting is coming?

I think it's safe to say that, yes, we all know that. Okay. So what are we going to do to solve it? Well, the first thing is, what can we learn from this shooting? What can we learn from the last shooting?

We learned in the last shooting, in the church, that, A, somebody who is just a civilian with a firearm can stop the shooting. But we also learned that the Air Force was not reporting people with mental health issues or issues with guns and domestic abuse, to put them in the system.

That had to be changed. Now, what have we learned on this one? Well, I think one thing that we've learned is there's something wrong with this sheriff. There's something wrong -- deeply wrong in Broward County. It's one thing to have one guy that stays out of the building and waits while the shooting was going on. But there were four sheriff deputies.

STU: He denies that. Although, his denial has lots of -- you know, qualifications to it. Which maybe we'll hear some of that here in this interview.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: But I think, you know, there's also the thing of, what do you learn from this mass shooting. And one of the things, I think, when you're leading up to the mass shooting, is if every citizen in America has told you that one specific person is going to do a school shooting, that might be a time to understand that perhaps, that person is in danger of doing a school shooting.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: Maybe you should do something about that.

GLENN: When you have the number of reports and the number of altercations with this student that they did, and the sheriff's department did nothing, that's a problem. That's a real problem. And that's easy to fix. Let's make sure that's not happening anyplace else. Let's discuss this. And get to the bottom of it.

Jake Tapper started unraveling this hero sheriff's story over the weekend. And let's start with, why was there no report when they called and said, he's going to be a school shooter. He's a school shooter in the making. And he has access to guns.

Why was there no report? Listen.

JAKE: Fewer than three months ago, your office received a call from a tipster explicitly saying that crews could be a, quote, school shooter in the making. According to notes released on that call, no report was even initiated.

At this point, sir, do you understand how the public, seeing red flag after red flag after red flag, warning after warning after warning, they hear that your office didn't even initiate a report when they got a call saying that this guy could be a school shooter in the making? How could there not even be a report on this one?

VOICE: Well, if that's accurate, Jake, there needed to be a report. And that's what we're looking into, that a report needed to be completed. It needed to be reported to either our Homeland Security or violent crimes unit. And they would have followed up on it.

JAKE: That's from your notes. That's from notes released by your office. I'm not making this up. This is from Broward.

VOICE: No, and that's -- and that's what -- the officer who handled that is on restrictive duty. And we are -- that's an active internal investigation. And we're looking into it.

GLENN: Okay. So there's another person under his command that has failed to do the job.

Yet, he wanted more law enforcement power. That should always scare people.

What are you doing with the power that you do have? But he's been asking for more power.

Listen.

VOICE: The whole crux of this is giving law enforcement, giving deputies, giving police officers, not only in Broward County, but in Florida and around the nation, expanded power, to be able to do something more than just write a report. That's the whole reason I went on CNN and town hall --

VOICE: Sir, isn't making a threat against the school a crime?

VOICE: Not if the person doesn't have the ability to carry it out. You could say a nonspecific threat, I'm going to go to a school. It's not a crime. If the person doesn't have the apparent ability to carry it out, it's not a crime.

JAKE: Well, in September 2016, the shooter indicated that he wanted to buy a gun. Deputy Peterson knew about that. He initiated the report. The school launched a threat assessment.

At this point, you have somebody saying that they're going to shoot up a school and somebody with a gun. That's not enough?

VOICE: That's not enough.

GLENN: That's not enough. Huh.

STU: And that's just one of the incidents. Of course, there's dozens.

GLENN: Is that true?

STU: His first answer is, do they have the ability to carry it out?

GLENN: Yes. Wait. You're using reason.

STU: Okay. Should I calm down?

GLENN: You should calm down. Stop using reason. Let's just jump on his side or against him, depending on what our religion tells us to do.

STU: That's true.

GLENN: This is the problem. This is the problem.

So reason would tell you, well, let's stop here. Let's stop here. Is that true?

Now, we know that's not true. We know that's not true. There was a paper trail, very long against this kid.

So you obviously have enough power to make sure that he is not around guns, to make sure that he gets some sort of medical treatment, et cetera, et cetera. Whatever it is.

You may not be able to throw him in prison, but you certainly can restrict him, with all of the stuff that we had. So we know that's not true.

If it was true, that should be the first thing the sheriff is asking for. Right there. Here's specifics. I had 31, you know, complaints against this guy. Nineteen of them, we did exactly right.

Okay. We'll get back to the others that you didn't get right. But on those 19, I couldn't do anything. And we knew he had a gun. We knew that he was holding it to people's heads who he knew. That he was threatening to shoot up the school. And, "We couldn't do anything." We know that's not true.

But if it is true or if it were true, that should be the first thing we work on. Don't you think? Because there has to be other schools and other sheriffs that are facing the same thing.

I know this kid is going to go and do something, because of the 19 reports that we have. But I can't do anything.

We should hear from those sheriffs. We should know. Let us help you protect the children.

All right. Next cut.

When did he know about Peterson? I love this one.

JAKE: When did you find out that Deputy Peterson had not gone into the building? How soon after the shooting did you know that?

VOICE: Not for days. We --

JAKE: How many days?

VOICE: Our investigators looked -- I'm not sure.

JAKE: Because you spent much of the Wednesday night town hall on CNN with the entire Stoneman Douglas community, students and teachers and parents attacking the NRA, saying the police needed more powers, more money, to prevent future tragedies.

You didn't disclose any of this to the crowd then, the stone man Douglas High School community. Did you know it then? Did you know it Wednesday night?

