RADIOJuly 02, 2024

Glenn CAN'T TAKE Biden's Hypocrisy After the Supreme Court's Trump Immunity Ruling

President Biden spoke after the Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity ... and Glenn couldn't believe what he heard. Biden slammed the Court's ruling, which granted former president Donald Trump absolute immunity for presidential actions and presumptive immunity for "official" actions. Biden followed the lead of dissenting Justice Sonya Sotomayor, claiming that the Court basically allowed the president to do anything, including go after his opponents ... Wait? Like Biden is doing right now?! Glenn reviews Biden's speech line by line and highlights all the hypocrisy within it.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Well, I just don't know what to say. I watched the president's speech last night. And everybody coming out and saying, he could go after us. He could shut us down. Now that the Supreme Court has ruled. Donald Trump, if he's elected, he will come in and he will start putting people in jail.

Huh. I want you to remember that here in just a second. We will get back to it.

Here's what the president had to say last night, at a press conference.

It's cut nine.
(music)

BIDEN: The presidency is the most powerful office in the world. It's an office that not only tests your judgment. Perhaps even more importantly, it's an office that could test your character.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

BIDEN: Because you not only need moments where you need courage for the full power of the presidency. You also face moments where you need the wisdom to respect the limits of the power of the presidency.

GLENN: Yes. Stop there for a second. So, Stu, what would some of those limits be?

Because it's an awesome responsibility, to be president of the United States. But you can't just do anything. Right?

Like, what would some of the limits be. You couldn't just go out and kill people, right?

STU: I don't know. That's not what I have been hearing, Glenn. Over the past 24 hours.

GLENN: Really. Wow?

STU: My understanding is the Supreme Court gave James Bond license to kill, to the president of the United States.

GLENN: No. No. No, I don't think that's true. But we'll continue to listen.

STU: Yeah. Immune. Immune. Immune.

GLENN: I didn't hear the whole speech. So we'll go on.

I was thinking something smaller, like -- like maybe you say, hey, you have student loans.

I can't help you with those. That would be the -- the constitutional thing. But the president couldn't just say, I'm going to just forgive all student loans.

STU: Yeah. Yeah. That -- you're thinking of the old-timey America.

There was a version of America, where the -- you know, the head of the executive branch couldn't just spend $500 billion on a whim, without Congress.

But those days are long gone, Glenn.

GLENN: Okay. But it would go to the Supreme Court. If it was wrong, it would go to the Supreme Court. And they would tell a president to stop it. And he would.

STU: No. He would just do it again.

GLENN: Oh, it went to the Supreme Court.

STU: Yeah. They shot it down.

GLENN: Awesome.

STU: So he just did it again.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: And then in a slightly different way. Like 1 percent different.

And then sends it through the courts again.

And, again, it will get rejected again.

Then he'll just do it again.

GLENN: Right. So that's weird. It's an awesome power. And, you know, it shows character. You know, when you restrain yourself from doing those things that you can't do. Anyway, I digress.

BIDEN: Respect the limits of the power of the office of the presidency.

Legislation was founded on the principles. There are no kings in America. Each. Each of us is equal before the law.

No one, no one is above the law.

GLENN: Okay. Stop for a second. Stop for just a second here.

Stu, are we all equal under the law here?

I mean, is that true?

STU: It doesn't seem true. Uh-huh.

GLENN: Like, for instance, if you were held in contempt of Congress.

Right? You would go to jail. Right?

Like Steve Bannon just went to jail yesterday.

STU: Sure. Another Trump adviser who said, no. I can't share that. That's executive privilege.

They sent him to jail.

STU: Navarro. But it's all equal, right?

I mean, let's say, somebody was -- yeah. Not releasing tapes of testimony.

And they say, well, that was executive privilege.

And they were in contempt of Congress. They go to jail as well, right?

STU: No.

I mean, I don't know what you're talking about specifically. But what you just described does not sound at all like something you would go to jail for.

GLENN: Okay. Well, let's say you were the head of the DOJ. And Congress said, you have to produce this information, and then you didn't.

STU: Right. Totally fine.

GLENN: You would be in contempt of Congress.

No, no, no. You don't go to jail?

STU: That doesn't seem like a jailable offense at all.

It's like, I can see where you're getting confused here.

Like, for example, if you were to -- like, riot at a federal building.

