RADIOJanuary 25, 2024

‘Installing MORE BARRIERS’: Texas SLAMS SCOTUS razor wire ruling

Texas Department of Public Safety spokesperson Lt. Chris Olivarez tells Glenn “Texas is NOT backing down” after the Supreme Court allowed the Biden administration to continue cutting razor wire at the southern border: “The National Guard is installing MORE barriers, more concertina wire, more fencing along the river.” Lt. Olivarez also accuses the federal government of “trying to create some kind of conflict that is nonexistent” between the Border Patrol and Texas National Guard. And he addresses claims that an illegal immigrant who told a reporter that “you will know who I am” is a known terrorist: “You can only imagine the type of people that are in our country right now…the threat is already here.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: He's Lieutenant Chris Olivarez. He's with the Texas Department of Public Safety.

Lieutenant, welcome to the program.

Yesterday, Texas kind of just doubled down, did we not.

CHRIS: Absolutely. So, yes. Of course, great to be with you and your listeners. Yes, as you mentioned. State of Texas, we're not backing down. Governor Abbott made it very clear, that the fight is not over with the whole situation with Shelby Park and Eagle Pass.

I just got back from Eagle Pass last night, to kind of get a rundown of what's happening, and what's going to take place with this whole Supreme Court decision.

And nothing has changed, at least on our end with DPS and National Guard.

We're still continuing operations at Shelby Park. We still have restricted access to Border Patrol in that area.

And, in fact, the national guard is installing more barriers. More concertina wire.

More fencing along the river. To make it challenging. And discourage illegal crossings.

Texas is not backing down.

We appreciate the support from everyone in Texas. As far as, supporting what we're doing and what we've been doing the past few years. On border operation. So we're very thankful for that.

GLENN: They claimed that you are -- I love this.

That you're making it more difficult for them to do their job.

But I'm not sure what their job is, if, you know, razor wire and fencing. Which is built to discourage people from coming across, the water.

I'm not sure what their job is.

How is this harming. Holding them back from doing their job.

CHRIS: Well, it's all a narrative.

Glenn, they're trying to portray. And when I say they, I'm talking about the federal government.

And even those who have been critical of Texas. They're trying to create this divide between federal agencies. And the state, which trying to create some kind of conflict, that's nonexistent.

You know, we still work with border patrol. All the agents. The relationship has not changed. But it does not make their job difficult for one. Because we have soldiers. We have state troopers that are at that park, working along the river. They can respond to situations.

And they may come across people. Any type of reel immigrants.

Whether it be a family or child. They still turn them over to Border Patrol.

So Border Patrol is still able to respond and process those individuals.

We want to focus on the single adults, that we are listing right now. That trespass.

But this whole conflict, that it's going to make their job more difficult. I mean, that's inaccurate. We look back in December in Eagle Pass. We have the largest influx of illegal immigration we've ever experienced in the last three years. Every single Border Patrol agent, in that sector, was pulled from the field to process people.

You had secondary checkpoints, Border Patrol checkpoints that were shut down.

Because those agents were used to process.

So now you have this free for all, for all the activity, human smugglers to take place. So now, by us, actually taking over this area.

It allows those agents to get back to the field, to focus on the criminal work that they like -- that they want to do.

They don't want to do administrative work. They want to be out in the field.

GLENN: I want to make sure that we are not passing on any disinformation.

But I am surprised, at our federal government, for not tracking this down. There is a video, that is going around, and let me play it.

Cut four, please.

VOICE: If you are smart enough, you will know who I am.

But you're really not smart enough to know who I am. But soon, you will know who I am.

VOICE: Wow. Whatever you say.

GLENN: Okay. Soon, you will know who I am.

Now, there is -- there is all kinds of things going around. That say, this guy was in Guantanamo, for I think 11 years.

And was released.

However, we're looking at current pictures of the defy.

And he's a lot older, than this guy appears to be.

But I don't know.

Has anybody run facial recognition on this guy?

CHRIS: You know, I saw that video circling on social media. I think it really shows -- a clear example of the threats coming across our border.

Especially when someone is actually saying, you will know who I am, soon. Those are the type of threats that we worry about.

And that's the type of threats, that are coming across the border, right now.

They're exploiting the current situation.

But yet, our own federal government is not doing anything to stop it. And, of course, when Texas steps up. We're criticized for what we're doing.

Because we want to stop that. We want to stop those public safety. And national security threats. Just -- just today. Border Patrol, released -- there was over 96,000 known got-aways, since October 1st for this fiscal year.

Those are individuals. That have made it into the country right now.

And we don't know where they're at. What their intentions are.

And when you hear something like that, from an individual in that video.

You can only imagine the type of people in the country right now. That have been able to get away.

And that possibly want to cause harm in our country.

The threat is here.

I've said that numerous times. The threats are here.

That's why it's so important to have border security.

Again, it all goes back to the policies. And there's no consequences in place, to destroy border crossings.

GLENN: Well, I mean, find it hard to believe. The federal government has a video.

We know they can run facial recognition.

If he's in a database. If he's a known terrorist.

Why we aren't talked about that.

Why the public isn't being told who he is. And to keep your eye out for this.

It kind of again, goes under the wire.

And nobody seems to care about it.

And, you know, we have -- we have enough problems.

We don't need a terrorist attack on our shores as well.

CHRIS: You're right. That's the last thing we need. Right?

Of course, with the situation the last few years. And the people who have made it in the country, undetected.

Those threats are real. That's the clear reality of the situation.

And it does go back to what the federal government has failed to do.

They could have changed this. They can't change this. They still refuse to do that.

When you see videos like that circulating. They know the threats are here.

They know the threats are coming across. But as you mentioned, has anything been done to identify this individual?