VOICE: It was spoken about during that -- earlier, during that day. I'm not a time line for TV or any news show. We need to get it right. We need to get it accurate. We're talking about people's lives. We're talking about a community. We need to corroborate. We need to verify. And once we did, the next day -- and I looked at the tape, and I was 100 percent certain that it happened the way I was told about the investigators initially told about. I didn't even release it that second.

JAKE: You didn't look at the video -- one week after the shooting, you hadn't looked at the video yet?

VOICE: I looked at the video as soon as the investigators -- it wasn't my job to look at the video. It was investigators' job to look at the video. I'm still sheriffing this -- this -- this -- this county. There were many things to do. We have investigators -- homicide investigators, internal affairs investigators dissecting it. And when they felt there was a video ready for my view, that I might take action on one of our deputies, I looked at the video.

STU: I mean, if you believe this guy hadn't seen that video before that town hall in a week's time --

GLENN: Then he needs to be dismissed as incompetent just for that.

STU: I mean, there's tons of things that I would love to sell you.

But the other thing is, can you imagine -- forget even if he saw the video. He tells you there that he knew about it going on stage.

Can you imagine the balls to go on stage on national television, and yell at Dana Loesch and say that she's not standing up for these kids, when you know that your deputy was actually not standing up, he was crouching behind a wall, while people were being executed inside the school. Can you imagine the balls to go on television and not bring that up?

GLENN: Now, listen to this. Listen to this idea.

STU: That's incredible.

GLENN: Let's just fix reason firmly in her seat. And let's use his logic. He doesn't want to go on television. Because there's a crowd there. It's a community. It's a community that's grieving.

And he wants to make sure, you just don't go in front of that community, in front of that crowd, unless he can verify everything and he's 100 percent sure, that that's what happened.

So he was 100 percent sure that the NRA caused this shooting? He's 100 percent sure that it was the gun and not the kid?

He was 1 percent sure, even though, he had evidence presented to him, that things could have been different if -- not one. But four of his deputies would have moved in. He was 100 percent sure that it was the NRA's fault. But he wouldn't bring anything -- he wouldn't bring anything about his group, unless he was 100 percent sure. And he just wasn't -- he wasn't there. But he was so sure that the people who weren't there, were at fault.

I don't -- I don't understand that. That doesn't seem like you're really doing an investigation. That seems like a witch hunt.

STU: Well, and he did want to let that fact out in front of the families, in a public forum. He wanted to do it one-on-one. He wanted to make sure that was one-on-one.

GLENN: I know. I know. Well, he did the very next morning in a press conference. So he didn't do it one-on-one.

STU: Hmm. He just put it out on a press release, talked to reporters about it.

GLENN: Yeah. Talked to reporters. But in this interview with Jake Tapper, one of the reasons why he didn't do it was because -- you just didn't tell people like that in a crowd or just an impersonal forum, like the town hall. You needed to -- you know, there was one parent that wasn't there. And he wanted to make sure everybody was there so he could personally tell them.

STU: So all of the parents were there at a press release? That's interesting.

GLENN: Press conference. No. No. It's strange, isn't it?

STU: You let that crowd attack Dana Loesch, calling her a murderer and all these other terrible things. It was mob -- it was Christians and lions, as you've been talking about it. I mean, absolute mob.

And you knew, as you were sitting on that stage and -- and making it worse by putting more blame on her and the NRA, you knew your own deputy -- you were going to fire him the next day for dereliction of duty because he didn't go in there. You, your judgment of it, his actions are so bad, and you don't even bring that up. In fact, you make it worse. You make people go after her. You make her life be threatened. That is an incomprehensible -- this guy makes it through this thing with his job, that is -- I don't even -- there is absolutely no justice.

GLENN: I will tell you that during -- during the town hall, during the town hall, CNN people wondered if Dana and others had security to be able to get them out. They've started to worry about the guest security.

Wow. Wow. Huh. I know I felt that way. But it's strange to hear CNN might have felt that way. And yet, they continued to go.

THIS is What Trump is Fighting For
RADIO

THIS is What Trump is Fighting For

The Left insists that former president Donald Trump is a fascist, practically akin to Hitler, whose immediate response to nearly being assassinated was to tell his followers to "fight." But Glenn has a different take: Trump clearly wasn't telling his supporters to take to the streets. In fact, Glenn believes there's only two reasons why Trump threw his fist in the air: “Either he’s a psycho or he actually believes in something that’s worth fighting for.” That "something," Glenn explains, is the true American way, not the ACTUALLY fascist global government system that President Biden is all on board with. In fact, Glenn says, that's why the global elites must destroy Trump: He's the only one standing in their way.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Welcome to the Glenn Beck Program. Well, the convention started last night. And something unusual happened.

Donald Trump appeared at the convention. That's something that doesn't usually happen on the first night. But Donald Trump was anxious to get there. And he walked in, about halfway through. I think it was probably 10 o'clock Eastern. 10:30 Eastern.

And he was different. He was different.

I don't know how to describe it. Don Jr had tears in his eyes. I think probably a lot of people did, and I saw a softer man.

I -- for the first time, I saw -- I don't know how to describe it. Maybe somebody who went I shouldn't be here. I -- I was not supposed to be here.

And here I am. And I think it was a humbling moment, and I'm anxious to see what Donald Trump has to say.

He walked in. People are making fun of him, for walking in with a big bandage on his ear.

Well, he lost part of his ear. I mean, this is -- this is such a miracle. There was a 5 miles an hour wind, and just that and him turning his head, made all the difference in that.

Remarkable. Now, when he walked out, people were chanting at the convention, here's that sound, cut seven.

VOICE: Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! fight! Fight! Fight! Fight!

GLENN: So now, let me put this into context. Because you will hear people say, they were screaming fight, fight, fight. Yeah. They were.

They were.