Right? That's something you would go to jail for. It's wrong!

You don't do those things.

GLENN: Right. Right. The darkest day.

STU: Yeah, and then there's another separate scenario, where let's say you were to riot, at a federal building. You don't go to jail for that.

GLENN: Oh, wait. Was it just a federal building?

STU: If you're rioting at a federal building, you're going to jail.

If you're simply rioting at a federal building, you don't go to jail.

GLENN: So is it kind of like -- it's a very subtle difference, it's kind of like, when you're praying in front of an abortion clinic. You would go to jail.

STU: Jail.

GLENN: And but if you burn down an abortion clinic. You don't go to jail.

STU: Depends on -- are you burning it down, because they're not doing enough abortions? If you're burning it down because they're frequently aborting enough kids, then yes. You cannot go to jail. But if you burn it down because you think they're doing too many abortions. Then obviously, you go to jail.

GLENN: Okay. So if you burn down an abortion clinic, you would go to jail, if you disagreed with them. But if you burned down the people's business, where they were pro-life, I also go to jail.

STU: Well, they're pro-life? The owners of the business. Yeah. No. You would not go to jail for that.

Why would you go to jail for that? That's stupid.

GLENN: Okay. I want to understand, that I understand equal justice under the law.

I think we have it. Go ahead with President Biden.

BIDEN: Not even the president of the United States. Today, the Supreme Court decision. On presidential immunity.

That fundamentally changed. For all. For all practical purchases.

Today's decision almost certainly means that that there are no limits to what a president can do. It's a fundamentally new principle. It's a dangerous precedent.

GLENN: Yeah, dangerous.

BIDEN: Because the power of the office, will no longer be constrained by the law. Even the Supreme Court of the United States.

GLENN: Wow. Stop for a second.

That is news, isn't it?

Especially to the Supreme Court.

That is news. That no matter what the president does. Even if it breaks the law, you're not going to have pay a price for it.

I didn't know that. I didn't know that.

See, what the left is afraid of right now is what they're saying is, he is going to silence speech. Donald Trump will silence any dissent.

And that's not happening now. Uh-uh.

Or he would put his -- he would put his -- you know, former allies -- I mean, his former foes in jail.

For instance, let's say, you're running against a guy who Donald Trump didn't think he could beat. Then he would just make up some charges.

And then get the guy arrested.

And then keep him, you know, in the court system, until you finally got him into jail.

That's what Trump could do. Trump could do that.

Because of yesterday's rulings.

So that's pretty -- pretty frightening.

You know, I think if we're really going to go all the way. What should be terrifying, is that Donald Trump could just round up a whole group of people, because he didn't like them.

You know what I mean?

Just round them up.

And then put them like in a concentration camp. Kind of like FDR did with the Japanese. And that wouldn't be legal. You know, he would get out of office. And he would never pay the price. that FDR had to pay.

STU: Which is that he named our best president.

GLENN: Well, yeah. That's weird.

STU: Over and over again.

GLENN: Yeah. The guys who would violate these are always the progressives. Always.

The deep, deep progressives are the ones, who violate all these things.

Now, when it comes to just killing people, or doing something illegal, the Supreme Court case laid out it must be constitutional. So if the -- if the president acts in an unconstitutional way, then you can get him!

But unless it's -- unless it's unconstitutional, he can't do it. So it would be unconstitutional to round up the people that disagreed with you.

It would be unconstitutional to silence those who oppose you!

It would be unconstitutional to go after your opposing political foe, and try to put them in jail. All things that Joe Biden is currently doing.

STU: Yeah. I mean, it's funny, this ruling is coming from Roberts. Who is an institutionalist. Right?

If anything, we've complained about him a million times, because he's so unwilling to shake up things. Just because, you know, it happens to be the constitutional way.

I mean, Obamacare is a great example of that.

It will shake things up. I don't want to give the impression, that we're too impactful on society.

He's always doing these things. That's in a way, what this ruling is.

What he's saying is, hey. We shouldn't have -- I mean, in a way, it's designed specifically to protect Joe Biden.

Because everybody knows, if there's no immunity. What do you think Donald Trump will do when he's president of the United States, after what he's just been through. He will go in there, and find everything that he can. And go after Joe Biden on that.

He promised to do with Hillary. He didn't do it. He now says he regrets not doing it.