Probably not. And we probably won't know now, maybe days, weeks later.

When they actually find out this individual was wanted. Or on the terrorist human database.

By that time, it's too late.

That's happening in many cases. So that's why it almost got to having a proper vetting process in place, but that's not being done right now, because the agents are just overwhelmed.

Resources are strained.

And that's why you see this constant flow of people coming across the border, unvetted.

GLENN: Lieutenant Chris Olivarez.

He's with the Texas Department of Public Safety.

He's the spokesperson.

And bringing us the news, that Texas is not standing down. And not sitting down.

Thank you so much, lieutenant. Appreciate everything you guys do.

CHRIS: Appreciate you and the support, thank you.

How Trump’s Trials Could HELP Him in the 2024 Election

Former president Donald Trump is facing multiple legal trials during an election year. But despite the trials hurting his ability to campaign, Senator J.D. Vance believes they’re actually “really helping Trump politically.” Sen. Vance joins Glenn to explain how Trump is turning these legal attacks, including the hush money “sham trial” in New York, into effective campaigning tools. In fact, they may have even allowed Trump to say the “line of the year.” Sen. Vance also weighs in on the rumors that he could be Trump’s VP pick and why one of Biden’s recent actions “should offend every person in this country.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So let's talk a little bit about Trump and the trial. This trial is -- is more than just a kangaroo court.

This is -- there's nothing to this trial.

How do you think it's going?

J.D.: Well, I think it's -- I mean, the only thing that really matters, of course, is the court of public opinion.

Because such a sham trial.

I don't think it will hold up on appeal. The basic argument here is that he falsified documents in order to commit a crime. They can't even identify which crime he allegedly committed. It's very hard to imagine anything like that can hold up on appeal.

Now, look, it is highlighting how corrupt the justice system has gotten in certain parts of our country.

Right?

So you have the number three person is Biden's DOJ, who jumps ship and goes and joins a local prosecutor office to participate in this. By the way, he also turned down a DNC paid consultant.

Then you have, of course, the Soros-funded prosecutor who brings the case, being presided over by as literal campaign donor to Biden Harris, who is preventing Donald Trump from even speaking on the merits of the case or in the court of public opinion.

So I think it's really helping Trump politically. Which again, I think it's all that matters. Because those people, who have any sense of fairness, recognize that this is a sham trial.

And so long as it's helping Trump get elected. I think that's what matters most.

GLENN: I will tell you, I think the line maybe of the year.

We're not finished yet. But I think the line maybe of the year. Is Donald Trump when he came out. I think it was yesterday.

And said, the Constitution is well worth me going to jail for.

It's -- it's worth more than me trying to stay out of jail.

So put me in jail. And I thought, wow!

That -- I mean, that is a strong, strong stance.

VOICE: By the way, driving home the stakes, doesn't it?

This guy is literally trying to prevent him from speaking. Right? The Democrats have made this a major political issue. The Democrats are funding off of it.

You know, the Biden Harris campaign sitting around, fundraising emails. Oh, isn't it funny that Donald Trump's (inaudible) sent us money. And yet, the judge is preventing Trump from participating in what is right now, the most lively political debate, of -- of the country.

So it really -- again, I think just drives home how much these guys have lost their mind.

And, you know, you -- I have even seen polls here that Biden -- people who plan to vote for Joe Biden recognize it's fundamentally a sham trial.

Now, here's the crazy thing about this, Glenn, is I do a lot of hostile media. You know, it's one of the things I like to do, is sort of take our case to the other side. And I've sat in green rooms with people, who months ago, were angry at Alvin Bragg for bringing this case.

Because it was such a weak case. Now that it's the only case that's actually gone to trial. Because the rest of them have fallen apart.

You see the media sees them treating it as legitimate. I don't think anyone believes them, right? There's just no credibility here, and everything further erodes their ability is in my view, a good thing.

GLENN: So let me ask you a couple of other questions.

I know we have a limited time. Let me first stop with the campus funding protesting.

Biden holding back aid, bullets to Israel.

Isn't this exactly what Donald Trump is impeached for.

He held back congressionally approved javelins from Ukraine.

And now, Biden is holding back ammunition, from Israel.

What's the difference?

J.D.: There isn't any difference. Of course. The only real difference is, I think that Donald Trump actually was engaged in diplomacy and was negotiating with the Ukrainian and also other folks in the region, about how much aid they should be providing. Of course, it shouldn't just be America. Whether you support Ukraine or not. What's different about this, is I think you're taking one of those few truly bipartisan issues in this country, that we should be supporting our allies. Israel.

And you're allowing it to be dictated bit far left. Now, I have a little bit of a different take on this, Glenn.

I think what Biden is doing is really killing two political birds with one stone here.

One, as I've been warning for months. We don't have enough ammunition to send to Ukraine and Israel simultaneously. We have to pick one.

Well, the Biden administration I think, has picked the corrupt Ukrainian regime over our long-term allies.

But simultaneously, he's going to his left flank, and saying, the reason I'm doing this, is because Bibi is bad. And because we don't like the way that Bibi is prosecuting the war. So he gets to tell his left flank what they want to hear, while covering for the fundamental failure of his foreign policy.

It's one of the reasons, Glenn, it was such a bad idea for Republicans to give Biden this security supplemental. It's such a big bill. That it sort of allows Biden to hide his priorities. And sort of have his cake. And eat it too.

GLENN: The other thing I want to talk to you about. Is the health care that is now going to illegal migrants.

How does this president, get away with so much executive power?

That they're -- nobody gave him the authorization to do this.

Nobody gave him the authorization to spend all of this money.

Nobody gave him the authorization to relieve or to forgive, quote, all those loans.

