RADIOMay 20, 2024

PROOF That Biden's DOJ is COLLUDING With Trump Prosecutors?

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey is demanding that the Department of Justice turn over documents related to several of the prosecutors going after former president Donald Trump. These documents, Bailey believes, will prove that the White House is colluding with these prosecutors to attack Biden’s political opponent and keep him off the campaign trail. Bailey joins Glenn to make the case that these prosecutors — including Alvin Bragg and Letitia James in New York and Fani Willis in Georgia — should be disqualified. Plus, Bailey also explains why he has threatened to sue the city of Kansas City for doxing Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: We have the Missouri attorney general. He is demanding a couple of things. First of all, that the Department of Justice turn over the documents related to several of president Trump's prosecutions as the prosecutions appeared to be part of a coordinated effort, by the DOJ, that involved the White House. Andrew Bailey. The attorney general is with us now.

Andrew, how are you, sir? All of the time doing well, thank you. Thanks for having me on.

GLENN: You bet. Thank you. You are one of the really good AGs in the country. And I have to tell you, it is -- the first of the last of the line, are the AGs. And if you guys go dark, it's up to the sheriffs.

And I would like to not get to the sheriff part. So thank you for everything you're doing.

Tell me -- tell me about what you're looking for, from the Department of Justice. Why you're looking for it. And what the response has been so far.

ANDREW: Well, and, Glenn, I appreciate you covering this story, extensively. Everyone can see the elicit witch hunt prosecutions that are going on from Alvin Bragg's office, from Fani Willis' office, from Leticia James' office, and from Joe Biden's crooked Department of Justice.

GLENN: And we know already -- do we not know for a fact, that there are ties directly to the White House. That they're coordinating.

ANDREW: That's right. Yeah. They're absolutely coordinating. The Biden Department of Justice has become the nerve center for a coordinated witch hunt prosecution of a political opponent.

And it's not designed to obtain a legal ballot.

It's basically designed to take anyone running against Joe Biden. Off the campaign trail.

How do we know this? Because they've deployed resources at the state level.

That's illicit collusion. And I'm talking about Matt Colangelo, this was the number two ranking official at Biden's crooked Department of Justice.

A long time ENT activist, with deep ties to the Democratic Party, who has now taken a job with Alvin Bragg's office. And it's leading the prosecution in the courtroom in Manhattan at the state level, against President Donald Trump.

That is sufficient evidence, to disqualify the prosecutors. And we demand record. We need to have transparency. I think they have enormous liability on their professional license you're. Civil liability. And potentially criminal liability.

At some time, we have to talk about prosecuting the prosecutors.

GLENN: Thank you. May I just call you, Andrew.

ANDREW: Yes. Please.

GLENN: So, Andrew, how unusual is it for that kind of a -- a transfer of job -- I mean, does that happen?

Is this just our speculation?

ANDREW: Well, in isolation, it wouldn't be a problem in and of itself.

The problem comes from the elicit motivations that can be imputed to these prosecutors.

Let's talk about Alvin Bragg for a second. Which, by the way, I love that his website for his office is one standard of justice for all. How does this guy keep a straight face while saying that?

This is an individual who worked for Leticia James, who campaigned on a promise to prosecute Donald Trump, who has been involved in civil litigation against Donald Trump when he worked at the New York attorney general office.

There's no way a court in Missouri would allow him to prosecute that criminal case. Even -- even if there was a criminal case, which I don't concede that there is.

It's not supported by the facts for the law. We covered that extensively. We talked about that, ad nauseam.

But the elicit motivation of the prosecutors is so evident by the previous behavior and statements that Alvin Bragg has made. Same with Michael Colangelo. I mean, the DOJ cases against President Donald Trump are also equally specious in nature.

In other words, not supported by the facts of the law. So Joe Biden keeps documents at his garage, where anyone can get to them. And he's too old to know what he's doing. So let's let him off the hook. Despite the fact, he's somehow the chief executive of the United States of America. But we're going to go after President Donald Trump, who had the authority to declassify the very documents he was in possession of, that were in a safe. So, again, you've got Matthew Colangelo reading all of that, and now going to help Alvin Bragg. That is conspiracy of impropriety at a minimum, and I believe there is actual impropriety. Substantive impropriety. The political motivation of the prosecutors is to sufficient to call into question the judgment in those cases. Couple with the fact, they brought baseless charges from the facts of the law.