And now they've done it to him! So you think he will just sit back and say, you know, let me show you what I will do as president.

It's a shoulder shrug. I don't think that's the way it will go down. In a way, Roberts is protecting both sides from this back and forth that can easily come.

GLENN: However, what the president has done, is not constitutional.

And he should go to jail. Not for the things that he's done in office.

I disagree with all his policies. The whole thing, of, you know -- of, you know, taking away your student loans. And things like that.

You know, that's unconstitutional. But I don't think that's something that you go after.

However, the business dealings with China?

Yeah. I think that should be prosecuted.

STU: At least as far as we know.

GLENN: That didn't happen as president.

STU: As far as we know, none of that happened while we were president. That wouldn't help at all. I think what Roberts is doing here, is just setting a high bar.

GLENN: That's what he's saying.

STU: Of course you can go after a president for the worst things in the world. However, there's a high bar for you to clear. So don't bother bringing up your BS nonsense every ten seconds because it's not going to work. That's beyond the fact that we all knew what he said was true.

Official acts would be -- you would be having immunity for. Like you're not able under the law, Glenn, to kill people. Right?

Like you can't just -- like, you couldn't send a drone to start murdering people, in other countries.

The president, with his powers, as commander-in-chief, has -- powers that we don't have.

Like, we all know that. There was some sort of implied immunity for official acts. We all knew that. We all knew unofficial acts would not be covered here.

There was nothing new in this ruling. It was blatantly obvious. Yet they have to do this charade every single time. And act, oh, SEAL Team Six might come and just start being utilized to kill people. You know how many -- how many different layers of checks and balances would have to -- including SEAL Team Six, just going along with this.

Which they would not be covered to do. They would all get prosecuted. They would all be put in prison. But we're supposed to believe, that Donald Trump would be fine for doing this.

It's insanity.

GLENN: All right. Well, let me just end with this.

As the president was saying this, two things happened yesterday. Christian pro-life father of 11 is now facing over a decade in prison.

He will be sentenced today, okay? For a peaceful protest in Tennessee. It was a violation of the Face Act, you know. They were praying in the hallway.

What he said, yesterday, is this: Quote, it's real easy for me. I can go and go to battle and go to jail as an individual. And it's not a big loss.

The challenge comes, when you're leading your family through it. When you're talking to your 3-year-old and your 23-year-old and your other family. Von said that he wanted to pray to God, quote, every day. And get up ready to take on the day, with whatever circumstances believe my way, with a humility and a grace and a spirit-led life. That represents all of us in our society. Represents him and our community around us.

How many politicians order their life after truth and justice, versus power, greed, negotiation, and negotiating principles?

So here's a guy who said, I believe what I believe. God will be with me.

I'm going to go to jail. At the same time, Bannon also went to jail.

For contempt of Congress. There are now 15 -- I believe 15 people in the Biden administration that have been deemed in contempt of Congress.

None of them are being prosecuted.

But Donald Trump's people are. Bannon said this, and I don't like Bannon. Okay?

I don't agree with Bannon on everything. I think he's -- a thought leader, that I really strongly disagree with many times. But he should not be going to jail.

He said, I am proud to go to prison. If this is what it takes to stand up to tyranny, if this is -- if this is what it takes to stand up to the corrupt criminal DOJ. If this is what it takes to stand up to Nancy Pelosi, if this is what it takes to stand up to Joe Biden, then I am proud to do it.

You have people crying that they might go to prop. While they're putting people in prison, for the things that they have done themselves.

Please, Mr. President, don't talk to me about out of control tyranny from the Supreme Court. They have done exactly the opposite.

They have protected the presidency, while they are dismantling the administrative state.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

They want to control what you eat! — Cattle rancher's stark warning

American cattle rancher Shad Sullivan tells Glenn Beck that there is a "War on Beef" being waged by the globalist elites and that Americans need to be prepared for this to be an ongoing battle. How secure is America's food supply chain, and what does the country need to do to ensure food shortages never occur in the future?