And tie them to the back of the taxpayer.

This is a very important concept in our -- in our Constitution.

It's why congressmen have to be reelected every two years. Because we want to -- them to answer for the money they just spent or allowed to be spent.

What --

J.D.: Well, you're right, Glenn. We know at this point, bide citizen a tyrannical president that will violate the law. Does and it is a violation of the law.

But I don't want to let us off the hook here. We should know at this point, when we appropriate Joe Biden, a big chunk of money. He will sometimes violate the law in the way he actually distributes it. And this means, Congress will actually have to take a little bit more assertive of a role. Has to be willing to cut off certain appropriations, not by writing these blank checks.

This is really important, Glenn.

Congress increasingly, you know, again, with its massive security supplemental. When you write Joe Biden a check. You can't go to the American people. And say, well, he's doing this illegally.

But that's true. You know he will do it illegally. So we have to be more careful about how we give this guy authority in the first place.

I have to say, Glenn Beck. This giving health care to illegal Americans, it should offend every single American. We have a social safety net in this country.

Medicaid exists for impoverished people to help pay their medical bills. If you allow folks who cannot be in this country to begin with, who are here illegally, to literally take from the mouths of American poor children, so that we can fund their health care. Then whose side are you really on?

And I think it's becoming increasingly clear. That Biden does not like the people who currently make up the citizenry of this country.

And he's trying to change the way the country operates.

The way that we distribute resources.

The way that we vote. And that's what his illegal immigration push is all about.

GLENN: Well, I just can't believe that those at the very bottom of the scale.

The ones that the Democrats have said the Democrats care about forever.

The black families that are trapped in Chicago. And are barely making ends meet.

How are they to view the government, when they're not getting -- you know, they're not being put up in a hotel someplace. They're not getting all these perks.

And yet, we're doing it for people who just came here.

I mean, if I were on the receiving end. Or on the need. End of this. And I was a citizen.

I would be like, dude, what are you doing? You never did this for me. You never did this for my family, as we were struggling.

J.D.: Absolutely. They just came here, and a lot of them came here illegally, Glenn. We have veterans who can't afford healthcare who are sleeping on park benches. At the same time, we're handing out free health care, to people, who violated the law, to come to this country, in the first place.

It's completely disgraceful.

And I think a lot of people should be looking around and saying, who does Joe Biden actually stand for?

Right? The Democrats say they care about the little guy.

Let me send you a brief story, Glenn. I have a new good friend of mine, who is getting up there in years.

Who is now eligible for Social Security. He basically found out that there are a number of illegal aliens, who have used his Social Security number to get a whole host of benefits, including Social Security benefits.

When he went to the government and said, hey, I would like to know who is using these things. So I could report it to the police. They basically told him, no. We don't reveal people's personal information, even illegal aliens who are committing Social Security fraud.

This is the kind of country that Joe Biden has created, where the very things that we do as a country, to help the least fortunate, are being given away to illegal aliens instead of mesh citizens.

I cannot stand it.

GLENN: Hmm.

JD. Thank you so much. Senator J.D. Vance from Ohio.

Always good to have you on. Thank you.

Why the FBI's Mar-A-Lago Classified Documents Photo is A SHAM

This story should disturb every single American, Glenn says, no matter if you support or hate Donald Trump. Reports reveal that the FBI placed “cover sheets” onto alleged classified documents found during its raid of Mar-a-Lago in order make the photo it took of the documents seem even more scary. The media then fell right in line and used the doctored evidence to slam Trump. The judge presiding over Trump’s classified documents trial has now delayed the trial indefinitely. So, not only did Biden’s FBI raid the house of his likely political opponent and arrange a photo session, but they basically planted evidence. “That is at best propaganda,” Glenn says, and neither party should be comfortable with our government doing this.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I think there's a few things that should concern every American.

Take Donald Trump. Take Joe Biden out. Let's just look at the system. Whoever you're for. Would you be cool with this being done by the president of the United States, to anyone? Okay?

STU: Okay.

GLENN: Okay. Last August, 2022, Department of Justice released stunning photograph depicting alleged contraband seized from Donald Trump's Palm Beach estate that day.

It showed colored sheets representing scary classifications and their classified levels attached to files, discovered in Trump's private office.

Right. You remember that?

STU: I do remember that. It was a big story, Glenn. I remember the pictures. They were everywhere.

GLENN: Huh. Huh. Okay. So at the time, one ex-CIA officer told ABC News the cover sheets indicated the highest levels of secrecy. And in the wrong hands, they could have resulted in murder.

STU: I remember this. You know, the case was Donald Trump so egregious at this particular matter. He didn't care about the security of the nation. He didn't care about our nuclear secrets. He just took a bunch of stuff labeled top secret and brought it to his house and put it in his shower. Remember that?

That was terrible. Why would he do such a thing?

GLENN: Thirteen boxes or containers contain documents with classification markers. And in all, over 100 unique documents with classification markings were seized.

Okay. Certain -- certain of the documents had colored cover sheets indicating their classification status. Okay. The DOJ's clever wordsmithing, however, did not accurately describe the origin of the cover sheets, in what must be considered not only an act of doctoring evidence, but willfully misleading the American people into believing the former president is a criminal and a threat to national security. Agents involved in the raid attached the cover sheets to at least seven files to stage that photo.

Here's what they did.

STU: Incredible.

GLENN: Classified cover sheets were not recovered in the container. Contrary to what the FBI originally said.

In fact, after being busted recently by defense attorneys for mishandling evidence in the case. Rhett (phonetic) had to fess up about how the cover sheets actually ended up on the documents. The new version of the story, where he admits kind of a critical detail that he failed to disclose. If the investigation team found a document with classification markings, it removed the document, segregated it, and replaced it with a place holder sheet.

