RADIOOctober 09, 2024

We asked “60 Minutes” why they CHANGED Kamala’s answer on Israel

CBS News’ “60 Minutes” recently aired an interview with Vice President Kamala Harris about her 2024 presidential run. But keen-eyed social media users noticed that “60 Minutes” edited down her answer about Israel to cut out all the rambling and make her sound more coherent. However, it wasn’t just a simple edit. They appear to have copy-pasted an answer from another question! Glenn’s team reached out to CBS News for clarification, but has yet to receive a response. So, Glenn reviews what happened and how it appears to fit a growing trend: Kamala Harris is suddenly doing more interviews, but they’re more like propaganda pieces! Just this week, she had a beer with Stephen Colbert and was introduced as “the next president” by The View. But at least she answered one question honestly during that interview …

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Okay. So yesterday, president Trump's campaign insisted that 60 Minutes. CBS News released an unedited transcript. They must release an unedited transcript, of vice president Kamala Harris' entire 60 Minutes interview.

Now, this came after her word salad about Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, was cut from Monday's broadcast.

And it looks as though, it was a cut and paste job.

The dramatic edit was made after 60 Minutes correspondent, Bill Whitaker noted that it seems like Prime Minister Netanyahu is not listening.

So her response to Monday night's show, was completely different. And far more coherent, than her rambling answer showcased in the preview clip that was released on Saturday.

So we wrote to 60 Minutes. We gave them until 9 o'clock Eastern to respond. We said, we want to give you the benefit of the doubt. Maybe you edited the clip down for time.

As often happens, in these pretaped interviews, but we looked into it for ourselves.

And sure enough, the answer she originally gave, and then CBS aired on Face the Nation, doesn't match what made it into their final edit of 60 Minutes, and it wasn't due to time.

Listen, here's her original answer.

VOICE: Does the US have no sway over Prime Minister Netanyahu?

VOICE: The aid that we have given Israel, allowed Israel to defend itself, against 200 ballistic missiles, that were just meant to attack the Israelis and the people of Israel.

And when we think about the threat that Hamas, Hezbollah presents, Iran.

I think that it is without any question, our imperative to do what we can, to allow Israel to defend itself against those kinds of attacks.

Now, the work that we do diplomatically. With the leadership of Israel. Is an ongoing pursuit, around making clear, our principles. Which include the need for humanitarian aid. The need for this war to end.

The need for a deal to be done, which would release the hostages. And -- and create a cease-fire.

And we're not going to stop, in terms of putting that pressure on Israel, and in the region.

Including Arab leaders.

VOICE: But it seems that Prime Minister Netanyahu is not listening.

KAMALA: Well, Bill, the work that we have done, has resulted in a number of movements in that region by Israel, that were very much prompted by -- or a result of many things, including our advocacy for what needs to happen in the region.

GLENN: What? What does that -- okay.

STU: Huh.

GLENN: Now, here's what it sounds like, on air.

With their totally unbiased editing magic marker, a day later.

VOICE: Does the US have no sway over Prime Minister Netanyahu?

KAMALA: The work that we do diplomatically with the leadership of Israel, is an ongoing pursuit.

Around making clear our principles.

VOICE: But it seems that Prime Minister Netanyahu is not listening.

KAMALA: We're not going to stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end.

GLENN: Wow!

STU: That's from a different part of the interview.

VOICE: -- ally in Prime Minister Netanyahu?

KAMALA: I think with all due respect, the better question is, do we have an important alliance between the American people and the Israeli people?

And the answer to that is yes.

GLENN: Sound more coherent? Sound more certain. Sound more presidential.

Yes! That answer, by the way, Stu was right. Is from a different part of the interview.

What we ask 60 Minutes to explain, their apparent in kind contribution to the Harris campaign. We said, greetings. An X user noticed severe edits to VP Harris' answer to the 60 Minutes interview regarding Netanyahu from the time the clip aired on Face the Nation to the final export yesterday.

That we attached both the edited and unedited.

It doesn't appear to be edited for time. Rather, a cut and paste answer from a different question.

Can you provide an explanation to the Glenn Beck Program and Blaze news, as to why this edit was made?

There are claims of bias and selective edits to makes Vice President Harris' answer appear more coherent. Our deadline is 9:00 a.m. Eastern tomorrow. We have not received, surprise, surprise, a response, from CBS News.

So are you getting anything, that is real?

Well, JD Harris pointed out. Or J.D. Vance pointed out yesterday, that, yeah. You -- you did get an honest answer from The View. Listen to what he said.

VOICE: But she walks into The View, and you would think that would be an interview. And you think that would be an easy question.

Really, propaganda. They said, can you name a single thing, where you disagree with Joe Biden?

Now, let's back up for a second. Because remember, Kamala Harris' entire campaign is to pretend that she hasn't been the vice president for the past three and a half years. You know, she stands up before crowds. And she will say on day one.

We will tackle the affordability crisis. On take one, we will secure the border. And you listen to her for five minutes. And you think, Kamala, are you going to vote for Donald Trump? Because you've been president for 1400 days. You haven't done anything.

(applauding)
So you think, after all this time, all this time, of thinking about how she would do things differently from Joe Biden.

She would have a well-prepared answer, for the interviewers on The View.

Well, they ask her one thing you would do differently from Joe Biden. You know what she says? I can't really think of anything off the top of my head.

GLENN: Wow.

VOICE: Now, in her defense, I'm not sure she could think of anything off the top of her head, whether about Joe Biden's policies or anything else.

GLENN: That is an incredible statement, that she made.

Now, Brian Stelter, who strangely is back on CNN.

STU: Yeah. Yeah.

GLENN: Said that he called The View, before she went on. Here's what he said. Cut two.

VOICE: She's also on The View tomorrow, talking to producers of The View last night.

They have some sharp questions for her as well. And let's remember, sometimes it's these non-traditional formats, that actually reveal a lot about a candidate.

GLENN: Uh-huh. So here is the View introducing Kamala.

VOICE: Please, welcome back the next president of the United States.
(applauding)

GLENN: Very sharp.

STU: Oh, yeah. Very sharp question.

GLENN: Very, very sharp.