Watch Glenn's FULL Interview with Shad Sullivan HERE

Iran War & US Riots: An Urgent WARNING About the ‘Death to America’ Mob | Glenn TV | Ep 440

Is the world approaching its FINAL battle? From the anti-ICE rioters to Islamic governments like Iran, the message is the same: “Death to the West… death to America.” Glenn Beck gives an urgent warning about the radical ideologies threatening Western civilization and likens the chaos in American streets to Gotham. Asra Nomani, an expert on Islamic extremism, terrorism, and radicalization, joins Glenn to detail what she saw at a No Kings protest in Philadelphia. Nomani warns that “more blood will spill” due to the dangerous nexus between Democratic organizations, Islamic sympathizers, Marxists, communists, and socialists. “This is the tyranny that will come to your neighborhoods and streets unless we stop it.” Another issue dividing the country and President Trump’s MAGA supporters is the war between Israel and Iran. Should the U.S. help destroy Iran’s nuclear ambitions or let Israel go it alone? Iranian American journalist Nik Kowsar was arrested and threatened with death for his political cartoon critical of an Islamic cleric in 2003. He reveals the truth about the Islamic regime but tells Glenn why he believes bombs won’t bring democracy to the oppressed people of Iran.

Should Trump BOMB Iran or stay out COMPLETELY?

There's a big debate right now among the political Right over whether the United States should intervene in Israel's war with Iran. Should President Trump bomb Iran? Should he encourage regime change? Or should he completely stay out of it? Glenn Beck and The Federalist CEO and Co-founder Sean Davis discuss.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Sean, welcome to the program.

VOICE: Thank you for having me, sir.

GLENN: You bet. I'm glad to have you on.

You know, I'm not sure -- I'm not sure of anybody's position, because the smart people, like I think you are, are asking questions. And not coming out with these bold declarations. They're just asking questions.

And sometimes, their own response, at least mine is.

It's very nuanced. And I'm not recommending anything.

I'm asking questions, and I'm warning about the mistakes of the past.

I don't trust anybody.

But I also think a nuclear armed Iran is really bad. But I want Israel to take care of it.

I want to be involved in that.

It's their direct right now. Let them take care of it.

What -- where do you go from here. What questions should we be asking ourselves, Sean.

SEAN: Yeah. I love your approach to it. Because it doesn't start with a conclusion.

It's kind of trying to build with what we should be doing from the bottom-up.

Which becomes a discussion of first principles. And I think that's really important.

I think we probably all agree, that we don't want bad people. And we don't our enemies, to have weapons, they use to destroy us.

I think probably everyone agrees in that.

GLENN: Yes.

Well, can I add a caveat to that?

Not just our enemies, but especially those who are batcrap crazy.

Or believe in the return of the Mahdi, and I can hasten his return by washing the world in blood. That kind of -- that puts you in a special category for me.

But, anyway, go ahead.

SEAN: And, again, I think I might even extend it. I'm not sure I want our friends and allies to have it. In a perfect world, we would be the only country, with these massive weapons.
(laughter)

GLENN: Okay. All right. I'll go for that. Okay.

SEAN: So the problem we have is that for, let's call 80 years. You know, 75.

The nuclear toothpaste has been out of the tube.

Soviet -- India, Pakistan. North Korea.

France. Israel.

In South Africa for a time, they all had nukes. And to me, the big problem that I have a really difficult time wrapping my head around, is how do you solve the problem we created with Gadhafi in Libya?

GLENN: Yes.

SEAN: That country gave up their weapons program, voluntarily after Iraq. Kind of before Iraq become another debacle and another cautionary tale. And they gave up their weapons in the US and NATO and our allies. We returned the favor, thanks to Hillary and Obama, by overthrowing Gadhafi and killing it.

I think what that communicated to every leader on earth, good or bad, if you don't ever want to be overthrown, you have to have nuclear weapons.

And so I start with understanding that fact, what is the best, most effective way to make our enemies -- make sure our enemies don't get nuclear weapons?

And I'll tell you, I don't have a good answer. Because we've heard for 40 years, that Iran is on the verge of a nuke.

They're about to have a nuke. They're about to have a weapon. So let's assume we go through with these attacks, and we bomb now or Israel bombs it.

What that doesn't get rid of is the incentive. It temporarily gets rid of a mechanism for I guess enriching uranium. But in four years or five years, how do we deal with that? I don't think regime change is a good idea. We've seen how well that works. It turns into an unmitigated disaster.

And so I think we just have to start with the question, what is the best possible way to incentivize people that we don't like, and don't like us, to not have weapons. And I genuinely don't have a good answer to it.