The investigative team used classified cover sheets for that purpose. But before the official cover sheets were used as a place holder, agents apparently used them as props.

FBI agents took it upon themselves to paperclip the sheets to the documents, something evident, given the uniform nature of how each cover sheet is clipped to a file in the photo.

They laid them out on the floor, and then snapped a picture of it. This is never done.

STU: You don't think?

GLENN: No. No.

This is never done. Now, the federal judge that is looking at this case, which is now in court, they have postponed the document trial. Because they've said, there are too many things here that don't add up. There are too many things the FBI did, that they never did, nor should they have ever thought of doing.

So there's too many irregularities. Whether this thing even goes through or not. But here's the point.

If I said to a Democrat, how would you feel if Donald Trump, when he was in office, wanted to get Joe Biden so badly, that he went into the house and he had the FBI arrange a photo session, and change documents and made them look much scarier than they were.

Basically planting evidence that was not there. They came in with that evidence. Would you be okay with that?

STU: Planting evidence?

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: No.

GLENN: No. Isn't that what they did.

STU: I mean, certainly to manipulate public opinion, right?

GLENN: Yeah. They walked in with the things they photographed. That said, were in Donald Trump's home.

They were not marked that way. They did not have those covers.

STU: That's incredible. I mean, I definitely thought -- my impression upon seeing that photo.

GLENN: Is that is what they pulled out.

STU: That that's what they pulled out. They basically made it more egregious for Trump. He saw that it said top secret all over it. And still took it. And when you -- if you don't know anything about this. You say, well, he should have known. It said top secret all over the place. But it didn't say top secret all over the place. They just added that later for these photos. That's what we're arguing. That is incredible.

GLENN: Yes. Yes. Yes. That is, at best, propaganda. At best, propaganda.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Would you be happy as a Democrat, if Donald Trump was engaged in that sort of at best, propaganda to sway people his way? You would say no.

I would say no.

I say no now.

Why aren't you saying no?

Here's the next one. Do you remember the name Robert Malley?

Robert Malley was the subject of some controversy and some scrutiny last year. Because he is our envoy to Iran. And all of a sudden, we're going to Iran, and then all of a sudden the envoy was like, he can't go. Why?

Well, he's taking some time off. Why?

Well, he just is. Why?

Well, we're not sure.

What do you mean you're not sure?

Well, we can't tell you.

What the hell was going on with that? Well, we just found out. Now, this on the heels of what I just talked to you about with Donald Trump. He was -- he lost his top secret classification.

And when they finally came out with that. Why?

Well, he just did. Why?

He just did. Specifically, now and this did not come from the Biden administration. This came from whistle-blowers, we believe.

He was suspended because he allegedly transferred classified documents to his personal email account, downloaded the documents to his personal cell phone, and somebody received them. But we don't know who yet.

It's unclear whom he intended to provide these documents. But it's believed that a hostile cyber actor was able to gain access to his email and his phone. And obtain downloaded information.

These were top secret. These allegations have a substantial impact on our national security, and people should be held accountable swiftly and strongly.

But we're not doing anything about him. We just downgraded his security clearance. And he was suspended for a while.

Are you -- are you kidding me? This guy is a spy, for the Iranians.

You're trying Donald Trump, and you are using propaganda techniques to make it -- to hype it up, and this guy, you won't even tell the American people, what he did.

How he did it?

We have to find out through whistle-blowers. And nothing is happening to him.

STU: Honest question to anyone who might have, you know, a passion against Donald Trump. Which one are you more concerned about?

Someone who is doing this with Iran. Or classified documents being in the private home of the former president of the United States.

GLENN: They say Donald Trump.

STU: How?

You have to be insane to say that.

GLENN: Correct. Correct.

And we keep letting these people go. We keep letting them go!

Try this on for size. The Republican governors of Texas and Florida, have penned letters, condemn a proposal that would effectively allow the democratic administration or any president, to rest control of the National Guard units away from their states without governor's permission.

This is the US Air Force Legislative Proposal 480. It's not just Ron DeSantis and Greg Abbott against us. Forty-eight governors are against this.

Joe Biden wants it. Why?

The National Guard cannot be called away from their home state without the permission of the governor. Now, let's just say you are on the left, and you have always argued, hey, a well-regulated militia. That means the National Guard.

Okay. Then that makes this even stronger. If that's the well-regulated militia for each state. The federal government cannot take it from the governors or the state.

Because it is their last defense. And who -- what states do you think he would take those from? I'm guessing Texas and Florida.

And they would be off fighting some war in God knows where. And Texas and Florida wouldn't have access to their home state defense.

Do you want Republican -- Democrats, do you want a Donald Trump to have the power to take your National Guard away from you on his whim?

Of course you answer no. And I answer no, as well.

Why am I saying no now, would say no under Trump, but you don't seem to care when it's Biden?

Who is really protecting democracy and the republic? Here's another one: Biden administration hid the pause in arm sales to Israel from Congress.

Wait. The javelin missiles going to Ukraine. Donald Trump was -- paused those. They say, only for his personal or political enrichment. He was going to be able to get dirt on Joe Biden.

And that can't ever happen. Okay. Well, we all know there is corruption over there. But why worry about that, then and now?

We just keep sending hundreds of billions of dollars over to Ukraine. This time, with the American people, are for the arms sales. When Congress passed the sales.

President Biden secretly stops the arm sales to Israel. Even though it was passed by Congress, approved by the people as much as you could possibly approve anything anymore.

Well, why isn't he -- well, because he really believes this. Oh. And Trump didn't?

You can read the hearts of men? Hmm.

And you don't think this has anything to do with the election. You don't think that Mr. Flip-flop on Israel. I love him. I hate him. I HOV him. I hate him.