For a couple of reasons: First of all, in something that I thought was one of the most heroic things I have seen from a president, in a very long time.

President Trump, unlike, I think I would be, stood up after being shot in the head.

He's disoriented. You can see that he's kind of had the wind knocked out of him from the dog pile of the Secret Service.

He's standing up. And he makes a point. You can hear him on the tape, saying. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait a minute.

And he's telling the Secret Service to stop rushing him off of the stage.

So he can let the people know that he's okay.

And he raises his fist. And he says, fight! Fight! Fight!

That is a hero moment. No matter who you -- what you think about Donald Trump, I'm sorry. That is just stirring to see somebody, who for political reasons, they tried to kill.

They hid him, and he still stands up. The reason why people admire Donald Trump, is that, they have put him through everything.

They tried to bankrupt him.

They tried to call him all kinds of names. They tried to destroy his business.

Then they've tried to put him in Yale.

They've done everything. Impeachment, two separate sometimes.

They smeared him and his family. And now they tried to kill him. And the guy is not stopping! Why? Well, either -- either he's a -- a psycho, that just loves pain and destruction, which earnings.

Or he actually believes in something. That's worth fighting for.

And what is that? Donald Trump doesn't believe in the global government.

He doesn't believe in the global economy. The way it's being fashioned now, in a much more fascistic way. With public/private partnerships. You know, you play ball with us. And then you'll be able to take over. And crush your competitors. And everything else.

Because we'll protect you. But you need to play ball the right way. We're going to change capitalism. That is what's happening.

There is a new economic system, that has already been introduced. And that economic system, part of it, is -- is called modern monetary theory.

I talk about it in my book, The Great Reset.

And, again, in the follow-up book.

Modern monetary theory, six years ago, was insane!

Basically, what it says is, we don't have to have the tax revenue, to pay these bills.

We can just print as much money as we want.

Well, that's what they're doing! Well, that's what they did in Germany, in the Weimar republic. We know, because math remains math. There is something as an absolute truth.

And the closest we can get to it is mathematics.

It doesn't work.

But that's just to bring the United States. In my opinion. To bring the United States down, to everybody else's level.

For 40 years, we tried to bring the world up.

And it worked. Not universally.

And not everywhere. But wherever it was truly tried. And tried without corruption, it did improve the lives of people.

Capitalism works. Well, the Chinese thought of this new idea of fascism.

Bringing the state in with business.

Instead of taking businesses away from people. And owning the businesses. They let people own and run the business.

As long as you're in line with the state.

Well, that's what we're building now.

Donald Trump does not believe in that.

In fact, the reason why they have to kill him, I believe. Is because he's the only one that stands in the way of this new global government. And this new global business elite.

He doesn't believe in it. People are saying, he's saying fight. The first words out of his mouth were fight, fight, fight.

Yes. Isn't there anything worth fighting for?

And I don't mean with guns.

I don't mean a Civil War.

Isn't there anything -- are your children worth fighting for?

Of course they are. Your children worth standing up for? Of course they are. Are your children worth dying for?

Yes. Yes, they are. Hopefully, you don't ever have to get there. But, yes, they are.

You know you would sacrifice your life for your child. You know it.

Here's what I want you to do. When you hear the fight, fight, fight.

I want you to think, Donald Trump doesn't mean just that it's worth dying for.

Because I do believe our country and our freedom of our children. And the future of our children, is worth dying for.

But I don't want to get there. I hope we don't ever get there.

Fight, stand up.

Because our children and our children's future is worth living for.

That's the key. Now, yesterday, there was a really awkward interview with Lester Holt.

Where Joe Biden is just engaging in the same lies.

And I would really like to make it very apparent, by using the audio of both what Biden has been saying over and over again, and the audio of what was actually said, at the time.

And then you decide.

Who is telling you the truth?

Here is Lester Holt, and Joe Biden, talking about Charlottesville, again.

Listen.

BIDEN: I wasn't going to run again. Because I lost my son. I must feel -- until I watched what happened in Charlottesville, Virginia. Those folks are coming out of the woods with torches. Carrying swastikas, singing the same Nazi bile, accompanied by the Ku Klux Klan. And a woman was killed. And -- and it was a bystander.

And the president -- then president was asked what he thinks. He said, there are very fine people on both sides. There are not fine people on both sides. No excuse.

GLENN: Okay.

You can go to Snopes, and look this up.

But I urge you to do that. But why take the time to do that, when I can just present you with the actual audio, of what Trump said in 2017.

Listen. And you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people. On both sides. You had people in that group, excuse me. Excuse me.

I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group, that were there to protest, taking down to them, a very, very important statute, and a renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another that I am. And you had people -- and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned, totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists, okay?

GLENN: So now you are left with this question: Why would president Biden continue to tell this lie?

There's one thing you can -- you can dismiss that, you know, no. No joke. I was a truck driver. No, he wasn't.

No. No joke. I was a constitutional scholar for many years. No, he wasn't.

No. No joke, the ladies loved me. No, Joe, they don't. Well, the children love me. No, they don't either. They're creeped out by you.

The one thing that you can say about Joe Biden, is he always is self-aggrandizing. And I think that's because he's really never done anything. I mean, he was a senator, yes.

But he was not the world's greatest senator by any means, and there's lots of senators on both sides, that kind of fall into this category. And he thinks of himself as a great man.

You can take those kinds of lies and kind of feel sorry for him.

Not this one. And these -- these lies like this one, that the left continues to tell, they are told for a reason. To get you to believe, something that is not true.

So if you're listening today, for the first time. And you're thinking anew. And you're thinking, maybe I missed something.

This is what you're missing. I talk to people all the time, who have no clue as to what is going on in the world.