GLENN: You know what, I keep thinking. Every day I do this job. And I think what Reagan said when I was a kid.

He said, there's going to come a time.

And he was talking to Social Security at the time, but I apply it now to everything. There's going to come a time, where we've made so many mistakes. There won't be a good solution to everything. Every choice will be a bad choice.

And I think we're here. I think we're here. Everything we do, you're like, I don't know. I don't know.

I don't want to do to the mistakes of the past. But I don't know how to stop this now.

You know, regime change. Let me just take that one.

Regime change. It doesn't work. I loved your post. I think it was yesterday.

Yes, our military industrial complex lied about Vietnam. Killed Kennedy. Ran a coup against Nixon, then killed another Kennedy.

Tried to get MLK Jr. to kill himself. Ran drugs through the Americas to fund shenanigans in the Middle East.

Funded Bin Laden in the Taliban. Missed 9/11, and lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Got an ambassador murdered in Benghazi.

Then turned Libya into a slave market run by terrorists. Then created ISIS. Ran the Russia collusion hoax.

Tried to overthrow Trump with the Ukrainian hoax. Weaponized a bat virus that killed millions of people and lied about it. And used the virus they made to steal an election.

Then arrest Trump, tried to bankrupt him.

Try to make him die in prison, and then when they failed, they denied him adequate security, leading him to be shot in the head.

Yeah, they did all of those things.

The drug cartels, Iraq, Bosnia, in the 1990s.

Iraq and Afghanistan in the 2000s. Still Iraq and Afghanistan in 2010.

Plus, Libya, the whole moronic Arab Spring thing. Ukraine in the 2020s.

These were all disasters that cost millions of dollars and countless lives. You're right on every single one of those things.

Every single one of those things.

So how do we make a decision now'

SEAN: Right. And that's why I think it's important to get to first principles. Which is understanding our limitations.

Understanding history. Understanding how other nations view things. One thing that's driven me nuts in the foreign policy debates that we've had in the country, for 20, 30 years.

Is that there seems to be zero desire to put ourself in the position of our adversaries and our opponents. Saying, how are we looking at things?

Some people, if you try to do that, they'll say, oh, well, you're sympathizing with them. Or you're appeasing. Well, no. This is the basic stuff for negotiation.

You're playing chess against someone. You want to understand what they're going to do next.

So you can respond to it.

And we just never do that.

And I look at this. I think there's probably two major options. For either forestalling or preventing a particular regime for getting weapons.

The first one is regime change.

In the short-term, you can tell yourself, we will overthrow these people.

And then they won't want nukes anymore. Because we will put our friends in, and then it will be food.

Well, that's been ongoing in Iran for 100 years. The Brits and the Soviets were the ones who came in and put the original Shah in. It's been a mess over there.

So personally, I throw regime change out the window. Because it opens up pandora's box of just insanity, as we've seen in the Middle East.

GLENN: Okay. Hang on a second. Hang on a second.

Wait. Wait, on that.

Is there a chance that -- you know, I never saw it.

I kept saying. We headed to war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Show me the person that will have their face on the stamp. Show me the person that will have their face on the money.

I never had somebody stand up and say, we need to be free.

And we need to fight for our own freedom. You do have those people that are really tired of this, and much more Western.

I don't want to get involved in a regime change. And I certainly don't want you to say, hey. We're going to help you pick a leader.

Is there a chance this time is different? Or is that wishful, stupid thinking?

JASON: You know, I think it's probably wishful thinking, but I don't know.

I tell you, I have a hard enough time figuring out what's going on politically in my own country. Think about all the time we spent pouring over polls in our election. Talking to our neighbors.

This is a country we were born in.

We understand its culture without even thinking about it. We're fluent in the language. We can talk to anyone we want, whenever we want. And we have a tough time, figuring out what is going on here. I don't have a clue what's happening in Iran.

I don't speak any of the three or four languages over there.

I don't understand the culture. I've never been there.

I've not been able to talk to people over there.

I don't know thousand read the news there.

The idea that I, or really any other Westerner can look at Iran and with any confidence say what the people want or don't want, I think it's crazy.

And so I think you kind of have to be humble about your ignorance. And we are largely ignorant of just about everything happening within Iraq, and its culture and its people.

GLENN: I -- I have to say, I think you're right on that.

Okay. So that's out.

What's the next thing?