Hey. What are the Muslims saying in Dearborn, Michigan. Yeah. That's right. I remember. I hate him.

That's not a political move?

Why am I against somebody doing political moves, unless it is -- because it is not in national -- the national interests. If it is in the national interest, we should have a conversation about it. Wait. The president did something. Why did he do it? Can he do that?

This one, pure political. Pure political.

That's it. We know it. But you don't have a problem with it this time.

SECOND Epstein Black Book For Sale?! Will Glenn BUY IT?

A second "Black Book" belonging to Jeffrey Epstein is up for auction and Glenn is considering buying it. The book has reportedly been verified as Epstein's and contains the names and information of many famous people he either met or did business with. Glenn, who is preserving artifacts that show both the good and bad sides of history, explains why he has debated entering the bidding pool. And one thing could make this artifact even more disturbing than it already is: "Will we ever find out if Epstein was an operative for our government or other governments?"

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So I am -- you know, I collect American people history. And I collect it to preserve it.

And I want to tell the whole story of American history. The good and the bad. Probably the best example is, we have a lot of stuff from Patton. And he was an amazing guy. But we also have one letter from Patton. Where he is a monster. And I mean a monster.

No better than the Nazis. And, you know, we all have these conflicts in us. Some bigger than other. And we wanted to make sure we showed both sides of Patton.

That we don't make anybody into a hero.

Without showing this is the heroic stuff they did.

And this is the questionable or really bad stuff they did.

Jeffrey Epstein's black book is up for auction. Now, this is not the book that he had when he died. This is a book from around the year 2000, that he lost. Somebody had it. They found it in the street of New York. It's been verified that it is his handwriting, and it is his book.

They picked it up, and then just put it in a box and left it in a storage, you know, unit. And ever since this Epstein thing has been going on. They're like, I have to find that book. I have to find that book. Where did I put that book?

They went through their storage unit and found it. Then they brought it to Alexander Historical Auctions, which is a really good auction house.

And they -- they put it up, with unredacted names and numbers. You can't see it. You can go and, you know, visit the book, if you're interested in buying it. And look through it.

You can't take pictures of it or anything else.

But the black book is for sale. They're saying, it will go between 100 and $200,000.

Now, my question is: Is this -- is this just a passing big -- but still a passing blip.

Like I'm not really interested in the Lindbergh trial. Who cares, you know what I mean?

STU: Right.

GLENN: It was a big thing at the time.

Is this a big thing just at the time, and what would change that I think is, was he or will we ever find out, he was an operative for our government or other governments?

PAT: Hmm. I don't know. That's kind of the rumor right now, right?

CIA.

GLENN: Yeah. What is your thought on Epstein's book, having it. I mean, I would love to. I would love to have it, just to read the names on the air.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: You would have to believe, if there was George Soros. Like we already know about it.

GLENN: That page would be missing. Shockingly all the S's are missing. And the G's.

STU: Right. So I think that maybe there won't be a massive story in it. Though it's an incredible --

GLENN: Well, if we were really considering buying it. I would send somebody up to look through it. And tell me, is there anything in it worth -- you know, if it's like "Squeaky" Fromme. I don't really care.

STU: I would care. If "Squeaky" Fromme had done it, that would be crazy.

GLENN: Yeah. That would be nuts.

STU: That's an interesting -- is it just -- here's a guy who did some really terrible things. Like Jeffrey Dahmer merchandise. You're not buying that.

GLENN: Yeah, I'm not buying that. I'm not buying Michael Jackson stuff.

PAT: Would you buy O.J.'s stuff? Because that was pretty big.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: That wasn't just a flash in the pan. That was pretty big.

GLENN: If it's something pretty big. O.J. Simpson baseball card.

STU: Baseball card. Wow. That's incredible.

GLENN: Shut up. Football card.

STU: Because I think O.J. is on the level of Lindbergh. Historically. To us, right now, it obviously is a lot bigger, because it happened in the '90s. Fifty years.

GLENN: The only thing that would be worth than that, is somehow or another, finding a way to capture the -- the African-American response to O.J. Setting him free because he was -- he was finally able to beat the man.

STU: Right. And, by the way, the jurors from the trial have said that is what they did. This is not Glenn making things up.

GLENN: Right. So if you could capture that, because we're having the opposite right now.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: You know, people not looking at the facts of anything, because they want somebody to win. One way or another.

And so that is -- that is something to happen with yours. And so it would tell that story. But I don't know how I would capture that.

STU: Remember, the Epstein thing is tied into powerful people.

Prince Andrew. There's certainly. I don't know if he's in that book, per se.

I will say, my instinct is, yes. He should have been on it. Largely because I think one of the things you do at the museum. And as part of your mission statement over there is to preserve history that will be erased.

And, man, the Epstein thing falls directly in that category. Like we know about it right now. Kind of. I don't think we know the whole story.

And the powers that be, will do everything they can, to make sure that goes down some memory hole, that we don't remember it. Like the Lindbergh case. Right?

They want that to go away. So actually preserving some of that history. I think is -- is a good use of -- of resources.

Of course, if there's nothing interesting in it, I suppose, maybe that's not the case.

But, man, I don't know. It seems like we still don't know the story on that one.

PAT: But won't they let you see the whole thing before you buy it?

GLENN: Yes. You can go up right now, and make an appointment.

And you can go up -- I was thinking about sending Jason up there, and you can go up, and make an appointment. And seeing it. See it.

See what's in it.

You can't take a photograph of it.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And, you know, no copies of it. But you can come back and then he could tell me, this is what's in it. These are the kinds of the names that are in it. That he could remember.

PAT: Uh-huh.