They -- they have only heard the mainstream media. And the left. And they have left out facts. Now, we can spin things any way we want.

But facts are facts.

Why listen to people, who constantly, knowingly, tell you something about a fact, that is not true?

Don't worry.

Inflation, it's transitory. Don't worry. People are doing better.

Is that true? And can you afford another four years of that?

The ONLY Thing the Left Gets Right About "Project 2025"
RADIO

The ONLY Thing the Left Gets Right About "Project 2025"

Democrats have a new boogeyman: The Heritage Foundation's "Project 2025". They claim that former president Donald Trump has endorsed the program and will use it to turn America into a dystopian fascist dictatorship. But what's actually in Project 2025? The Heritage Foundation's president, Kevin Roberts, joins Glenn to debunk the myths and lies. In fact, he says that the Left has only gotten ONE thing right about Project 2025.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: One of, I believe, the real, true patriots in America.

Is Kevin Roberts. He's the Heritage Foundation president. We have gotten to know each other quite well over the last year or so. And I have tremendous respect for him, his courage, and what he's also doing at the Heritage Foundation. I had a -- a family reunion this weekend, this last weekend. And we had about 30 people -- 35 people here. And, you know, not everybody votes the same way that I do. In fact, some of my family kind of rolls their eyes at some of the things I say. And that's fine.

And we're still family, and we love each other. And we had a great conversation about what was going on, especially after the assassination attempt.

And what came up over and over again, was project 2025. They're making it into a fascistic state, they are going to -- they are going to give the presidency so much more power. And I laughed, and I said, that's not Project 2025. That's -- in fact, that's the opposite of what they're trying to do.

This is something the Heritage Foundation has done every election year for many years, but never to this degree.

And Kevin Roberts is here to tell us about it. Hello, Kevin, how are you?

KEVIN: Glenn, my friend. Great patriot, it's a pleasure to be with you.

GLENN: Thank you. So, Kevin, talk to people who are hearing from the media, that this is nothing, but a way to carve out special exemptions for the president for fascism.

KEVIN: The best way to start. And we'll go into detail. Is to say, it is total projection by the left. I mean, you, perhaps more than anyone in our modern age. Has shown us, that whatever the left has accused our side of. Is actually something they themselves are guilty of.

So project 2025, is actually a corrective to the very thing, the left is accusing us of doing. That is, they are the ones particularly since LBJ's presidency in the 60s take it. Who have accrued all this power in the hands of unelected bureaucrats in DC.

We feel that in every respect. Every industry. Every business. And even in most of us in sort of our everyday lives.

But ultimately, what project 2025 will do is address the problem of the administrative state in DC, being weaponized against the everyday American. It's the biggest threat, as you know, the administrative state, Glenn, to a republic, where citizens vote for a new president, and a new direction. And yet, nothing changes.

In fact, what we will see, is any aspects of project 2025, are implemented. Is finishing of the scope of Washington, DC, and an increase in freedoms. And the presidency and the legislative branch and the judicial branch. All being returned to proper order.

In other words, it really is the -- I think the single best set of policy ideas, about how we go back to the original founding vision as our Founders had it of this constitutional republic.

GLENN: You know, I said to some of my relatives. Look, you and I agree on one thing. I think.

And they did. And that is, no citizen should ever be afraid that the president of the United States, is going to get them.

That this election would put somebody in office, where he could take away freedoms of people he didn't like, or didn't agree with.

That's -- I'm absolutely against that. Because I know it always come to bite whoever did it in the butt. Because they'll eventually get to you. And that's not our system. This ensures that the president, no matter which side they're on, doesn't have that power to get his enemies, or to just rule his way without the consent of Congress and the people.

KEVIN: That's right. And if that kind of abuse and weaponization against the American people, using the administrative state we've seen against the right, the political right, by President Biden, were for some reason to be done by a conservative administration.

We at Project 2025 and to Heritage, to your point, Glenn, would be just as apoplectic. Every one of us, from the far left to the far right, wherever someone is on that political spectrum needs to wake up in this country, and believe that of all entities, the federal government is going to be objective and neutral and fair and just, and equal, in how it treats all of our citizens. And so the real problem that we're trying to address, isn't just the accrual of power since the '60s, in particular.

It is, without getting engaged in hyperbole. Which you know I detest. Addressing the weaponization of the federal government, against individual citizens.

I will give you a quick story. That's a personal reference.

But it's emblematic of how people feel.

I'm as you know, a traditional Roman Catholic. It doesn't mean that people have to agree with that. But that's my religious liberty, and my family's to practice that. We have, over the last few years, those of us in that category. Not just been fearful of, but we know the following has happened.

We know this from the director of the FBI. And the attorney general of Biden's administration. They have targeted faithful, traditional Catholics because we like the Latin mass, as somehow being domestic terrorists.

It's that kind of nonsense, that project 2025 would bring to an end, if the next administration so desires to implement.

GLENN: So has Trump signed on for any of this?

KEVIN: Look, it's informal. The president of course has distanced himself from this, which is I think a smart political move, given how successful the left's mischaracterization of this has been.

Ultimately, though. To your question, great ideas, and great people rise to the top.

And so without it all being presumptuous, which you know I am not, and Project 2025 is sort of designed to sort of be in the background. Those great ideas and those great people, I think are going to be apart of this conversation, once the Trump fans and administration takes office.

So I would, for people trying to make sense of President Trump's comments, his campaign's comments and the project, understand, that we are in the political season right now.

And soon, we will move into the transition, and policy making season.

And I just have great confidence in the policies and people who are a part of it. And think that we will have a great era of good, common sense policy reform. That ultimately, is sort of neither conservative nor liberal. It's just right. And it's just common sense.