SEAN: We kind of set aside regime change, probably not a great idea.

Another option is maybe economic incentives. Yeah, we know you don't want to be overthrown.

That's going to be a hard incentive to overcome. So you're going want to regime change insurance. Maybe we can bribe you out of it. All kinds of economic assurances. This and that.

The problem with Iran is they're sitting on oil, which is probably the most precious resource on earth. I don't think that works.

And so I think what we're left with is probably the Whack-a-Mole that's been going on for years. And I think the nation that's probably best sighted to deal with that Whack-A-Mole. They're the ones at risk.

Iran can't reach us here in the US. They don't have the ballistic missile capability. They're not a direct military threat to us.

They're clearly a military threat to our friends and allies in the Middle East.

And so I think the least worst option is probably Israel doing what it does, every five to ten years, and going and trying to degrade their ability to mechanically make the stuff.

Wait to see what happens, do it again over and over. But to me, that's a regional issue.

And, yes, there are allies. And, yes, they're our friends.

But it's far more consequential to them, than it is to us. And so I have no problem with them, doing what they need to do, to address the threats to them.

GLENN: So I'm with you, 100 percent so far.

Now, I'm very -- you know, we're the only ones with the bunker buster that can get into that.

What does that go down, 12 stories?

20 stories, underground.

Can destroy anything with a 20-story footprint, underground.

We're the only ones that have it. It has to be dropped from one of our planes.

And I'm very uncomfortable with that. Very uncomfortable. I mean, you know what, you want to buy the bunker buster? I'll sell it to you. But you got to drop it.

Once we put that on our plane, and we drop it, aren't we then part of the war?

SEAN: Right. And that -- like I said, that might be the least worse option to the extent that we have to be involved.

GLENN: Yes.

SEAN: When it comes to foreign policy. I think a lot about what Mike Tyson says.

That everybody has a plan until you get punched in the face. Once you go and drop a bomb on someone, once you engage in offensive military capabilities. Now, you may rhetorically say, well, it's preemptively defensive. It's an offensive move, whenever you bomb another country.

You are creating the conditions for all kinds of chaos. Who knows how they're going to respond?

Maybe they're rational. They understand, look, we will have to take this one on the chin.

We don't want to fight with the US.

We don't want to fight with Israel. We will have to deal with it.

And maybe they decide. Hey, we were in the middle of negotiations. We thought we were trying to get somewhere.

And if they're going to do this stuff with us, then to heck with this.

We will just unleash hell. That can happen.

Now, I don't know if it will. It's probably less likely to end up taking it.

But it's a possibility. Whenever you go and punch somebody in the face, you now have to deal with the consequences of how they will respond.

GLENN: All right. Back with more in just a second. Can you stay with me for just a few more minutes, Sean?

SEAN: Of course.

GLENN: Before we go to back to Sean, Jason, I had to look up in the break, preemptive strikes.

Is that something new?

Because I know that's -- my age, maybe.

I remember, I don't remember people saying, we have to preemptively strike, more than when it -- when the nukes started coming. And that's when everybody was like, you have to do it before you get one.

Is this a new thing? Or has this been going on forever?

JASON: I want to start out with saying, I'm so glad for Sean in having this conversation.

Because it is sorely needed right now.
It's so bad.

There's a weird irony with preemptive or preventive strikes.

Because the first modern preventive strike, looking at the Cold War era was the start of the six-day war.

When Egypt blockaded Israel, amassed 100,000 troops in Israel.

GLENN: Wow.

JASON: Did the first modern preemptive strike. If they would not have, they would not be here right now.

It's another coal in the fire really.

What is the red line --

GLENN: Sean, what is the red line?

Is there a red line?

SEAN: For us. Or for Israel?

GLENN: You know, any society. Is there a red line?

I think the answer for Israel is a lot sooner than ours.

But is there such a thing as a red line, to go first, and preemptively strike?

I'm sure there is. I'm sure there is.

It's so situational, that I would have a hard time saying right now, this is a red line, that satisfies all conditions for all nations.

GLENN: How about just for Israel?

Red line?

SEAN: For Israel, I would think it would be a delivery mechanism and the actual developed warhead. That's probably what I would look at. Can this immunization at this moment, deliver a nuclear warhead to us right now?

That's what I would say is the red line.

But, you know what, I have not had a country trying to wipe me off the earth for, you know, the last 80 years, 75 years.