STU: I will say, I agree with Stelter on that point though.

Oftentimes, it's not some big adversarial interview, where you get these good moments. I mean, this is the best moment of any of the things she's done so far. The thing that J.D. Vance was just highlighting.

Her admitting that, which is a massive strength for her campaign.

So far, she's been able to avoid responsibility, for Joe Biden.

And the fact that she just threw that out there, with no exceptions.

I mean, I don't know.

I think partially because she feels like she's in a safe zone.

She's able to kind of just let down her hair a little bit.

And blurt out things that are really helpful to her opponent.

GLENN: But can I ask. She's. Most of America is not in a safe zone right now.

I mean, you have the results of one hurricane. And another one, coming tonight.

Massive. Could be one of the biggest ones that has hit Tampa, in Florida. Of all time!

And she's last night, on Steven Colbert.

STU: Oh, yeah.

GLENN: Drinking a beer with him. Listen to this.

GLENN: But elections are won on vibes.

They just want someone they can have a beer with.

GLENN: Would you like to have a beer with me, so I can tell people what that's like?

This was. Now, we asked ahead of time. I can't just be able to drink to the vice president of the United States. You asked for Miller High Life.

I'm just curious.

KAMALA: Okay. The last time I had beer was at a baseball game with Doug. Okay. Cheers.

VOICE: There you go.

There she is. Cheers for drinking a beer.

VOICE: It tastes like the city of Milwaukee.

KAMALA: The champagne of beers.
VOICE: There you go.

STU: How pathetic. Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Like she's picking her beers based on swing states?

GLENN: Right. Right. Right.

STU: It's like, give me a break.

GLENN: But I really like that small brewery, right there in Nevada, and another one really in Arizona is very, very good.

STU: Don't sleep on Georgia and North Carolina.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: Yeah. No. It's pretty pathetic.

GLENN: So what is -- you said this earlier.

What is the strategy change?

Why is it that she's suddenly doing all these interviews?

I think it is because they know they're in trouble.

I think there's been a shift in the polls.

And so she is doing all of these television shows, all friendly.

STU: Uh-huh. Not all -- well, yeah.

Look, there are -- nothing adversarial. You could argue 60 Minutes should be at least is a mainstream normal candidate type environment.

GLENN: Until they edit it.

STU: Until they edit it.

She did face the nation, I think too. Over the weekend. And then she did, of course, the podcast. She's done now the late night shows.

She did The View. She's going everywhere.

This is a massive change in strategy. They have been running this campaign for two or three months. The exact same way.

Keep her out of -- off TV. Just keep her on script, in front of an audience.

Get her in and out. Never have her face a question. The strategy was clear, for multiple months.

Now, all of a sudden, she's everywhere?

That is a massive change. This is a huge development in the campaign.

GLENN: So my gut would say, that the hurricane has changed an awful lot.

STU: Okay.

GLENN: But I'm not sure.

I haven't watched. I have been so busy, all over, everywhere.

I haven't watched mainstream media.

Are they even covering?

Or are they just debunking. Saying. No. FEMA is everywhere.

These are crazy Trump supporters that are saying that. Is there any -- is there any peek behind the curtain, from the mainstream media?

STU: My impression is that they are covering the hurricane. And what's happening to people.

But they are not associating it with a bad response for Kamala Harris.

Or Joe Biden, or anybody else.

I haven't seen that type of coverage. Outside of conservative media.

But they are covering it.

I don't think they're hiding.

I have seen a lot of coverage about it. I had some theories about it. Run them by you.

You pick one. You kind of already selected one. Let me give it to you already. Why has Kamala Harris, all of a sudden, on TV, all the time, doing interviews everywhere?

One, could be public pressure finally getting to the campaign. We've been talking about it for months. Why isn't she doing interviews?

Why isn't she doing interviews? She's even being asked in the occasional interviews that she does, why aren't you out there anymore?

Maybe that finally got to her campaign. Possibility one.

Possibility two. Could be a planned shift in strategy.

Could be that she said, at the outset of this campaign. Let's wait. Let me get up to speed. On all these things.

She wasn't planning on doing a million interviews.

Maybe she's slow walking it.

And doing a blitz in the last month.

It was a planned change in -- change in strategy from the beginning of the campaign.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: Possibility number three.

Could be Kamala Harris.

Frustration behind the scenes. Now pushing back against her handlers.

We have seen this. We saw it with Joe Biden. Of course, it was the same strategy with Joe Biden, no. Don't go out there. Don't do anything. He was behind the scenes saying, I can do it. You're not letting me go out there. You're not letting Joe be Joe. And he pushed himself out there.

And, of course, wound up blowing up his campaign.

Could be the same type of thing from Kamala. She may be thinking, you're restraining me.

That's why I'm not winning by more.

Number four, could be that they're looking at internal polls and indicators. And thinking to themselves.

We're in real trouble here.

Something has changed in the past couple of weeks.

Maybe it's the hurricane. Maybe it's something else. We're in real trouble.

Another possibility.

I mean, I'm just kind of throwing these things out there.

GLENN: I've got one for you.

STU: Okay. You've got another one?

GLENN: Maybe the polls are so good. They don't care. They're internal polling.

Now, I don't believe that.

STU: You think it's so -- why would you change strategies, if things were so good?

GLENN: Because I agree with the one, you know, she's like, look, I could be winning by a large margin. You're restraining me.

STU: So kind of the sister of that one. Yeah.

GLENN: And they think they're safe. So why not?

I don't believe that. But that is another possibility.

STU: Another possibility for you, pressure from donors.

You know, maybe donors are like, look, we're not giving you more money, until you actually go out there and get your message out there. We think it's important. That does happen with donors sometimes. It's kind of like, you see this in foreign countries, when there's a war going on.

There's a bunch of people who are kind of pressuring the administration to do X, Y, and Z. Could be the donors are coming to the table. Hey, you're not blowing them out. Because you're sitting back there. And everyone knows you're hiding.

GLENN: Could be. Let me get your answer on this, here in just a second.

First, let me tell you about the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews.

It has been a year since the October 7th mask in Israel. By Hamas. One year since 1200 Israelis were murdered.