GLENN: I will tell you, that I read the website. And we're doing a show on it, tomorrow night.

To go through, what it is. And what it's not.

And if people will read it. I mean, I think the -- I think the media is doing a great service in a way. If people go to the website, and -- and really look up, what project 2025 is. And reads it. I think most Americans will agree with a lot of it. You know, you're -- you're talking about dismantling the -- the -- not the DOJ. But the -- the DHS.

You're returning the component parts to other agencies. You're talking about eliminating harmful regulations that have stifled innovation and small businesses.

More oil and gas leases. Less climate extremism.

No more overregulation of dish washers and gas stoves and everything else, that they said they definitely weren't doing.

I think, Kevin, the idea here is the administrative state has been made into something that can do all the things that they know they can't get past into laws. And that's what's got to stop. These people -- these elites are running these organizations, and they decide what's best. And it never comes to us.

And if we want to change, then we'll change. You can't force us to do that, especially as an unelected official.

KEVIN: That's the key issue. That Congress, of course, is complicit in this by not being forceful enough over the last decades.

GLENN: Big time.

KEVIN: And what it's done, frankly under both Democrat and Republican administrations is create this yo-yo effect of the Democrats and the Republicans issuing these executive orders.

I'm still hopeful enough about this country, Glenn, to believe that maybe a vast majority of us across the political spectrum.

Understand, that's not how we ought to make law. And so what we're trying to do with the proposals that we have in Project 2025, in addition to what you've said, is call for an end to DEI and CRT.

This is something that is vastly supported. Unfortunately, we probably see in addition to all of the aspects of the failure, on Saturday's near assassination.

The effects of that. That that was a higher goal.

DEI for the Secret Service director. Than real competence.

This is the point. Americans understand what is going on. Which is that a small group of people, have concentrated power. They are not elected.

They might be good people. We don't have to get into the personal side of this. But they are people who do not want those of us who are regular, normal people, to go about our lives. It's imperative that people understand, that the very reason the left has spent more money demonizing project 2025, than we've spent putting it together, tells you, it is a threat to their power.

And that ought to excite us, about the possibilities ahead.

GLENN: You know, you talk about in project 2025, something that I haven't heard for a long time.

And that's a flatter and fairer tax code with a 15 percent bracket and a 30 percent bracket. They, of course, will say, this is tax cuts for the rich, et cetera.

But it has shown, math does not lie. It has been shown over and over and over again. No matter what you do with the tax code. The government brings in about 18 percent, total.

And if you bring the tax code and bring it up to 95, people find loopholes. Don't pay their taxes, et cetera, et cetera.

And they still get about 17 to 18 percent, going into the Treasury. So why not do a flat tax, where everybody pays, you know, what's appropriate.

And you don't have all of these loopholes. That would be fantastic!

Chance that that happens?

KEVIN: I think there's a chance. In fact, in some recent interview. The last a couple of weeks.

President Trump has even hinted at that.

Obviously, we will have to deal as I country with tax policy. Because the Trump taxes are up for renewal.

And I think there's an opportunity, depending on the president, the Vice President of course will want to do. We will be of service to that.

Is to insert into that, a flatter system. I mean, I'm old enough to remember, when as a country, ten or so years ago. We were on the cusp of implementing that kind of thing.

This is an excellent example of something that is in Project 2025. That is wildly supported by a majority of people. And it leads me to the following connected point, Glenn. You touched on this, just a minute ago.

Project 2025 covers, literally, every policy issue known to man. It is a menu of policy options. I have not met one fellow conservative whether that's my wife or one of my siblings. Or my dad. All staunch conservatives who agree with 100 percent of what's in there.

The point is not to seek unanimity. The point is to provide a menu of options that represent the popular will, that if President Trump and vice president Vance so choose, there's actually a substantive plan behind that political impulse.

And that actually, I would like to think, for people who are more objective in the political center, or the political left.

Give people a little bit of comfort. That actually what we're trying to do here is have a governing agenda, following the lead of the people who make these decisions. And I think as time goes on, to sum up here, the more we understand that's actually what this project is about. The more we're not only telling the truth. But we're actually kneecapping what has been a last ditch desperation attempt by the left, which can't run on the record.

GLENN: Can you do me a favor? I have about 60 seconds. I just want to run through some true and false. Because these are the things that are being said it. I just want to know if it's true or false. In Project 2025, there is a call to end no fault divorce. True or false?

KEVIN: False.

GLENN: Complete ban on abortions without exceptions, true or false?

KEVIN: Extraordinarily false.

GLENN: Ban contraceptions, true or false?

KEVIN: False.

GLENN: Higher taxes for the working class?

KEVIN: False. The exact opposite.

GLENN: Additional tax breaks for corporations and the 1 percent?

KEVIN: False.

GLENN: Elimination of unions and worker protections? My gosh, look at what they're saying.

KEVIN: I know. So false.

GLENN: Cut Social Security.

KEVIN: False.

GLENN: Raise the retirement age.

KEVIN: False.

GLENN: End the Affordable Care Act.

KEVIN: False.

GLENN: Raise prescription drug prices.

KEVIN: False.

GLENN: Eliminate the Department of Education.

KEVIN: True, my friend. That's the one thing they get right.

GLENN: Love that. Use public taxpayer money for private religious schools, true or false?

KEVIN: False.

GLENN: Teach Christian religious beliefs in public schools.

KEVIN: False. We understand it's a pluralistic country. We love those schools. But that's up for people to decide.

GLENN: End civil rights. And DEI protections in government.

KEVIN: Well, we definitely want to end DEI nonsense. But obviously the great thing about project 2025, we're restoring civil rights, if anything.

GLENN: Ban books and curriculum about slavery?