GLENN: 5,000.

SEAN: Right.

But hard for me, just given my position, to know exactly what their -- I would say, it's probably close to the same thing.

An ability to attack the US people. Now, you'll hear from the Pentagon and people saying, well, they can hurt our troops in the region.

My view is, well, that's probably a good reason to not be meddling in the regions all the time. Because --

GLENN: Hmm. Hmm.

Sean, thank you so much. What a great conversation.

I really appreciate it. Thank you for being reasonable, rational. And allowing people to disagree.

And learn from our disagreements. Thank you, Sean. Appreciate it.

JASON: You're very gracious. Thank you, sir.

GLENN: You bet. The CEO of the Federalist.

Sean Davis.

Will Trump HIT Iran with a “bunker buster” bomb?

Will President Trump get America involved in Israel’s war with Iran by helping drop a “bunker buster” bomb on Iran’s main nuclear facility? Would that cross a red line? Glenn Beck asks House Foreign Affairs Committee member, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, who explains why she believes such debates are pointless right now. Plus, Rep. Luna addresses a 1980s CIA "playbook" that exposes a strategy to "set off riots and destabilize governments."

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Representative Anna Paulina Luna is joining us now.

Congresswoman from the great state of Florida. You guys are kicking it, down in Florida.

I mean, you really -- you're making Texas look bad, quite honestly. But thanks for coming on.

ANNA: Thanks, Glenn. I would like to say, we're leading the nation not just in politics, but also the White House. So happy to be here.

GLENN: Yeah. All right. I have to ask you a little bit, about are we going to war? What's happening? Is this negotiation? What does your gut tell you on this?

ANNA: My gut is telling me, that we're not intervening. And based on the president's statement, he is still rightfully so, urging everyone to negotiate. Right now, he's definitely been very open about this.

But I don't want to -- what I will tell you, in the last 24 to 48 hours, I have seen so much disinformation circulating on the internet. Well, a lot of it not coming from security that is in the states, so I will tell everyone. That don't jump to conclusions, don't read into anything, that senator Lindsey Graham is saying or any other members of Congress, that are speculating, that there will be direct intervention. In fact, the White House just yesterday via Alex Sipher on X posted that the military is not intervening. We're simply defending our own. And so what I will tell Americans is first and foremost, President Trump has not changed his position on foreign policies. If he wanted to strike, he would have done it by now. So everyone needs to pray for him. Pray for our country. Pray for the millions in both Iran and Israel right now, and let the process play out.

GLENN: Can you tell me, do you think it's a red line to send over a bomber with one bomb?

Is that -- does that drag us into war?

Or is that just helping?

ANNA: I would say, as of right now, we need to not speculate, but continue to back the White House's position.

Because I think if I were to speculate on where the red line is, I don't think it helps.

I do think that our allies and adversaries are looking to see the members of Congress are doing. I will back the White House's position currently. Which is defending our service members and not intervening --

GLENN: It is. I'm so glad to hear you say that. That is exactly what I just said on the air. Just about three minutes ago.

ANNA: Oh, really?

GLENN: I said, yeah. The world is watching. You don't think the mullahs aren't watching everything that is said on X. You know, we must used to have these conversations where it was global. We're now in a global atmosphere.

And they're watching all of us.

And we can't eat ourselves up. Or they will -- if he's telling the truth.

I think a good negotiator, never bluffs. And he has to back it up.

You know, 60 days. You don't want to see what happens on day 61.

He wasn't bluffing.

And if they think, that we are eating ourselves, alive, they're more likely to go, no.

You know what, go ahead. Go ahead.

It's a really bad thing.

ANNA: What I will say, it's definitely a litmus test for our country right now. You're seeing a lot of people, jumping to conclusions. What I will tell you, there's only a very select few that fully understand what's happening in the situation room.

That's the president, his team, and it's left up there to you. What I will tell you, don't read in, don't speculate. And also too don't jump to conclusions.

Again, in the last 48 hours, I went online. I put out information, because I saw so much information circulating. Something that was said by Kash Patel. His CCP has engaged in basically election engineering. We just saw that in the 2020 election cycle.

They just got busted. This also comes on the tail end of these riots that are absolutely being hunted by the CCP. Neville Singham getting lots of money from them.

And it doesn't stop there.