And more than 250 were taken hostage.

Did you see that Hezbollah is now saying, okay. Okay. Okay.

We give. Uncle. Uncle. Uncle. And Israel is saying to Lebanon. Until you completely renounce Hezbollah. We're not stopping.

I mean, they are fighting to win. Unlike we have seen anyone do, maybe since World War II.

The International Fellowship of Christians and Jews, is there, just purely as humanitarian. And letting the Israeli people know, that we are there.

And we are serving you. They have -- they have built bomb shelters.

They're providing flak jackets for people that are on neighborhood watch.

They're doing everything that they can, to support. Ambulances that are -- are bomb proof.

And bulletproof.

I can't believe you need those. But you do there. Let them know, you stand with them.

That we're not the same people, that, you know, we're around in the 1930s and '40s. Call to make your 100-dollar -- 150-dollar gift right now.

All of this will go right directly to help provide food and other necessities, to help these families survive.

Go online. SupportIFCJ.org. That's one word.

SupportIFCJ.org. Or call 888-488-4325.

Or call (888)488-4325. Ten-second station ID.
(music)

STU: So...

GLENN: Which one do you buy?

STU: The other one I put, the belief is maybe this campaign is actually hurting her.

And I certainly wouldn't select that one.

I think it's probably a combination.

But I do think that, they probably are seeing this, and seeing some internal indicators, thinking that they're seeing the beginning signs of trouble.

They probably are polling on the issue, and saying, and asking the question.

Internally.

Do -- is Kamala. You know, a version of essentially. Is Kamala Harris hiding?

Do you think Kamala Harris is not putting her positions out there?

Is she not speaking enough?

That stuff you can kind of test. And they might see negative reactions on this.

You look at this. You could say, it might be a tick ahead. You could say it's tied.

But they certainly don't believe that it should be tied.

They think Donald Trump is the worst person of all time.

GLENN: Right.

Well, here's another reason.

Here's Kamala Harris on Howard Stern. Listen to this. Cut 22, please.

KAMALA: To your point, I literally lose sleep. And have been over what is at stake in this election. I mean, honestly, I -- I end the day, pretty much every day, these days, asking myself, what can I do more?

STU: You know, there's a lot of reporting from inside the Kamala Harris campaign, about disappointment, that she is not doing more.

That she is not doing a lot of public events. That she is taking days off, all over the place.

Leading up to this campaign. And that also could be fueling this media blitz.

GLENN: Donald Trump is a machine, man.

STU: He's all over the place. And J.D. Vance is all over the place.

GLENN: Everywhere. Everywhere.

I mean, I went to North Carolina, then I went to Kansas City.

And I had to do the show in between all of those.

So I was just not getting much sleep. I was exhausted yesterday.

And I thought, how is Donald Trump holding this schedule for this long? And he's bright-eyed and bushy-tailed. The guy has not slowed down. It's amazing.

STU: It's hard to argue that about Trump.

GLENN: He is a machine. He is a machine.

Did government PROPAGANDA lead to Charlie Kirk’s assassination?

President Trump and others have posted in support of a proposed Charlie Kirk Act. But Glenn Beck gives a warning: there are 2 versions of this going around. One, proposed by Sen. Mike Lee, would stop the government from using propaganda against Americans. The other would go further, giving the government dangerous powers over truth. Glenn Beck explains the differences as well as what the Smith-Mundt Act was and why an Obama-era decision may be connected to the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Okay. I want you to just spend a couple of minutes with me, and switch everything that you've been thinking on, off for a minute. This is very important. I want to take you back to the world in 1948, okay?

The ashes of World War II are still warm. The Cold War is already beginning to chill in the air, and the Soviet Union has a propaganda machine that is in full swing.

Radio Moscow, Pravda, endless streams of anti-American stories are pouring into the homes of men and women, all across the globe.

And Congress looked at this. And said, we need a counterbalance on this.

America needs to tell her story to the world about liberty and about her finding ideals.

And we need to tell it to the rest of the world.

This is the birth of the Smith-Mundt Act. Okay? We needed to launch things, at that time. Like the Voice of America, and radio-free Europe, and Radio Liberty.

These were not just radio stations. For many who were behind the curtain, these were lifelines.

A Polish dissident in the 1970s or a Hungarian who lived through the 1956 uprising, they'll tell you, they're huddled in the dark, and they have that dial of that radio.

And they can tune it. They carefully tune it, listening to an American voice break through the static and break through the darkness. That says, freedom is real. And the world hasn't forgotten you. They remember that as being very important.

But and here is the key: We, as a society, drew a very bright red line, none of this could ever be used in the United States. Congress rightfully was terrified of unleashing a government propaganda machine on its own citizens. Now, I want you to remember. 1948, Congress is still Democrat.

Okay?

You just had 20 years of the same president, FDR.

They're about to say, no president can serve that long.

The Democrats said, no Democrat president. No Republican president can ever serve that long. Because we were so close to fascism.

So the Democrats are very concerned about the government going fascistic.

And they should know about it. Because they remembered the control commission.

Now, let me take you back to World War I. The Creel Commission is something that nobody remembers, and everyone should.

Because it's what whipped America up in a frenzy, to get us to go into World War I.

You know it, because you remember the I want you Uncle Sam poster. And I've always hated that Uncle Sam poster because of the Creel Commission. I love it. I think it's really beautiful. It was created by an artist, that he didn't create it for the Creel Commission. So, you know, he was innocent. But it was the Creel machine that plastered it on every wall, every post office, every train station.

And suddenly Uncle Sam's finger was pointing at you. It wasn't just a poster. It was a summons. It was you. We need you to go to war. Americans did not want to go to World War I. In fact, Woodrow Wilson said, the other side, he will put you into war. I will keep I out of war. He knew that wasn't true.

Within three months after his reelection, we're at war. But he had to bring the country along. So the Creel Commission, through films and songs, films like the Kaiser, the Beast of Berlin, it turned the -- it turned Germany into a cartoon villain. George Cohan, he wrote songs, over there. Over there.

All of these things were done by the government, as propaganda to get Americans to go over there.

And fight. Then the government went even further. And they started hiring these, what were called Four Minute Men.