And it will undermine the credibility of whatever illegal convictions they ultimately obtain.

GLENN: So tell me what cases you're looking at. You're looking at Alvin Bragg. And you're looking at -- shoot. What was the other one you just --

ANDREW: Leticia James. Fani Willis.

GLENN: Yeah. All of them.

ANDREW: All of them. Yeah. There's a document in history. This isn't just some conspiracy theory.

I mean, your listeners will recall in 2016 how the DOJ Deep State conspired to perpetrate the Russian collusion hoax against President Trump to undermine his presidency before he took office.

And think about those text messages between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok.

You're telling me, that isn't going on between Leticia James, Alvin Bragg, Matthew Colangelo. Fani Willis. The whole crew. And so we know this evidence is out there. And it needs to be transparent for the public.

GLENN: So is there a statute of limitations on any of these?

ANDREW: You know, it depends on what facts are uncovered. But I don't think we're at any risk of losing ability to hold the wrongdoers account. Again, that can take many different forms.

First and foremost. We, need to expose this so the public knows what's going on here.

It was never about an actual criminal case against President Trump it was always about getting him off the campaign trail.

Now, once that is established, which, again, circumstantial evidence gives rise to the reasonable inference today. But we're in possession of the documents that we believe will reveal an actual substantive impropriety. Then we start talking about censor. Having a civil suit for violation of his civil rights. And if crimes were committed, on absolutely criminal prosecution should be on the table. For far too long, the conservatives have allowed this law fair to go on. It's gotten worse and worse and worse, to where now, Missourians are being denied access to their chosen political candidate, their chosen presidential candidate, President Donald Trump.

GLENN: So you know law fare is the wave of the future. If President Trump wins, they're going to make what happened on January 6th, I think look like, I think a walk in the park. And they are lawyering up like crazy.

Law fare is the future. How do we turn that around?

ANDREW: Well, it's tough, because as conservatives we believe in the rule of law. We believe that the tradition of the Constitution still means something, and that we elevate the rules of the game above the players and the outcomes.

And so the only way to serve those rule of law principles, but also fight back against law fare is to hold those perpetrating lawfare accountable. And that's what I seek to do in this instance.

GLENN: Now, how likely are we to get these documents?

ANDREW: Well, I'm not going to be stonewalled by Biden's crooked Department of Justice. They may play that in the courts of New York. Which, by the way, shame on the judiciary in the State of New York for not disqualifying these prosecutors. And from, you know, allowing these appearances of impropriety to perpetrate, even from the bench in this illicit witch hunt prosecution. At the end of the day, this will not stand in Missouri. We won't be stonewalled by the Department of Justice. They have a responsibility of transparency.

Especially the heightened sensitivity over the presidential election. And so these are serious allegations. They need to live up to their obligations under the Freedom of Information Act, and we are going to shine the light of truth on this, as soon as practicable.

GLENN: And when we have the document case, when they turned over the documents, we found solution, did we not?

ANDREW: That's absolutely true. Again, this is a documented pattern of behavior. That extends far beyond the current presidential election sile. It goes all the way back to 2016.

GLENN: Unbelievable.

Let me switch subjects. The Kansas City Chiefs, which full disclosure, my family and I, we root for the Kansas City Chiefs all the time.

And, you know, we love the Hunt family, and everything else. What happened there, is -- is such an attack on, honestly, freedom of expression for your religion. He's speaking -- I mean, the left always says, you can keep it in your house of worship.

Well, that was a religious university. And he got a standing ovation. Nobody seemed to really be offended by it. And they have gone after him, and docked him.

What are you doing?

ANDREW: Yeah, well, look, we're not going to let city officials and Kansas City who doxed Harrison Butker in retaliation for his free expression of his faith, of his religious beliefs. We're not going to let them violate the Missouri Human Rights Act that exists in order to prohibit that kind of discriminatory behavior.