STU: And you need someone with a photographic memory.

GLENN: I know. Do we have a listener with a photographic memory? That would be great.

STU: I will say, it seems like they're showing it to people. And we don't have any leakages on the actual story.

GLENN: Well, they just announce it had yesterday, I think.

STU: Okay. At some point, you think the story would leak out. If there was something amazing in it.

GLENN: Not necessarily. Because if you were qualified to go see it.

You're a buyer. And if there's -- you don't want anybody to know.

STU: Until after you have it. Right? That's good.

GLENN: They leaked from over a few lines, to ten or 15 lines, or more, each. Each of the entries have several more names included, additionally 94 names bear black hand applied checkmarks. Five have been highlighted in yellow. All five names, including that of President Donald Trump, interesting that that one is out. Are well-recognized financial and industrial figures. The significance of the checked and highlighted names is unknown. The details included in the vast majority of the entries are -- are most extensive.

Epstein not only includes the name, address, and telephone number of his contact, but in most cases, also adds other residential addresses and numbers, contact information of family member, secretaries, media employees, associates, cell phone numbers.

And at least one instance, contacts girlfriend's number. There is a good deal of information hinting at Epstein's sordid past, including the very first entry, contact information for the front desk, and five apartment numbers, corresponding with telephone numbers at 301 East 66 Street.

This address was home for many young models, girlfriends, pilots, and lawyers, associated with Jeffrey Epstein.

Book contains entries for former Ford models, CEO Kate Ford, as well as an entry for masseuse, which lists 24 women's names and numbers, with pager numbers as well.

The history of this criminal relic is fascinating in the mid-1990s. Musician living in Manhattan discovered the book lying on Fifth Avenue's sidewalk in midtown. She eventually put it in storage. It was not until 2020, while cleaning out her storage unit, that she realized it belonged to Jeffrey Epstein. She reached out to several media outlets, not this one, who failed to react. Assuming that the book was a copy, she listed it on e Bay, where it was purchased by a graduate -- how is this possible?

PAT: Who is it purchased by?

GLENN: A graduate student in the northeast who has possessed it ever since.

PAT: For how much? Do we know for how much?

GLENN: No. Don't know.

2004, Epstein's black book was discovered by the FBI and used in legal proceedings. But this copy which came to light after Epstein's death was not considered as evidentiary importance at the time of its discovery. According to Business Insider. The 1731 names contained in the two volumes together, do not appear in the 2004 book. During its six-month investigation, Business Insider journalist had respected forensic document examiners examine the book to determine its authenticity. After a researcher looked at the binding and the data within, the examiners determined, there are indications or evidences suggest that the Q1 address book predated the online version of the address book and was in existence in the late 1990s. A copy of that was available.

PAT: So there's 1700 names?

GLENN: Names.

PAT: But we don't know why they're named?

GLENN: Nope.

PAT: That's interesting.

GLENN: What they released. And it's interesting again.

They released Donald Trump and Alan Dershowitz. As names on this.

PAT: Oh, my gosh. Of course. Of course.

GLENN: Of course. Of course. Donald Trump. Alan Dershowitz. Frédéric Fekkai.

Do you know who that is?

PAT: No.

GLENN: Christie Hefner. And Edward Kennedy.

PAT: Huh.

STU: Frédéric Fekkai, French hair stylist and entrepreneur.

GLENN: Of course. Well, who doesn't -- a French hairstylist in their black book.

STU: Makes a bunch of products though. Seems like a big -- has a big company. Making stuff, it appears.

GLENN: What is your first stop, yes or no?

PAT: Wow. I should say yes.

GLENN: Should we look at it.

PAT: Yeah. I would look at it. And then depending on the names.

GLENN: What is its significance in history, long-term.

PAT: What dirtbags we had in office, I guess. I'm sure you're going to find out some things about people, right?

Although, it doesn't say why they're in the book.

GLENN: No.

STU: We know the Alan Dershowitz thing. We already know, the person who accused him said, maybe it wasn't him.

GLENN: He was in there, because he was the attorney.

STU: So not necessarily going to happen. You don't know if it's going to be some major story that will change history.

GLENN: I'm sorry. We do also know that Donald Trump threw him out. Right? Of Mar-a-Lago.

STU: Yeah. They had a falling out, long time ago.

GLENN: Big time. Because I guess he was trying to recruit some of the females. And Donald Trump said, get out. Don't come back.

STU: The Trump thing is -- I think that's a complete disconnect from the Epstein story, long, long ago.

PAT: Otherwise, they would have made political hay out of that a long time.

STU: The Clinton one is much more significant.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: And I think the Bill Gates one too. Some of his comments have been really weird about that.

PAT: Really weird. So are his wife's.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: I think Bill Gates has flown under the radar as just a weird, quirky guy for so long. I think he may end up being one of the true villains of our time.

PAT: I think it's quite possible.

GLENN: Uh-huh. The things he wants to do on population role.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: His connections there. His divorce from his wife who was like, get away from Jeffrey Epstein, we know who he is.

And he wouldn't get away from Jeffrey Epstein. And they divorced. That's kind of a big deal. Kind of a big deal.

STU: Yeah. When he's occasionally been pressed on that, it's not gone well for Gates. I mean, we don't know what happened there, but something weird went on.

PAT: Very. And he stole all the technology from Zerox in the first place anyway. So...

Is the Economy About to Return to 1970s-Era Stagflation?

After April’s dismal jobs report released, some experts started wondering whether America has entered a period of stagflation. But what does that mean? And should we trust the data? Financial expert Carol Roth joins Glenn to break it all down. Plus, she reviews “one of the most painful” videos she has ever watched, featuring Biden economic adviser Jared Bernstein trying his hardest to explain why the Federal Reserve’s never-ending money printing is fine.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Carol Roth, the author of the book, you will own nothing. The former investment banker. Carol, yes -- or last Friday, I think it was. The jobs report came out. It was much lower than expected.