Now, imagine this, you're sitting in a movie theater.

The film. You're watching maybe the -- the newsreel. And as they're changing the reels, some guy who just in the audience, stands up, walks to the front. Clears his throat. And he delivers this really well-thought out and rousing four minute speech about patriotism. And liberty.

And crushing Germany.

The government had 75,000 volunteers. They gave millions of speeches, when anybody would pause in churches and schools. In parks.

In theaters. They were called Four Minute Men.

This was social media before social media. They were short bursts. And they seemingly were everywhere, and always on message.

Because the message was crafted by the government. Then the Creel group, through our government, published booklets, official bulletins. They planted stories in the press. This is when we really started really getting into the press, and information was -- had one goal. All of the information. And that was rallies for the -- rally support for the war, and drown out anybody that was disagreeing with that. Okay?

The government actually encouraged kids to spy on their neighbors.

That you were encouraged and post -- post men did this.

To go through the mail, if they saw -- if they saw letters that were coming in. Ask they wanted to know, who it was. And are you a German spy. Are you somebody who is going to be against the war?

Postal workers went through your mail. And it was legal at the time!

You were encouraged, operators were encouraged to listen to people's phone calls, and to report if they were on the other side.

This is Germany.

In fact, because of the Creel Commission, Germans, and what's his name?

The head of the German propaganda, oh, what's his name? The German douche bag. I can't remember his name. Anyway, what was his name?

STU: Goebbels, is that who you're talking about?

GLENN: Goebbels.

STU: Although, I like your name for it, frankly.

GLENN: Yeah. Goebbels, the douche bag.

Anyway, he said, we lost World War I because of American propaganda. But we learned how Americans did it.

And that's what Goebbels did in World War II. All of this propaganda. Okay?

By the way, American advertising, up until World War II, it was called propaganda.

What I heard, I wouldn't have said, now a message from our advertiser.

I was delivering literally and it was cool at the time, to call it propaganda.

Because that's what it was. Paid for propaganda.

Bit after Goebbels took it. And did what he did with it. We were like, oh, propaganda is bad!

Okay?

So here's what -- here's what happened because of the Creel Commission. They were pushing uniformity of thought. They did that by making sure Americans were hearing the same slogans. The same images. The same stories from every direction. Which created the illusion of unanimous consent. I want you to think about life today.

I want you to think about life during COVID.

What was the goal of the government.

To crush any dissent, and to control all of the messages that were going out, to make sure that you were hearing the same slogans, the same images. The same stories from every direction, to give you the illusion that it was unanimous consent.

What about the global warming? It's exactly the same.

Then on top of it, the Creel Commission demonized dissent. Okay? German Americans were part of this country forever.

In fact, we were I think two votes away from making German our official language, as the United States, not English. But they were all of a sudden, branded as traitors.

You couldn't -- a priest went to jail, because he gave the last rites to a German who fell down in front of him on the streets and was dying. And a priest spoke German and gave him the last rites in German. That priest went to jail! Okay??

Okay? So they demonized dissent. Then they suppressed free speech. The propaganda campaign dovetailed with the Espionage Act of 1917. The Sedition Act of 1918. If you criticized the draft, if you questioned the war, you could be fined. You would be ostracized, and you would go to jail.

This is Woodrow Wilson, gang. Does any of it sound familiar?

Now, here's what the aftermath was, after the war. When the war ended, the mask came off. Millions were dead, and Americans felt absolutely duped. They felt that they were tricked into going into a war that they were manipulated into. They didn't even understand it. And that's why we were such isolationists, in the 1920s and our 1930s, because our own government had manipulated the population to go in to fight this war, and they felt so manipulated and so betrayed by their own government. They were like, I don't want anything to do with foreign wars, okay?

So why did this -- why did this happen in 1948?

Well, because in 1948, all of this stuff is happening, and we're saying, okay. We need to have some sort of -- some sort of boundary.

Because we're going to start all of this propaganda, for the United States. And it cannot be ever turned on the people of the United States. Okay?

So then why -- why was it repealed?

It was repealed without any really kind of conversation. Because it was slipped in, called the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act.

It was slipped in to a defense authorization bill. Just like it's happening right now, the government didn't pay its bills.

They couldn't come up with the -- with a way to actually fund everything. Because we have to act as an emergency, otherwise all of our war machine. And it's all going to stop. And the world is going to die. And panic and all of that.

;And so somebody has slipped the bill in. And we modernized it.

Why did we modernize?

Well, because don't you like transparency?

I mean, we're doing this overseas. We're doing this propaganda overseas. Do you know -- taxpayer. You're paying for it. Shouldn't you see it?

There was a Congressman Max Thornberry. He was one of the sponsors. And he said, quote, today the law prevents the American people from seeing or hearing the same things we broadcast overseas, and that doesn't make any sense.

We paid for it. Okay. Then they switched that from transparency to, and it's helping fight terrorism. It will let the Department of Defense and the State Department share counter radicalization material both abroad and at home, because we have to modernize this. The internet is everywhere, okay?
So who doesn't want to fight terrorists? Who doesn't want transparency?

Now, here's what actually happened. I'll tell you in 60 seconds. First, Stu.

STU: Yeah. Let me tell you about Prize Picks. You know, we're talking about daily fantasy sports, which is a nice escape, honestly from where we've been over the past three weeks.

If you remember fantasy sports and you're like, oh, gosh.

Yeah, that's a lot of work. I have to be on there, every single day. You don't have to do it that way. Prize Picks brings it back to what it was meant to be. Simple and quick and actually enjoyable.

No drafts. No leagues. No season-long commitments. You just look at the player projections for the day, decide if they'll do more or less than what is listed, build your lineup. And then you're in.

It takes less than a minute to play. And you can mix or match players across different sports, football, baseball. Basketball.

Whatever -- whatever you want.

You don't have to be a stat wizard. You don't have to be a sports insider. You just got instincts, and you have an opinion.

You can win Prize Picks. It's daily fantasy, the way it should be. Fun, flexible, and easy to fit into real life and a nice escape. No stress. Just sports your way.

Download the app today. Use the code Stu.