And you're right. If anyone has watched the commencement address itself, I would commend for everybody -- you know what he said at the beginning? You know what Harrison Butker said?

The left wants to drive free expression of Christian beliefs from public discourse, and that's exactly what's happened.

GLENN: Yes.

ANDREW: That's what the left is doing to Harrison Butker. Now, the problem from a state law perspective is when the city, using an official Twitter account, publishes Harrison Butker's residence. Why did they do that? In retaliation. Like, you can't retaliate them, but for the free expression of their faith. And that's what's going on here. And luckily, I'm the bad guy.

Quinton Lucas the mayor of Kansas City within the last 72 hours has written an incendiary letter to me, accusing me of fanning the flames of racial discourse. What? That has nothing to do with it. You know you're doing the right thing, when the left baselessly plays the race card. So somehow, my enforcement of the statute intended to prevent discrimination is discriminatory.

Makes zero sense. That's when you know you're doing the right thing. We're going to fight for all Christians -- any faith community's ability to have free expression of religious belief, protected by the Constitution and the laws of the State of Missouri.

GLENN: And what are you going on that, Andrew?

ANDREW: We demand accountability and transparency there too. We've demanded documents about who manages the Social Security media accounts, who has access to it.

Why this post was tweeted out, when it was. We need to make sure that there's guardrails in place, to ensure that, again, the government has been weaponized to push a radical progressive discriminatory agenda in violation of state law.

If we have to, we'll go to court and put an injunction to put a stop to it.

GLENN: Andrew Bailey, the attorney general of Missouri. Always good to talk to you, Andrew. Thank you so much.

ANDREW: Thank you, sir. Appreciate you for having me on.

GLENN: You bet.

If you didn't hear Bill Maher's comments on the Kansas City Chief Kicker's comments, listen to what he said. Cut two.

VOICE: I couldn't more not like this guy. He's in big trouble because he said at this event. And this is the Catholic college. Conservative Catholics. And they -- he's now history's greatest monster. Again, I don't agree with much of this guy. I don't get the thing. He said, some of you -- talking to the women.

Some of you may go on to lead successful careers in the world. Okay. That seems fairly like modern.

But I would venture to guess, that the majority of you are most excited about your marriage and the children you are going to bring into this world. I don't see what the big crime is. I really don't, and I think this is part of the problem people have with the left. Like he's saying, some of you may go on to lead successful careers. But a lot of you are excited about this other way, that everybody used to be. And now, can't that just be a choice too?

And I feel like they feel very put upon. There's only one way to be a good person. And that's to get an advanced degree from one of those asshole universities like Harvard.
(laughter)
I find it very ironic that he's saying, you know what, in my world, you know, we like the women to stay at home. And just have babies. And the college kids and the young people find this absolutely abhorrent. But they're demonstrating for Hamas.

Who make that a law. It's not just an opinion in Hamas. That you stay home and have the babies. We will enforce you for doing that. Okay. I just wanted to make that point.

GLENN: I have to tell you, I think Bill Maher has become -- and I don't agree with him on a lot of stuff. He is becoming my favorite liberal. Because he's an actual classic liberal once again. He's somebody who is just saying, freedom of speech, man.

Say what you want. Don't force everybody else.

Thank you, Bill Maher.

All right. Back in just a second. First, let me tell you about Ruff Greens. Your dog is a member of your family. You know that. He's also there to protect you if somebody else breaks into your house. So hypothetical situation here. Let's say you feed your dog kibble food. The burglar brings hamburger along and gives it to them.

I mean, you know, the burglar is like, hey. I will steal all your stuff. Because I just have a burger.

While your fateful dog is attacking you. Because he

The Globalist Elites' Dystopian Plan for YOUR Future | Glenn Beck Chalkboard Breakdown

There are competing visions for the future of America which are currently in totally different directions. If the globalist elites have their way, the United States will slide into a mass surveillance technocracy where freedoms are eroded and control is fully centralized. Glenn Beck heads to the chalkboard to break down exactly what their goal is and why we need to hold the line against these ominous forces.