And I started seeing things like Bank of America saying, we're in stagflation now.

Are we? And if so, what is it?

And what does it mean?

CAROL: Well, let's talk about some of these data points, Glenn. And then we can go into stagflation. First, we've seen a couple of bad data points. And as we've talked about before. The data is garbage. So we're doing the best we can, what it is they're telling us, without any sense of the actual reality behind us.

We saw before the jobs report, that the first quarter GDP was down, about a percent lower than expectations. Down to 1.6 percent on an annualized basis.

Then we get the April jobs report. And that is also down. It's the slowest job gain. That we've seen in -- I think about six months.

Again, if you believe the data. And what that first is telling me, is that all of this money, that the government has spent to basically window dress the economy. To avoid the double-digit recession.

Remember, we did have a recession. Two quarters of negative growth back in '22. Then we popped out of it. Then we expected that it would employ it down. The government ran these massive deficits, about two times the historical average, on a debt to GDP basis.

That we would normally see. And they tried to prop up the economy. So it wouldn't show we were in a recession. At a very expensive cost, by the way. Normally, when you have an expanding economy, you would see a shrinking deficit. They have did you not opposite.

They ran a big deficit, to try to create this appearance. And with an interest rate. Financing that deficit. You know, at the largest point in 15 years.

GLENN: Right.

CAROL: So we know we are not getting a good return now, on this window dressing. And it is not creating these amazing outcomes for the economy.

You know, on the GDP front. On the jobs front.

Which again, could turn around. It's one set of at that time points. Would shift.

Stagflation is something that I talk to you about. I have been talking about for years. As a very possible outcome here.

And it's very much what it sounds like. It's when the economy stagnates. When you have a low growth number. But at the same time, you have inflation.

So you have sort of the worst of all worlds. You're not making gains of productivity.

You're not making, you know, gains in wages and things like that.

The economy is just hanging out. But you get this long-term sticking inflation.

Which again, we said was very likely, because the government continued to spend at these massive levels.

And they were working against what the fed was trying to do, to break down inflation.

So they are actually at this point, a likely cause of long-term inflation.

Because we have to continue to finance these massive deficits.

And so that's the reality of this sticky situation.

When you hear somebody, like JPMorgan's Jamie Dimon saying, I'm worried that the economy is going to look more like the 1970s, than anything else, this is something that they experience. Experience at that period of time. And he is seeing those parallels. Although, we're in a much worse fiscal situation from a fiscal foundation standpoint, than we were strangely enough in the 1970s.

GLENN: Because of our deficit and debt.

CAROL: Correct.

GLENN: Yes.

So this means that jobs, everything just is the same. It doesn't get better. It could get worse. But it doesn't generally get better for the individual. And prices continue to go up. Right?

That's what --

CAROL: Correct. You're not seeing your growth in wages. You're not seeing massive growth in companies.

The economy just sort of putters along.

You know, you're not seeing the massive layoffs. Or things you might see. With a recession.

Things are just kind of going along.

But not really growing at all.

You're not seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. But at the same time, we're encountering that bond, going sticking inflation, that we know destroys purchasing power and is really born, particularly by the middle and working class.

GLENN: All right.

So Carol, I don't want to spend a lot of time on this. Because I have a couple of other things.

But you said, at the beginning of your conversation. You said, if you believe the numbers.

I don't believe the numbers.

CAROL: Correct.

GLENN: But the only reason you change and fudge numbers is not to stop them from looking so good. But stop them from looking so bad.

And the reason why I don't believe them. Is it's just too many times, where they've been adjusted. And there's always adjustments, but not like it's been in the last year or so.

And there's just contradictory information. If you're somebody who is listening now, and, you know, you don't -- you don't necessarily have that. You don't think that, you know, the administration would go that far, and fake numbers.

What leads you to say, if you believe these numbers?

CAROL: Well, like you said, there have been a lot of anomalies in the numbers. And, you know, if you -- you can kind of go back even further. You know, we've changed the method of calculation, of these numbers. At the governmental level, many times since the 1980s. One of the things you have to remember, for something like let's say inflation.

Inflation feeds into things like cost of living adjustments. The amount they have to increase Social Security payments by. So there is an actual reason why it is, that they would want to suppress those numbers.

Another piece of data which I think is very important. Is that entities and individuals no longer want to participate in government surveys.

So we have seen an absolute massive decline in the participation of the data that is being collected by the government.

Which means, when they don't have people in businesses, responding, there are more biases in the data, because it's a smaller subset of people who want to do it.

And it means they have to want to run it through their own adjustments. And seasonal adjustments. In the model.

And it's garbage in. Garbage out. You put bad data in, you'll get bad data out.

There are a lot of things. This isn't just the, hey. The numbers are adjusted massively. And we're seeing the numbers over and over again. Speaking to the bad data. There are some real structural issues as to why many of us think the data sort of isn't worth anything.

GLENN: By the way, we're talking to J.D. Vance in 15 minutes. Right now, we're with Carol Rother. I want to bring up something that is one of the most terrifying things I've ever seen. It's an interview where they're trying to make the case for modern monetary theory. Which is not modern. It's a very old theory. You can just print money, and no big deal. Nothing bad will happen.

And they talked to Joe Biden's economic adviser.

Now, I -- if you would, explain who Jared Bernstein is.

He is -- he is the chair of the council of economic advisers for Joe Biden.

But he's not just some schlub, right?