Get $50 in lineups after you play your first $5 lineup. The code is Stu, to get 50 bucks instantly when you play your first 5-dollar lineup. It's Prize Picks. And it's good to be right. Ten-second station ID.
(music)

GLENN: So in 2012, the left decides, we have to get rid of this propaganda thing.

Okay?

Once the firewall was gone, and it's just a blip, no one even really noticed it. Suddenly, the government agencies could circulate diplomacy campaigns, inside of the United States.

And we saw this. This is where you get your USAID. The NGOs. Doing all the things here in the United States.

Because they can all do it. During COVID, you saw this.

You saw government-funded messaging, quietly merging with the media campaigns and big tech content moderation. Narratives weren't debated. They were handed out by the government. And then they were enforced. Then take the DHS disinformation governance board.

This is a direct descendent from this shift. Okay?

It was the government openly declaring it had a role in policing speech at home.

Look at the 2016 aftermath of the elections. Reports now confirm that the US government funds originally intended for overseas information campaigns that had filtered into domestic projects that fact-checked, flagged, and suppressed certain narratives online. The line between foreign propaganda and domestic persuasion was completely gone. Everything they worried about in 1948, was now happening after 2012. Okay. So why am I bringing this up today?

Because after the assassination of Charlie Kirk, we have been asking for this to be reinstated.

This Smith-Mundt Act has to be reinstated. But after the assassination of Charlie Kirk, there is a new wave of enthusiasm for this as there should be.

But some people on our side, are now demanding more than just a firewall.

You go to change.org. And there's petitions for a Charlie Kirk act.

And it will not only stop government propaganda. But it goes further than that. It starts to punish private media. Educators. Social media platforms. For spreading what they call false narratives. So this is -- this is our side saying, yeah, well, now we want the power to do what they did. Okay? Hear me clearly.

Accountability matters! Lives are destroyed, reputations are smeared. And that matters.

But we have systems in place for that.

What this proposal opens is a new door. A terror where government decides, what is and isn't falsehood.

And the government cannot do that. History teaches us. Once the government claims the authority to define truth.

Liberty is gone. Okay?

Now, enter Mike Lee.

Mike Lee has another proposal. Mike Lee has a version. That he is submitting to Congress. And trying to get it passed. And every American should be for this.

Right or left.

Every American should be for this. He's not going to reinvent the wheel. He just wants the old firewall put back. That's it.

Period.

The government must not, and cannot propagandize its own people. Restore the very bright red line that was attacked in 1948.

It's not about silencing speech. It's about preventing the most powerful institution on earth, with the endless resources of that institution, the government.

And the endless reach, from turning its firehose of influence in on the American people.

This is why it matters. I want you to think of -- I want you to think of football.

Oh, boy. Dangerous.

You wouldn't let the referee this a football game, put on a jersey, and join one of the teams. Okay?

But that's what the repeal did. It let the government be both the referee and the player in the arena of ideas. Mike Lee is saying, put the stripes back on their jerseys. Make sure they're in black and white stripes. So we know exactly who they are!

Change.org and some people on our side want to make the ref not only a player, but the judge, the jury, and the executioner. It cannot happen.

This is -- I'm telling you, if this goes through, Mike Lee is proposing something that is clean. Doesn't have any of this in.

So support the Mike Lee Mundt Act. But if you're hearing people talk about, we have to go further, that is the Patriot Act of our day. We're standing at a fork in the road.

Reinstating the Smith-Mundt protections. They're not going to solve all the problems of misinformation, but it reestablishes the ground rules. And tells Washington, you cannot propagandize us, period.
(music)

Once truth belongs to the state, truth itself ceases to exist. Support Mike Lee's bill.

Restore the Smith-Mundt Act.

New York DROPS key charge against CEO killer. Here’s why.

A New York judge has dismissed state terrorism and first-degree murder charges against the man who killed UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. Should the charge have been kept? Why is the state only pursuing second-degree murder charges? And will he avoid the death penalty? Former Chief Assistant US Attorney Andrew McCarthy joins Glenn Beck to explain what’s really to blame for these decisions.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: We have a good friend, Andy McCarthy who is a Nashville review contributing editor. He's also a former chief assistant US attorney, and a guy who when he speaks, I almost always agree with him. And when I don't, I'm probably wrong. Especially when it comes to things like this, because this was his expertise. He was a former chief assistant US attorney. And he worked on terror most of his career. I mean, he -- he is -- he is well-versed on terror charges and how to try them.

This Luigi Mangione case, the terrorism charges have been dropped. And, Andy, if I remember right, came out with an article I think last year said, this is not going to stand.

These terrorist charges aren't going to stand. And I don't understand why they won't.

And I don't understand how only be charged with second-degree murder.

When it was clear he was stocking the guy. Privy planned on killing him.

He was waiting for him outside.

That's premeditation, which is murder one.

But I know Andy will have all the answers for us.

Can you make sense of this for us, Andy?

ANDY: Yeah. I'm afraid I can, Glenn.

I think to start with the second point first about why it's murder two, rather than murder one. Back in the McCaughey days, which is like the 1990s in New York, when he was governor.

STU: Yeah.

ANDY: They tried to revise the New York capital murder statute. Because they haven't done a death penalty case in New York in decades.

And this was not -- this ultimately was not a successful effort. They still haven't revised the death penalty.

But what they did, they took the things that you could get the death penalty for, which in New York, were only things like killing a police officer or killing a prison guard in the prison.

And they made those the only murder in the first degree. Variety. Homicide, and all other murder.

GLENN: Why?

ANDY: Well, because they were trying to clean up -- their idea was, they were trying to clean the statute in a way that murder one would be revised as capital murder.

GLENN: Death penalty.

ANDY: Right. And all other murder was going to be second-degree murder, so because --

GLENN: That's insane.

ANDY: What we're dealing with Mangione, under New York law, would not have qualified for the death penalty because that would have been very, very narrow, and it's mainly killing police officers or prison guards.

That puts it into the category of second-degree murder. That doesn't mean, by the way, that it's unserious.

It has a -- I think the -- the offense in New York is like 25 years to life. Societies -- it's --

STU: The guy should get -- I mean, you could. You could argue against the death penalty. But guy should get either the death penalty, or life without payroll.