Watch the FULL Episode HERE: Dark Future: Uncovering the Great Reset’s TERRIFYING Next Phase

Barack & Michelle tried to END divorce rumors. It DIDN'T go well

Former president Barack Obama recently joined his wife Michelle Obama and her brother on their podcast to finally put the divorce rumors to rest … but it didn’t exactly work. Glenn Beck and Pat Gray review the awkward footage, including a kiss that could compete for “most awkward TV kiss in history.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Now, let me -- let me take you to some place. I think kind of entertaining.

Michelle Obama has a podcast. Who knew?

She does it with her brother. Who knew? It's -- you know, I mean, it's so -- it's a podcast with two brothers. Right?

And -- and it -- they wanted to address the rumors, that they're getting a divorce. And this thing seems so staged.

I want you to -- listen to this awkward exchange on the podcast.

Cut one please.

VOICE: Wait, you guys like each other.

MICHELLE: Oh, yeah. The rumor mill. It's my husband, y'all! Now, don't start.

OBAMA: It's good to be back. It was touch-and-go for a while.

VOICE: It's so nice to have you both in the same room today.

OBAMA: I know. I know.

MICHELLE: I know, because when we aren't, folks things we're divorced. There hasn't been one moment in our marriage, where I thought about quitting my man.

And we've had some really hard times. We've had a lot of fun times. A lot of adventures. And I have become a better person because of the man I'm married to.

VOICE: Okay. Don't make me cry.

PAT: Aw.

GLENN: I believed her. Now, this is just so hokey.

VOICE: And welcome to IMO.

MICHELLE: Get you all teared up. See, but this is why I can't -- see, you can take the hard stuff, but when I start talking about the sweet stuff, you're like, stop. No, I can't do it.

VOICE: I love it. I'm enjoying it.

MICHELLE: But thank you, honey, for being on our show. Thank you for making the time. We had a great --

VOICE: Of course, I've been listening.

PAT: What? No!

GLENN: They're not doing good. They're not doing good.

Okay. And then there was this at the beginning. And some people say, this was very awkward. Some people say, no. It was very nice.

When he walks in the room, he gives her a hug and a kiss. Watch.

Gives her a little peck on the cheek.

PAT: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

GLENN: Does that --

PAT: Does that look like they're totally into each other?

GLENN: Well, I give my wife a peck on the cheek, if she walks into a room.

PAT: Do you? If you haven't seen her in months and it seems like they haven't, would you kiss her on the cheek? Probably not.

GLENN: No, that's a little different. That would be a little different. But I wouldn't make our first seeing of each other on television.

PAT: Yeah, right, that's true. That's true.

GLENN: But, you know, in listening to the staff talk about this. And they were like, it was a really uncomfortable -- okay.

Well, maybe.

PAT: I think it was a little uncomfortable.

GLENN: It was a little uncomfortable.

It's still, maybe. Maybe.

But I don't think that rivals -- and I can't decide which is the worst, most uncomfortable kiss.

Let me roll you back into the time machine, to Michael Jackson and Lisa Marie Presley. Do you remember this kiss?
(applauding)

GLENN: He turns away, immediately away from the camera. Because he's like.

PAT: He was about to vomit. Yeah.

GLENN: It was so awkward. When that happened, all of us went, oh, my gosh. He has only kissed little boys. What are we doing? What is happening?

He doesn't like women, what is happening?

And then there's the other one that sticks out in my mind of -- and I'm not sure which is worse. The Lisa Marie or the Tipper in Al Gore.

VOICE: The kiss. The famous exchange during the 2000 democratic convention was to some lovely, to others icky.
(laughter)

GLENN: That's an ABC reporter. To some lovely, others icky.

And it really was. And it was -- I believe his global warming stuff more than that kiss.
(laughter)
And you know where I stand on global warming.

That was the most awkward kiss I think ever on television!

PAT: Yeah. It was pretty bad. Pretty bad.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

So when people who are, you know -- these youngsters.

These days. They look at Barack and Michelle. They're like, that was an awkward kiss.

Don't even start with me.

We knew when we were kids, what awkward kisses were like.

PAT: The other awkward thing about that.

She claims, there was not been one moment in their marriage.