CAROL: Well, I mean, I will not opine on that. But what I will tell you, is that he's very powerful economically. This is Joe Biden's right-hand adviser who has been, by the way, since the Obama administration, he was Biden's adviser.

And this is the guy who analyzes and interprets economic developments.

He comes up with economic policies. He puts that forth to the president. He's been entrenched in think tanks. He's been a contributor to CBS. He writes op-eds. He was a chief economist, in economic adviser. You know, previously.

This guy is like from the left and far left standpoint. One of the people, who they hang their hat on, to be the economic adviser. And I don't know.

Are you going to play the clip.

It's one of the most painful things I've watched in my life.

GLENN: I want to get your comment on it. And I want to set up. This is a real player in the economy.

This is someone our government depends on.

Listen to him try to explain our deficit, and what's happening with our money. Listen.

VOICE: The US government can't go bankrupt, because we can print our own money.

VOICE: It obviously begs the question: Why exactly are we borrowing a currency that we print ourselves? I'm waiting for someone to stand up, and say, why do we borrow our own currency in the first place?

VOICE: Like you said, they print the dollar. So why does the government even borrow?

VOICE: Well, the -- so the -- I mean, again, some of this stuff gets -- some of the language that the -- some of the language and concepts are just confusing. I mean, the government definitely prints money.

And it definitely lends that money, which is why the government definitely prints money. And then it lends that money, by -- by selling bonds. Is that what they do?

GLENN: No. No.

VOICE: They -- they -- yeah. They -- they sell bonds. Yeah. They sell bonds. Right. Since they sell bonds.

People buy the bonds. And lend them the money.

GLENN: No.

VOICE: So a lot of times. A lot of times. The language and the concepts can be kind of unnecessarily confusing. But there is no question, that the government prints money. And then it uses that money to -- so, yeah.

I guess I'm just -- I can't really talk.

I don't get it. I don't know what they're talking about.

Because it's like, the government clearly prints money. It does it all the time.

And it clearly borrows. Otherwise, you wouldn't be having this conversation.

So I don't think there's anything confusing there.

GLENN: Oh, my God. This is -- would you feel --

STU: Wow.

GLENN: If that was your captain, and you got on to a plane, and he said, hey. We're going to be traveling at 40,000 -- 4,000 -- I can't -- how does this work again? Would you get on that plane?

CAROL: Okay. So I'm going to be generous here first, Glenn.

And then I'm going to be not so generous. The first generous thing I will say is that we've all been in the media for a very long time, you longer than me. And we've all had days, that are somewhat like this. Where we know something really well. And we just can't get it.

So I will -- it could be today for me.

There have been a few times. When I made absolutely no sense, on something I know very well.

So it does happen. That can said. Now that I've been generous.

This is sort of the chief architect of the US economy at this point. Going through a discussion about MMT. I call it magic money tree. I've heard that somewhere along the line. I thought that was great.

And their main thesis. Oh, you got the checkbook. You can just write checks. The question he asked. Which anyone who lives in Zimbabwe would probably know the answer to. Why can't the government just print as much money as it wants.

We all know it's highly inflationary. And we've been living through that for the past few years. That's the very short answer. Of course, there's nuance to this. Of course, there's wonkiness that we can go in and explain the Treasury and the Fed. Just very simple.

So it begs the question to me. Does he not know the answer? Or does he very much know the answer, but he doesn't feel like he could admit it.

And hasn't done the prep. Which, again, these are politicians. Politician mouthpieces. They could just talk around us. Which they do all the time.

I think the answer is that they are just entirely decoupled from reality. So they don't care.

They don't care what it is, Glenn. Money is something very discreet. Money has three definitions. It's a unit of account. It's a median of exchange. It's the value.

At the end of the day, putting it together, what is it? It's a proxy for productivity.

It's an estimation of the labor that you have. Because it used to be. If you were a farmer. You had apples. Somebody who was a doctor at doctor services. You would have to figure out that exchange. Now this creates something that is seamless. So it stands for something.

GLENN: Stands -- time is money.

CAROL: It is. It is your output. So if you don't have an increase in economic activity. An increase in productivity. And you put more dollars in the system. What are you doing?

You're putting in more sort of proxies for productivity. They're chasing the same amount of goods and services. It means that those goods and services have been inflated and valued. Because each one of those proxies are worthless. If you go to Congress. And you ask them, to give you that definition of money. That I just gave you.

Anyone who knows anything about economics. I guarantee you 99 percent of the people couldn't tell you that. And the people on the left do not care. Because it doesn't serve their purpose.

They don't care that this is a proxy of what you have worked hard for.

They want to inflate that away for their own power purpose.

So it is very inconvenient for them to understand reality.

And that's why he can't explain this.

GLENN: I think he knows what it is. But can't explain.

Because he doesn't. He doesn't want to take a position on it.

Because I think they're all in bed with MMT. So he can't -- he doesn't want to say, I am in bed with MMT. Because it's insanity. But I think he also extent can know how to bridge that gap. There's a huge gap between reality and insanity.

CAROL: There is.

GLENN: And I think that's what it is. He just doesn't want to be seen crossing that bridge. Because there's no sane reason to do it.

CAROL: No. And the fact of the matter is, you had all these MMT people, selling this fantasy. And up until a few years ago, there were a lot of people who bought into the fantasy. Although, many of us said no. This is something that stands for reality.

You can't just make it up. Just because you have a checkbook. You can't write unlimited amounts of checks. It doesn't work that way. We have now lived through the worst inflationary period in 40-plus years. And these MMT people have not gotten enough shame. They should be walked through the street and we should go, shame, shame, shame.

Because it's their BS they've been selling into the government, into schools, that has allowed this to occur. And has allowed this decoupling from reality. Because they want to believe in unicorns that, you know, fart rainbows.