Not 25 years! This guy -- help me out on this one. How is he not a terrorist? He had the intent to terrorize. He said himself, he wanted people to look over their shoulders.

I mean, he is a textbook terrorist. And premeditation. Textbook!

ANDY: Yeah. To -- to prove terrorism, you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, an intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population.

And you have to sort of get out of the -- the mindset that murder is terrorizing. I mean, all murder is terrorizing, to the people who are obviously involved in it. And to the extent that it intimidated people. But we can't turn every murder into terrorism.

GLENN: Correct.

ANDY: Terrorism --

GLENN: But he did it for. But isn't terrorism about trying to scare the population to either vote different or change the laws to be so terrorized that they -- in this particular case, he was trying to send a message to the -- the industry, you better watch your back, because there's more of me.

And you'll get it in the end.

That's terrorizing a group of people to get them to act in a way, the terrorists wants them to act.

ANDY: Yes.

GLENN: Isn't that how they define it?

ANDY: It's not terrorizing the government to change policy or terrorizing the whole civilian population. What the judge said, this was very narrowly targeted at the health care industry, and this particular health care executive.

And I --

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: Wow.

ANDY: And I just don't think it trivializes the murder to say that it's not a terrorism crime.

GLENN: Okay.

ANDY: You know, the federal government, Glenn, just so we're clear on this part of it. There were two charges brought here. There's a -- the federal charges and the state charges.

So Alvin Bragg, the -- the New York DA, brought the terrorism charge.

GLENN: What a joke.

ANDY: I said, at the time, I thought he was bringing it because he knew the Justice Department wanted to charge this guy. So he wanted to make a splash. Like the Justice Department wanted to make a splash.

When the Justice Department indicted it, even though Biden is against the death penalty, and the Democratic administration was against the death penalty. They indicted it as a death penalty case.
Because they wanted to make a big to-do over it. Even though, you know, if you look at the fine print, they would never impose the death penalty.

They had a moratorium on the death penalty. So in order not to be outsplashed, what Bragg turned around and did was indict this -- what he -- like ten times out of ten, indict only as a murder case.

If you could get Bragg to indict something that was actually a crime. And he decided to make it a terrorism murder case, so that they could compete for the headlines in the press.

Unfortunately, this is kind of what happens in these -- in these cases.

But to your point about stalking and all of that stuff.

The federal charges. Which are the death penalty charges, include exactly what you're talking about.

The fact that this guy was stalked.

That it was done in a very cold-blooded way.

And actually, if he gets convicted in the federal -- can in the federal system, now that Trump is running the Justice Department, rather than Biden, he gets convicted on the death penalty charge, he's going to get the death penalty.

GLENN: Okay. So it's not like he's getting murder in the second degree, and he'll be out in 25 years. The federal government is also trying him. Will it be the same trial?

ANDY: No. No.

In fact, the interesting thing, Glenn. Just from a political standpoint, I hate having to get political on this stuff.

GLENN: I know. Me too.

ANDY: If we can avoid it. The Biden Justice Department was working cooperative with Bragg. I don't think the Trump Justice Department is going to work cooperative with Bragg.

GLENN: No.

ANDY: And the interesting thing about that is under New York law, they have a very forgiving double jeopardy provision. Which basically means, if the Feds go first, that will probably block New York state from going at all.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

ANDY: Because of their expansive protection. And I think what Biden's Justice Department was willing to let Bragg go first.

So that they would go second. And then everybody would have --

GLENN: Trump won't do that.

ANDY: I'm not sure the Trump guys will play ball with that.

GLENN: No. Okay.

So are you confident the justice will be served in this. Oh.

ANDY: Well, I think -- you know, look, I think if your idea of justice served. Are this guy be convicted of a severe murder charge and never see the light of day again?

I am confident in that.

GLENN: Yes.

ANDY: If you believe as I do, that if you're going to have a -- a death penalty in the law, which our Constitution permits.

GLENN: He deserves it.

ANDY: If you're going to have it, he deserves it. And if he doesn't get it. He would be among a long line of people, who probably didn't deserve it and must get it.

Though, I guess it depends on what your idea of justice is. But I guess if we could agree that justice is this guy never sees the light of day again, I think justice will happen here.

GLENN: Right. Okay.

Can I switch to Charlie Kirk?

ANDY: Of course.

GLENN: How is this unfolding? What are your thoughts on this. What are your thoughts on -- you know, I really want to make sure I don't want to go too far. I don't want another Patriot Act kind of thing.

But I do believe, you know, the -- it appears as though, there may have been many people involved. At least in knowing.

What does that mean to you? And what should happen?

What should we be doing? What are we doing that is right and wrong?

ANDY: Well, to the extent -- I'm sorry -- I do -- I do think, Glenn. That this is being very aggressively investigated by both the state authorities and continuing by the federal authorities.

I heard Kash Patel, because I happened to be on television this morning. And they -- they broadcasted that while I was on.

And he was talking about how they are going through all of the social media stuff.

To see, who may have had an inkling about this beforehand. And if there was any conspiratorial activity, they're going to go after it.

Now, the chats that have come out so far, that have been reported in the last couple of days are chats in which Robinson admitted to committing homicide and told the people that he was chatting with -- that he had already arranged his surrender.

If that's all these people knew, that is to say, he had --

GLENN: Then there's nothing there.

ANDY: And he was turning himself in. Well, they might be good witnesses in terms of what his state of mind was at the trial of Robinson.

But I don't think that implicates them in criminal misconduct.

On the other hand, the feds are going to keep digging.

And I assume Utah is going to keep digging.

And if they find out that someone was involved in planning it, I think those people will be pursued.

GLENN: You know, there's probably Texas would be a bad place to commit this crime.

Utah, however, they have the death penalty. And they used the death penalty.

And the governor who I'm not a big fan of this governor.

But, boy, he has been very strong, and I think right on top of this whole thing.

And he said, day one, you will get the death penalty. We catch you. We prove it in a court of law. You do get the death penalty. And I think that's coming from this guy.