Where she's considered reeving him.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: She just said a while ago. A month or a year ago, she hated his guts for ten years. She hated it.

GLENN: Yeah. But that doesn't mean you'll give up.

PAT: I guess not. I guess not. Maybe you enjoy being miserable.

I don't know.

GLENN: No. I have to tell you the truth.

My grandmother when I got a divorce, just busted me up forever. I call her up, and I said, on my first marriage.

Grandma, we're getting a divorce.

And my sweet little 80-year-old grandmother, who never said a bad thing in her life said, excuse me?

And I said, what?

We're getting a divorce.

And she said, how dare you.

I said, what's happening. And she said, I really thought you would be the one that would understand. Out of everybody in this family, I thought you would understand.

And I said, what?

And she said, this just -- this just crushed me when she said it.

Do you think your grandfather and I liked each other all these years? I was like, well, yeah.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: Kind of. And she said, we loved each other. But we didn't always like each other. And there were times that we were so mad at each other.

PAT: Yeah. Yeah. Uh-huh.

STU: But we knew one thing: Marriage lasts until death!

PAT: Did she know your first wife?

GLENN: Okay. All right. That's just not necessary.

No, Trump’s tariffs ARE NOT causing inflation

The media is insisting that President Trump's tariffs caused a rise in inflation for June. But Our Republic president Justin Haskins joins Glenn to debunk this theory and present another for where inflation is really coming from.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Justin Haskins is here. He is the president of Our Republic. And the editor-in-chief of stoppingsocialism.com.

He is also the coauthor with me at the Great Reset, Dark Future, and Propaganda War.

So, in other words, I'm saying, he doesn't have a lot of credibility. But he is here to report -- I don't even think you're -- you're -- you were wrong on this, too, with the tariffs. Right?

JUSTIN: Well, at some point, I was wrong about everything.

GLENN: Yeah, right. We are all on the road to being right.

But this is coming as a shock. You called yesterday, and you said, Glenn, I think the tariff thing -- I think the president might be right.

And this is something I told him, if I'm wrong. I will admit that I'm wrong.

But I don't think I'm wrong.

Because this goes against everything the economists have said, forever.

That tariffs don't work.

They increase inflation.

It's going to cost us more.

All of these things. You have been study this now for a while, to come up with the right answer, no matter where it fell.

Tell me what's going on.

JUSTIN: Okay. So the most recent inflation data that came out from the government, shows that in June, prices went up 2.7 percent. In May, they went up 2.4 percent. That's compared to a year prior. And most people are saying, well, this is proof that the tariffs are causing inflation.

GLENN: Wait. That inflation is -- the target is -- the target is two -- I'm sorry.

We're not. I mean, when I was saying, it was going to cause inflation. I thought we could be up to 5 percent.

But, anyway, go ahead.

JUSTIN: So the really incredible thing though. The more you look at the numbers. The more obvious it is, that this does not prove inflation at all.

For starters, these numbers are lower, than what the numbers were in December and January.

Before Trump was president. And before we had any talk of tariffs at all.

So that is a big red flag right at the very beginning. When you dive even deeper into the numbers, what you see is there's all kinds of parts of the Consumer Price Index that tracks specific industries, or kinds of goods and services. That should be showing inflation, if inflation is being caused by tariffs, but isn't.

So, for example, clothing and apparel. Ninety-seven percent, basically.

About 97 percent according to one report, of clothing and apparel comes overseas, imported into the United States.

GLENN: Correct.

JUSTIN: So prices for apparel and clothing should be going up. And they're not going up, according to the data, they're actually going down, compared to what they were a year ago. Same thing is true with new vehicles.

Obviously, there were huge tariffs put on foreign vehicles, not on domestic vehicles. So it's a little bit more mixed.

But new vehicle price are his staying basically flat. They haven't gone up at all. Even though, there's a 25 percent tariff on imported cars and car parts. And then we just look at the overall import prices. You just -- sort of the index. Which the government tracks.

What we're seeing is that prices are basically staying the same, from what they were a year ago.

There's very, very little movement overall.

GLENN: Okay. So wait. Wait. Wait. Wait.

Wait.

Let me just -- let me just make something career.