KEVIN: False.

GLENN: Ending climate projections. Or protections.

KEVIN: Well, the ones that aren't based on science, will come to an end. But we certainly understand the value of science, and protecting the environment.

GLENN: I have to tell you, this is why we're doing a whole show on it.

What they're saying about this is incredible.

What it is, it's not. You can find it at heritage.org.

Or go to project 2025. I believe that's project 2025.org.

Kevin, great to talk to you. We'll talk to you again.

KEVIN: Thanks, Glenn. Take care.

“This Should Have Been Identified”: Security Expert Explains Failures at Trump Rally
RADIO

“This Should Have Been Identified”: Security Expert Explains Failures at Trump Rally

It's clear that many things went wrong with security on the day of Trump's near-assassination at his rally in Pennsylvania. "The Secret Service, in my view, is inept," Glenn says. Former Department of Defense intelligence analyst Jason Buttrill, who spent years planning and leading protective details for politicians, stars, and other high-profile people, joins to explains what he believes the biggest failures were. Why weren't law enforcement officers placed on the rooftop the attacker used? Should the Secret Service have shot first? Why has it taken so long for the government to release more information on the killer? And — scariest of all — did he work alone?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: All right. We have Jason Buttrill with us. Who is my chief researcher.

And also, in charge of national security, and -- and -- and global wars and everything else, that we have to look at. He has extensive background in military intelligence. And that's why you know military intelligence was a joke, because Jason was involved in it.

But it was also -- you were never a lead of my detail, right? Of my protective detail?

JASON: I was never the lead, but I was the manager on your detail, and I led many other details in the past.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

So the reason why I'm still alive today, is Jason was not in charge of the detail.

JASON: That's good. That's good.

GLENN: Yeah. But I will tell you, that we have had many dealings with Secret Service. And without getting into any of the details, but I would be running to testify on it, the Secret Service is in my view, inept. It's nothing against the agents or anything. I think the people who run it, they rely on money and technology, and they just don't think.

And we have seen things that could get people killed, quite honestly. We've experienced it, with the Secret Service ourselves.

And I've been warning about this, for a very, very long time.

Now, Jason, you have actually planned events like this with the Secret Service. You have been with major politicians, and done major events, not only with me, but with others. And worked side by side with the Secret Service. How could this have happened?

JASON: I'm glad you had me on today, Glenn. Because I saw a lot of speculation. I think it's important to understand how these things happened.

How did we get to where we got to on Saturday. And I just want to briefly run down.

I will reveal a few tricks of the trade here. I think it's good for crazy people and potential attackers to know this as well, to know how difficult it is.

It should be almost impossible to pull off what happened on Saturday.

But, as you know, Glenn. You've seen this work, an advance team is always sent out. This is copied from the Secret Service level all the way to the governor's protected details. All the way to public officials. Or, you know, personalities like yourself.

But an advance team would go out. Secret Service would go out, weeks in advance. They would go out and set up a multi-tiered security plan. So basically, like let's say you see a president on a rope line. And he's shaking hands.

And, you know, patting people on the back. That's political smoke and mirrors.

Those are not people that just randomly show up. Those are friends, family, highly trusted people that have been vetted. That talks a little bit of the sexiness out, but that's the same way as when Donald Trump is on a stage. The people right in front of him are supposed to be there.

They have been given access. They have a wristband or lanyard. They're wanded. They're checked. They're fully vetted, trusted people right in front of them. There's another tier beyond that.

They're usually high level donors. They're also very, very trusted. Vetted. They've been searched. Then once you get beyond that, there's not a thousand Secret Service agents out there. So they have to delegate to law enforcement officers. Local law enforcement officers, SWAT, just regular beat cops. They designated those areas.

Now, as all this is happening, they also identify further out threats. And they -- they identify sectors of fire. Positions of fire.

Potential sniper positions. Going all the way to like a thousand yards.

130-yard sniper position. Absolutely, which -- which is where this attacker was. Would have been identified.

And there would have been several designated. They would have said, this is alpha position. This is bravo position. Whatever.

They can go through them. So they can quickly address the situation. They would also, in this instruct the witness not to answer plan, have local law enforcement guarding those areas to make sure no one would gain access to those areas. And they would number contact with the Secret Service.

Now, there's multiple different questions here, that need to be asked. As you said in full transparency. Knowing this entire complex plan, A, did the Secret Service designate those sniper positions as they always do, and as they're supposed to?

Now, let's assume they did. The second question. Did law enforcement adequately man those positions?

It does not appear so, on the videos that we have seen.

I mean, we've got tailgaters, basically, screaming at law enforcement. The only thing missing was like a couple of beer cans hanging off their helmets. And they're chugging down beers. That's basically -- hey. Look over there. There's a guy climbing up there. How did no one respond? That breaks the entire plan. There should have been a law enforcement officer or officers watching it.

GLENN: Right. So there's also the fact that when you have a position like that.

First of all, that position, if it was left open.

They keep saying. Well, it wasn't part of the secure perimeter.

It was 130 yards away. You know, when you are on rooftops and sniper positions, you don't have to be on just the building right across the street. You can be watching all of the rooftops, all the way around, that have any kind of angle at that street. So not only should they have somebody there, or at least had a team around. And it looks like they had local police. And I don't know if local police failed.

But they also, when you have a position like that, and, for instance, there's woods in this same venue area.

You always put up something that blocks the view, so you would go up on that roof. And you would say, okay. There is the podium.

So let's put up a big screen. Or a big sign, or something, that blocks that view from that position. They didn't do that either.