ANDY: Well, it's deserving. Because if it's ever indicative of premeditation and repulsive intent, I would say, this is a textbook case of that.

GLENN: The idea that Trump is now going to go after -- possibly RICO charges for people like George Soros and, you know, organizations like that, that are -- are pushing for a lot of the -- the -- the Antifa kind of stuff. Do you see any problems with that. Or is this a -- a good idea?

ANDY: I just think the first thing, before you get into RICO. And all these. You know, RICO is a very complicated statute, even when it obviously applies. So I think the bedrock thing they have to establish, is that you are crossing the line. From protected speech. A lot of which can be obnoxious speech. And actual incite meant to violence. And if you can get invite meant to violence.

You know, I didn't need RICO to prosecute the Blind Sheikh, right? I was able to do it on incitements of violence and that kind of stuff. Those are less complicated charges than Rico.

But the big challenges in those cases, Glenn, is getting across the line into violent action. As opposed to constitutionally protected rhetoric.

GLENN: Is there anything to the subversion of our -- of our nation. That you are -- you are intentionally subverting the United States of America.

You are pushing for revolutionary acts?

VOICE: You know, there's a lot of let allegation that arose out of that, in connection with the Cold War and the McCarran Act. And, you know, you remember all the stuff from the -- from the '40s and '50s, forward.

GLENN: Yeah. I know.

ANDY: And I think when that stuff was initially enacted, the country was in a different place.

I think when the McCarran Act was enacted, it was a consensus in the country, that if someone was a member of the Communist Party.

Hadn't actually done anything active to seek the violent overthrow of the US, but mere membership in the party. I think if you asked the question in 1950, most people would have thought that was a crime.

And by 1980, most people would have thought, it wasn't a crime. Based on the Supreme Court --

GLENN: Yeah. I don't.

Look, if you're a member of the Communist Party, you can be a member of the Communist Party.

But if you are actively subverting and pushing for revolution, in our country, I think that's a different -- I think that's a different cat, all -- entirely.

ANDY: Yeah, that's exactly right. But if you had that evidence of purposeful activity, and look, if you had a conspiratorial agreement between two people that contemplates the use of force, you don't need much more than that. You don't need an act of violence. If you have a strong evidence of conspiracy. But you do have to establish that they get over that line and to the use of force, at least the potential use of force.

STU: Yeah, okay.

Andy, as always, thank you so much. Appreciate your insight. Appreciate it.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

How to Find God in a Divided World | Max Lucado & Glenn Beck

Glenn Beck sits down with beloved pastor and author Max Lucado for a deep conversation about faith, humility, and finding unity in a divided world. Together, they reflect on the importance of principles over politics, why humility opens the door to true dialogue, and how centering life on God brings clarity and peace. Lucado shares stories of faith, the dangers of a “prosperity gospel,” and the powerful reminder that life is not about making a big deal of ourselves, but about making a big deal of God. This uplifting conversation will inspire you to re-center your life, strengthen your faith, and see how humility and love can transform even the most divided times.

Watch Glenn Beck's FULL Interview with Max Lucado HERE

Confronting evil: Bill O'Reilly's insight on Charlie Kirk's enduring legacy

Bill O’Reilly joins Glenn Beck with a powerful prediction about Charlie Kirk’s legacy. Evil tried to destroy his movement, Bill says, but – as his new book, “Confronting Evil,” lays out – evil will just end up destroying itself once more…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Mr. Bill O'Reilly, welcome to the program, how are you, sir?

BILL: Good, Beck, thanks for having me back. I appreciate it. How have you been?

GLENN: Last week was really tough. I know it was tough for you and everybody else.

But, you know -- I haven't -- I haven't seen anything.

BILL: Family okay? All of that?

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah. Family is okay. Family is okay.

BILL: Good question good. That's the most important thing.

GLENN: It is.

So, Bill, what do you make of this whole Charlie Kirk thing. What happened, and where are we headed?

BILL: So my analysis is different for everybody else, and those that know me for so long. About a year ago, I was looking for a topic -- it was a contract to do another book. And I said, you know what's happening in America, and around the world. Was a rise in evil. It takes a year to research and write these books.

And not since the 1930s, had I seen that happen, to this extent. And in the 1930s, of course, you would have Tojo and Hitler and Mussolini and Franco and all these guys. And it led to 100 million dead in World War II. The same thing, not to the extent.

But the same thing was --
GLENN: Yet.
BILL: -- bubbling in the world, and in the United States.

I decided to write a book. The book comes out last Tuesday. And on Wednesday, Putin lobs missiles into Poland.

Ultra dangerous.

And a few hours later, Charlie Kirk is assassinated.

And one of the interviewers said to me last week, your -- your book is haunting. Is haunting.

And I think that's extremely accurate. Because that's what evil does.

And in the United States, we have so many distractions. The social media.

People create around their own lives.

Sports. Whatever it may be. That we look away.

Now, Charlie Kirk was an interesting fellow. Because at a very young age, he was mature enough to understand that he wanted to take a stand in favor of traditional America and Judeo Christian philosophy.

He decided that he wanted to do that.

You know, and when I was 31 or whatever, I was lucky I wasn't in the penitentiary. And I believe you were in the penitentiary.
(laughter)
So he was light years ahead of us.

GLENN: Yes, he was.

BILL: And he put it into motion. All right? Now, most good people, even if you disagree with what Mr. Kirk says on occasion, you admire that. That's the spirit of America. That you have a belief system, that you go out and try to promote that belief system, for the greater good of the country. That's what it is.

That's what Charlie Kirk did.

And he lost his life.

By doing it!

So when you essentially break all of this down. You take the emotion away, all right?

Which I have to do, in my job. You see it as another victory for evil.

But it really isn't.

And this is the ongoing story.

This is the most important story. So when you read my book, Confronting Evil, you'll see that all of these heinous individuals, Putin's on the cover. Mao. Hitler.

Ayatollah Khomeini. And then there are 14 others inside the book. They all destroy themselves.

Evil always destroys itself. But it takes so many people with it. So this shooter destroyed his own family.

And -- and Donald Trump, I talked to him about it last week in Yankee stadium. And Trump is a much different guy than most people think.