Somebody is eating the tariffs. And it appears to be the companies that are making these things. Which is what Donald Trump said. And then, the -- you know, the economist always saying, well, they're just going to pass this on in the price.

Well, they have to. They have to get this money some place.

So where are they?

Is it possible they're just doing this right now, to get past. Because they know if they jack up their price, you know, they won't be able to sell anything. What is happening?

How is this money, being coughed up by the companies, and not passed on to the consumer.

JUSTIN: Yeah, it could be happening. I think the most likely scenario, is that they are passing it along to consumers. They're just not passing it along to American consumers.

In other words, they're raising prices elsewhere. To try to protect the competitiveness with the American market. Because the American market is the most important consumer market in the world.

And they probably don't want to piss off Donald Trump either, in jacking up prices. And then potentially having tariffs go up even more, as a punishment for doing that.

Because that's a real option.

And so I think that's what's happening right now.

Now, it's possible, that we are going to see a huge increase in inflation. In six months!

That's entirely possible.

We don't know what's going to happen. But as of right now, all the data is suggesting that recent inflation is not coming from consumer goods being imported, or anything like that.

That's not where the inflation is coming.

Instead, it's coming from housing.

That's part of the CPI at that time.

Housing is the cause of inflation right now.

GLENN: Wait. Wait. It's not housing, is it?

Because the things to make houses is not going through the roof. Pardon the pun. Right?

It's not building.

JUSTIN: No. No. The way the CPI calculates housing is really stupid. They look basically primarily at rent. That's the primary way, they determine housing prices.

GLENN: Okay.

JUSTIN: That so on they're not talking about housing costs to build a new house.

Or housing prices to buy a new house.

They are talking about rent.

And then they try to use rent data, as a way of calculating how much you would have to pay if you owned a house, but you had to rent the same kind of house.

And that's how they come up with this category.

GLENN: Can I ask you a question: Is everybody in Washington, are they all retarded?
(laughter)
Because I don't. What the hell. Who is coming up with that formula?

JUSTIN: Look. I mean, sort of underlying this whole conversation, as you -- as you and I know, Glenn.

And Pat too. The CPI is a joke to begin with.

GLENN: Right.

JUSTIN: So there's all kinds of problems with this system, to begin with.

I mean, come on!

GLENN: Okay. So because I promised the president, if I was wrong, and I had the data that I was wrong, I would tell him.

Do I have to -- out of all the days to do this.

Do I have to call him today, to do that?

Are we still -- are we still looking at this, going, well, maybe?

JUSTIN: I think there's -- I think there is a really solid argument that you don't need to make the phone call.

GLENN: Oh, thank God. Today is not the day to call Donald Trump. Today is not the day.

Yeah. All right.

JUSTIN: And the reason why is, we need -- we probably do need more data over a longer period of time, to see if corporations are doing something.

In order to try to push these cuts off into the future, for some reason. Maybe in the hopes that the tariffs go down. Or maybe -- you know, it's all sorts of ways, they could play with it, to try to avoid paying those costs today.

It's possible, that's what's going on.

But as of right now, that's not at all, what is happening. As far as I can tell from the data.

GLENN: But isn't the other side of this, because everybody else said, oh. It's not going to pay for anything.

Didn't we last month have the first surplus since, I don't know. Abraham Lincoln.

JUSTIN: Yes. Yes. We did. I don't know how long that surplus will last us.

GLENN: Yeah. But we had one month.

I don't think I've ever heard that before in my lifetime. Hey, United States had a surplus.

JUSTIN: I looked it up.

I think it was like 20 something years ago, was the last time that happened. If I remembered right.

It was 20 something years ago.

So this is incredible, really.

And if it works.

You and I talked about this before.

I actually think there is an argument to be made. That this whole strategy could work, if American manufacturers can dramatically bring down their costs. To produce goods and services.

So that they can be competitive.

And I think that advancements in artificial intelligence. In automation. Is going to open up the door to that being a reality.

And if you listen to the Trump administration talk. People like Howard Lutnick, Secretary of Commerce. They have said, this is the plan.

The plan is, go all in on artificial intelligence.