PAT: Yeah. To say, as an excuse, that it was outside the secured perimeter, is absolutely ridiculous. I cannot believe someone would say that. I've been at events where Secret Service was there. Where there was a river, hundreds of yards away. But they still had local law enforcement driving Zodiacs up and down the river, because they were worried about potential snipers coming from a boat. That was not inside the perimeter, but that was a potential firing position that they had identified.

Now, that's the key right here. They would have identified all these positions, especially 130 yards, with a clear line of sight to the president. That would have been identified. There would have been a team of law enforcement officers, or should have been, protecting that area. Now, did they leave that -- this is the second question. First question was, did Secret Service identify them? I'm assume they did.

Second question, did law enforcement adequately man those positions? Third, and this is probably the scariest part of the question, was there a law enforcement officer there?

Was there help given to the shooter? Now, this is not a conspiracy theory. It's a question. It needs to be asked. Because we heard people saying, there's the shooter, no one did anything about it.

So they -- look, this has to been done in full transparency. Can you imagine, Glenn? And the JFK assassination. All these weird things that happened. Right?

You have, let's just say, there were cell phones and camera phones. And they were like, again with their beers and helmets. And they're like, look at that. And they're film the grassy nothing like. Look, officer, there are guys at the grassy nothing like. They have fedoras on. They have sniper rifles.

And they're about to shoot. Like, can you imagine, if we had all of this evidence, what would the conspiracy theories be like then? This is what we have right now. We need to ask these questions. It's very, very rational to do so.

GLENN: So we're about to have Dallas Alexander on. Do you know who he is?

JASON: Oh, yeah. Very, very famous sniper here.

GLENN: Yeah. So he's a sniper, and he says, there's no way this happened without help. I don't want to go there. I don't want to believe that.

Because that takes us into an entirely different world.

JASON: Yeah.

GLENN: Do you believe that as a realistic possibility?

JASON: Okay. Okay. I think it is a possibility. There are also the other random possibilities that it was just lackadaisical security, by the local law enforcement, in my opinion. I'm not jabbing law enforcement. But I don't think they make great security guards because they're primarily reactionary.

GLENN: Right.

JASON: The Secret Service aspect of security like that is not reactionary. It's preventing the attack before it happens. The law enforcement, as a security --

GLENN: It's why they -- it's why the shooter, which I don't believe was a Secret Service sniper, may have only shot after shots were fired.

JASON: That's what I mean.

GLENN: Where Secret Service. You're in Secret Service, you have permission. You see a guy with a gun, pointed at the president, shoot him before he shoots.
Where, law enforcement would need the permission to shoot, unless he shot first. Would they not?

JASON: Right. That's exactly right. Secret Service is a different mindset than other law enforcement. Basically, they don't manage a situation with a firearm. If you see a Secret Service with a firearm, it typically means someone is getting shot. Law enforcement is completely different.

But I will not rule out the fact that it could just be very lax security. Maybe they were big Trump fans. Maybe they weren't fans at all. Maybe it was the exact opposite.

And they weren't as vigilant as they could have been, and someone was able to sneak over there. That is possible.

But the most random things in assassinations happen. Who would have known that Sirhan Sirhan, a Palestinian activist, would have been posing as, or blending in with hotel staff, and would have been in the right place at the right time, and caught RFK going through that private areas. You've been through those areas yourself, in public events? It's chaotic. Who would have known? Things like that happen.

Who would have thought that a crazed Hinckley would have -- looking to gain the support of Jodi Foster. Had no political ideology at all, just was a crazy guy looking to impress a movie star, would have been able to get to Ronald Reagan. These things do happen.

GLENN: So I want to ask you about the things that are being said now about the shooter, that we really don't know who he is.

I don't believe that for a second. If so, what the hell is the CIA and NSA doing with all of the eavesdropping on all of our communications? I don't believe that at all.

And this ruse, this lie, that, well, we just don't know. We don't know anything about him. We don't. You know, it smells of the Nashville shooter. Now, it's still early. But if they don't come out with the full detail on this guy, they're going to lose all credibility.

"A Different Fight": What Glenn Hopes Trump Will Say in His RNC 2024 Speech
RADIO

"A Different Fight": What Glenn Hopes Trump Will Say in His RNC 2024 Speech

Former President Donald Trump said that he has completely changed his RNC 2024 speech after surviving an assassination attempt. His new speech will allegedly focus on unity instead of political jabs. So, Glenn lays out what he hopes Trump will say in his speech: "What we need in the United Sates is not division, hatred, violence, or lawlessness. It is love and wisdom and compassion toward one another...We need to fight, but not with violence. We need to stand up and show what America really means. To stand up against the fear and intimidation."

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I want to make something really, really clear. The only one to blame for this assassination is the shooter. He's the one who tried to shoot the president, with the facts that we know right now.

I -- I am bringing up the president and the left's rhetoric, for a couple of reasons.

Did it play a role? Absolutely. Are they responsible for it? Well, I want to get into that in just a second.

But the rhetoric has been non-stop, that this guy is Hitler, that has to be eliminated. He's a Hitlerian, he's a fifth Reich. He's going to round people up just like Hitler did. That plays a role in unstable heads. Okay?

But you can't -- you can't be responsible for all unstable people that are out there. Because there are a lot of unstable people.

But you can watch your language. Here's what I think really happened with this kid. And I'm just guessing.

This kid is being pumped full of all kinds of bad ideas, in school. He is being pumped full of all kinds of bad ideas in the media, and social media. He is also seeing that you're really kind of a hero, if you, you know, are part of BLM.

And you burn a city down.

If you're on the right side, there is -- there is no trial for you.

There's no problem.

In fact, the vice president will bail you out!

So he's seeing the lack of enforcement, on one side. Which makes it appear, that that side is right.