GLENN: He is.

JASON: He destroyed his own mother and father and his two brothers.

That's what he did. In addition to the Kirk family!

So evil spreads. Now, if Americans pay attention and come to the conclusion that I just stated, it will be much more difficult for evil to operate openly.

And that's what I think is going to happen.

There's going to be a ferocious backlash against the progressive left in particular.

To stop it, and I believe that is what Mr. Kirk's legacy is going to be.

GLENN: I -- I agree with you on all of these fronts.

I wonder though, you know, it took three, or if you count JFK, four assassinations in the '60s, to confront the evil if you will.

Before people really woke up and said, enough is enough!

And then you have the big Jesus revolution after that.

Is -- I hate to say this. But is -- as far gone as we are, is one assassination enough to wake people up?

JOHN: Some people. Some people will never wake up.

They just don't want to live in the real world, Beck. And it's never been easier to do that with the social media and the phones and the computers.

And you're never going to get them back.

But you don't need them. So let's just be very realistic here on the Glenn Beck show.

Let's run it down.

The corporate media is finished.

In America. It's over.

And you will see that play out the next five years.

Because the corporate media invested so much of its credibility into hating Donald Trump.

And the hate is the key word.

You will find this interesting, Beck. For the first time in ten years, I've been invited to do a major thing on CBS, today.

I will do it GE today. With major Garrett.

GLENN: Wow.

BILL: Now, that only happened because Skydance bought CBS. And Skydance understands the brand CBS is over, and they will have to rehabilitate the whole thing. NBC has not come to that conclusion yet, but it will have to.

And ABC just does the weather. I mean, that's all they care about. Is it snowing in Montana? Okay? The cables are all finished. Even Fox.

Once Trump leaves the stage, there's nowhere for FNC to go. Because they've invested so much in Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump.

So the fact of the matter is, the corporate media is over in America. That takes a huge cudgel out of the hands of the progressive movement.

Because the progressive movement was dependent on the corporate media to advance its cause. That's going to end, Beck.

GLENN: Well, I would hope that you're right.

Let me ask you about --

BILL: When am I wrong?

When am I wrong?

You've known me for 55 years. When have I been wrong?

GLENN: Okay. All right. All right. We're not here to argue things like that.

So tell me about Skydance. Because isn't Skydance Chinese?

BILL: No! It's Ellison. Larry Ellison, the second richest guy in the world. He owns Lanai and Hawaii, the big tech guy and his son is running it.

GLENN: Yeah, okay.

I though Skydance. I thought that was -- you know them.

BILL: Yeah.

And they -- they're not ideological, but they were as appalled as most of us who pay attention at the deterioration of the network presentations.

So --

GLENN: You think that they could.

BILL: 60 Minutes used to be the gold standard.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

BILL: And it just -- it -- you know, you know, I don't know if you watch it anymore.

GLENN: I don't either.

So do you think they can actually turn CBS around, or is it just over?

BILL: I don't know. It's very hard to predict, because so many people now bail. I've got a daughter 26, and a son, 22.

They never, ever watched network television.

And you've got -- it's true. Right?

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

They don't watch --

BILL: They're not going to watch The Voice. The dancing with this. The juggling with that. You know, I think they could do a much better job in their news presentations.

GLENN: Yeah. Right.

BILL: Because what they did, is banish people like Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly.

Same voices, with huge followings.

Huge!

All right?

We couldn't get on there.

That's why Colbert got fired. Because Colbert wouldn't -- refused to put on any non-progressive voice, when they were talking about the country.

GLENN: I know.

BILL: Well, it's not -- I'm censoring it.

GLENN: Yeah, but it's not that he was fired because he wouldn't do that. He was fired because that led to horrible ratings. Horrible ratings.

BILL: Yes, it was his defiance.

GLENN: Yes.

BILL: Fallon has terrible ratings and so does Kimmel. But Colbert was in your face, F you, to the people who were signing his paycheck.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

BILL: Look, evil can only exist if the mechanisms of power are behind it.

And that's when you read the front -- I take them one by one. And Putin is the most important chapter by far.

GLENN: Why?

BILL: Because Putin would use nuclear weapon.

He wouldn't. He's a psychopath.

And I'm -- on Thursday night, I got a call from the president's people saying, would I meet the president at Yankee stadium for the 9/11 game?

And I said, when a president calls and asks you to meet them, sure.

GLENN: I'll be there. What time?

BILL: It will take me three days to get into Yankee stadium, on Long Island. But I'll start now.

GLENN: Especially because the president is coming. But go ahead.

BILL: Anyway, that was a very, I think that Mr. Trump values my opinion. And it was -- we did talk about Putin.

And the change in Putin. And I had warned him, that Putin had changed from the first administration, where Trump controlled Putin to some extent.

Now he's out of control. Because that's what always happens.

GLENN: Yeah.

BILL: It happened with Hitler. It happened with Mao. It happened with the ayatollah. It happened with Stalin. Right now. They get worse and worse and worse and worse. And then they blow up.

And that's where Putin is! But he couldn't do any of that, without the assent of the Russian people. They are allowing him to do this, to kill women and children. A million Russian casualties for what! For what! Okay?

So that's why this book is just in the stratosphere. And I was thinking object, oh. Because people want to understand evil, finally. Finally.

They're taking a hard look at it, and the Charlie Kirk assassination was an impetus to do that.

GLENN: Yeah. And I think it's also an impetus to look at the good side.

I mean, I think Charlie was just not a neutral -- a neutral character. He was a force for good. And for God.

And I think that -- that combination is almost the Martin Luther King combination. Where you have a guy who is speaking up for civil rights.

But then also, speaking up for God. And speaking truth, Scripturally.

And I think that combination still, strangely, I wouldn't have predicted it. But strangely still works here in America, and I think it's changed everything.

Bill, it's always food to talk to you. Thank you so much for being on. I appreciate it.

It's Bill O'Reilly. The name of the book, you don't want to miss. Is confronting evil. And he takes all of these really, really bad guys on. One by one. And shows you, what happens if you don't do something about it. Confronting evil. Bill O'Reilly.

And you can find it at BillO'Reilly.com.