Automation. That's going to make us competitive with manufacturers overseas. China is already doing that.

They're already automating their factories. They lead the world in automation.

GLENN: Yeah, but they can take half their population, put them up in a plane, and then crash it into the side of the mountain.

They don't care.

What happens to the people that now don't have a job here? How do they afford the clothes that are now much, much cheaper?

JUSTIN: Well, I think the answer to that is, there's going to be significantly more wealth. Trillions of dollars that we send overseas, every year, now in the American economy. And that's going to go into other things. It's not as though -- when this technology comes along, it is not as though people lose their jobs, and that's it. People sit on their couch forever.

The real danger here is not that new markets will not arrive in that situation. And jobs with it. The problem is: I think there's a real opportunity here. And I think this is going to be the fight of the next election, potentially. Presidential election. And going forward.

Next, ten, 20 years. This is going to be a huge issue. Democrats are going to have the opportunity, when the AI revolution goes into full force. They will have the opportunity like they've never had before.

To say, you know what, we'll take care of you. Don't worry about it.

We're just going to take all of the corporate money and all of the rich people's money.

And we will print trillions of dollars more. And you can sit on your couch forever. And we will just pay you. Because this whole system is rigged, and it's unfair, and you don't have a job anymore because of AI. And there's nothing you can do. You can't compete with AI. AI is smarter than you.

You have no hope.

I think that's coming, and it is going to be really hard for free market people to fight back against that.

GLENN: Yes.

Well, I tend to agree with you.

Because the -- you know, I thought about this.

I war gamed this, probably in 2006.

I'm thinking, okay.

If -- if the tech is going to grow and grow and grow. And they will start being -- they will be responsible for taking the jobs.

They won't be real on popular.

So they will need some people that will allow them to stay in business, and to protect them.

So they're going to need to be in with the politicians.

And if the politicians are overseeing the -- the decrease of jobs, they're going to need the -- the PR arm of things like social media. And what it can be done.

What can be done now.

I was thinking, at the time. Google can do.

But they need each other.

They must have one another. And unless we have a stronger foundation, and a very clear direction, and I will tell you. The president disagrees with me on this.

I said, he's going to be remembered as the transformational AI president.

And he said, I think you're wrong on that.

And I don't think I am.

This -- this -- this time period is going to be remembered for transformation.

And he is transforming the world. But the one that will make the lasting difference will be power and AI.

Agree with that or disagree?

JUSTIN: 1,000 percent. 1,000 percent. This is by far the most important thing that is happening in his administration in the long run. You're projecting out ten, 20, 30 years ago years.

They will be talking about this moment in history, a thousand years from now. Like, that will -- and they will -- and if America becomes the epicenter of this new technology, they will be talking about it, a thousand years from now, about how Americans were the ones that really developed this.

That they're the ones that promoted it, that they're the ones that does took advantage of it.
That's why this AI race with China is so important that we win it.

It's one of the reasons why. And I do think it's a defining moment for his presidency. Of course, the problem with all of this is AI could kill us all. You have to weigh that in.

GLENN: Yeah. Right. Right.

Well, we hope you're wrong on that one.

And I'm wrong on it as well. Justin, thank you so much.

Thank you for giving me the out, where I don't have to call him today. But I might have to call him soon. Thanks, Justin. I appreciate it.

The ONLY Trump/Epstein Files Theories That Make Sense | Glenn TV | Ep 445

Is the case closed on Jeffrey Epstein and Russiagate? Maybe not. Glenn Beck pulls the thread on the story and its far-reaching implications that could expose a web of scandals and lead to a complete implosion of trust. Glenn lays out five theories that could explain Trump’s frustration over the Epstein files and why Glenn may never talk about the Epstein case again. Plus, Glenn connects the dots between the Russiagate hoax, the Hunter Biden laptop cover-up, and the Steele dossier related to the FBI’s new “grand conspiracy” probe. It all leads to one James Bond-like villain: former CIA Director John Brennan. Then, Bryan Dean Wright, former CIA operations officer, tells Glenn why he believes his former boss Brennan belongs in prison and what must happen to prevent a full-blown trust implosion in American institutions.