And the oldest question in -- known to man in the 20th century is, if you could go back, and kill Baby Hitler, would you?

Implying that you're a hero, if you would.

The only one that's responsible, is the shooter. But there are other things that influence the minds of unstable people.

And I want to bring their rhetoric into play because, why are they going after Donald Trump, for January 6th.

Because he said, go to the capital, peacefully. Let your voice be heard.

They're saying he incited this.

Those aren't inciting word.

Inciting words are much more like, it's time we put a bull's-eye on Donald Trump. And Donald Trump is Hitler, who has to be eliminated.

Now, I don't think that Joe Biden meant the bull's-eye thing, just like Sarah Palin didn't mean the crosshairs.

But if you're going to be consistent, if you're going to be morally consistent, if you're actually outraged by crosshairs, then you should be outraged by a bull's-eye.

And if you think somebody's rhetoric can actually cause people to go to the Capitol and tear it apart, well, then you should be concerned about the rhetoric of this guy is Hitler, that has to be eliminated

And if you want to be morally consistent, because you're trying that guy, shouldn't you be trying this president as well?

Is anybody on the -- on the left, beginning to see the problems, with the cases that they have brought?

So here's what I hope the president would say. First of all, I don't think I've seen a bigger act of courage in my lifetime, from a president. To stand up and insist that he can look at the crowd.

Make an opening for me, so I can see the crowd, and to raise his fist and say, fight!

Now, I know a lot of people on the left, they want to say, well, see, he's going for violence.

No. Fight for what you believe in. Stop being mealy mouthed about it. Stand up. Stand up.

Fight at the ballot box. Stand up, and stop just being plowed under by lies. Fight.

You're darn right. You're darn right.

I thought it was an amazing moment. However, I was really happy to read, what he said, he's going to Milwaukee yet another amazing -- think about what it feels like to be shot at.

And almost killed. How long would it take before you could go out in public again?

He went last night, to Milwaukee. Which is significant. We'll tell you why here in a little while. He goes to Milwaukee. And he's on the ground, and he says, he's changing the theme of the convention that's happening this week.

He's changing it to unity. To peace. I would hope the president will come out and say something along the lines of, we're standing here today, because America is resilient.

A few days ago, somebody tried to kill me.

But by God's grace, that bullet only grazed me. But it is a stark reminder, of the divisions and the anger that we see today.

And we're at a critical moment. And when you have a bullet whiz by your head, there's two ways to go. One is vengeance, and the other is unity.

And our nation is divided. Trust is low.

In our neighborhoods, and the media, everywhere. But let me echo the word of RFK.
When Martin Luther King was shot. What we need in the United States is not division. What we need in the United States is not hatred. What we need in the United States is not violence, or lawlessness.

But it is love and wisdom. And compassion toward one another.

America is the land of the underdog. Of the little guy. And we've always been that way. But when I say fight, what I mean is the little guy needs to rise up. Make sure your voice is heard, to be not afraid.

We need to fight. But not with violence. We fight with our words.

We fight on the street, with our words and our actions.

And we need to stand up and show, what America really needs.

To stand up against the fear and intimidation. Remember, America was built on the idea that all men and women are created equal.

With unalienable rights. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.

They're not just word.

They are the foundation of this country. Beginning today, let's show the rest of the world, what it means, to be American.

If you believe that America is an exceptional place, then it's the people, that make it that way. Every voice matters. Every citizen matters.

Stand up for the principles in our Bill of Rights. Defend the truth, with integrity and courage. Forgive others. Without compromising our values.

I would hope the president would say, join me now, in a different fight.

Not with guns. But with ideas. Not with hatred. But with understanding.

To begin to write a new chapter in our history.

Let's rise above our differences, and find our e pluribus unum, our common ground again.

Because I do believe all Americans should not be afraid of their commander-in-chief.

If you are afraid of the president, either on the right, or the left, that is showing you and screaming at you, the power in the Oval Office, is too great.

And our -- our republic is out of balance. And that's what project 2025 is all about. That's what I'm going to try to do.

That's what the Supreme Court is going tolerance.

They are not empowering the seat of the presidency.

I am a president that is going to try to reduce the power of the presidency.

We're the United States of America. And we're strong. We're brave. We're compassionate.

But it's time to rise to the challenge, and fight with the spirit that has always guided us.

Let's be the light in dark times.

Let's stand together. Shoulder to shoulder.

We're not a nation divided by fear.

We need to be a nation united by hope.

This is our time.

To prove the American dream is alive and well.

That's what I hope the president says. We already know the difference between the policies. We know fort first time in my lifetime, we have two presidents, two administrations we can A-B compare. It's not like, well, will he do this?

We know what he did last time. We know what Joe Biden has done this time. The winning message will be the message that most Americans want to hear. This has got to stop. And it's not going to stop by me forcing half the country to shut up. It's not going to stop by them forcing the other half to shut up.

It's going to happen because a leader stands up. And says, enough is enough.

And can convince the American people, can reverse all the damages that the elites in our colleges and universities and media has done over the last 20 years, to convince us that we're a bad people, that we're a racist people. We've done some bad things, but usually the worst things we do, are led by our own government.

And I've never believed the government was America. I've always believed the citizens were.

There are a couple of things, that could come our way, that we should be aware of. But the most important thing is that you reach out, to those who think the differently, and you show them, we're not the neo-Nazi fascists, that they have been groomed to believe. It is important today, that we all reach out to somebody that doesn't agree to us, that is a friend.

And just say, how are you doing today? Yeah, I know.

Our guy was shot. But I want you to know, I don't hold you responsible for that.

I'm sure you were just as offended as I was. If they weren't, move on.

But most likely, any decent American was horrified, by what they saw over the weekend.