We saw there was an -- so what I would say is that, you know, I'm partially inclined to think some of these accounts that are attacking the president, are foreign policy positions right now.

Are coming from China. Everything that we're seeing. Three times, that they've done things.

So we have to stick together. It's not, Democrat versus Republican right now. It's America, and fighting for Western civilization.

And so we need to make sure that we're very responsible about our commentary right now.

GLENN: Very good. Very good.

Can we talk a little bit about the -- let's start with Neville Singham.

The guy is -- he is an operative for the CCP. And he is pouring tons of money. And no one in the mainstream media, wants to talk about it.

They just -- oh, that's ridiculous. No, it's not.

Can you give us some information on --

ANNA: Yeah. Of course. So it's not ridiculous. In fact, there's a lot of money -- money at least back to Neville Singham. And I actually look at credit where it's due. So I was on X. And came across this account called Data Republican, and she actually pulled the money trail right to Singham. He also lives part time in Shanghai, China, and he's not registered as a foreign agent.

And so I was able to talk to Comer, and every single member of oversight after seeing the evidence that was presented, actually sent a letter, signed off on it, not just to Neville Singham, but also, to AG Bondi to also request an investigation.

And so what I will tell you is that this should have been done during BLM in Congress back then.

It was not. This needs to be replicated moving forward with everybody else who is engaging, who is not a registered foreign agent in this country.

Also, funding riots like this. In some instances have been acts of terrorism.

And so right now, it's not just a playbook for Neville Singham. We're also -- this is also up to Comer. Because Comer has subpoena authority. Whether or not he will send his subpoena to George Soros, which I've urged him to do.

Even though, Neville Singham is a Marxist and Soros is a globalist, but their end objective is, again, to dismantle the United States.

And so we're basically being hit from both sides right now.

GLENN: I am so -- it is so refreshing.

I mean, I've been talking about this stuff for 20 years.

It's so refreshing. Finally, to have some people step up, and present this in a credible way, in Congress.

And to the -- attorney general et cetera, et cetera.

You know, you had the playbook from 1983. From the CIA.

And this is -- you know, I think it was two or three years ago.

No. It was in 2019 or 2020.

I did a special on the -- you know, the Colour Revolutions.

And how there was the CIA playbook that was out.

And it looks exactly like what is happening here in the United States. I said -- I said, at the time, here's what's coming. And it's all here.

It -- where are you taking this?

And is there anybody, that, you know, can -- can stop this?

Because this -- we are -- we're using CIA tactics on ourself.

ANNA: Well, I would say, the CCP is using this against us.

Right now, just first and foremost.

Yes. We can stop it.

We have to go after the money stream. And I actually also found out via the data Republican.

That $270 million in the USAID fund, was issued to George Soros' NGOs prior to Biden getting out of office.

President Trump can stop that, sending a letter via executive order because Congress is moving very slow.

That's I think a separate conversation.

But we can stop the money streams. And if we don't do anything, though. If we don't do the investigations.

If we don't say, you cannot do this in our country, you're also, by the way, guilty of violating foreign agent registration, the Foreign Registration app, the FAR app. It's just going to continue happening.

So we have to do the due diligence on this.

And if not, every single member of oversight signed off on that.

And to Chairman Comer's credit, he will be playing ball with Singham. So it's going to happen.
It's just, When will it happen?

So the time line, it's possibly indicated on Friday. We're waiting for a response.

He's going to be called to testify.

We are looking at all transaction records.
That's the first thing. The second thing, I want to give some people hope. I actually know Director Radcliffe over at the CIA.

And the CIA back then, remember, there's both good and bad people at the intelligence agencies.

And to their credit, the people that he has appointed, actually are a people like you and I.

And so they are doing their best to weed out this corruption at the agencies. And so what's really been brilliant in all of this.

Kash Patel is also following up on these money trails, to see what outside foreign influences are engaging in this Colour Revolution here in the United States, and he's dropping that information now. So in previous administrations, this might not have happened.

But in this one, they're stopping it, and it's because of social media and kudos to Elon Musk, that we were able to get the information in time, in regards to the No Kings protest, who is funding that.
In regards to potential insider packets that were going to frame conservatives. Frame Republicans.

We are seeing this all unfold in real time. I will tell you, Hispanic Americans, specifically, are not used as pawns. So when you have basically BLM 2.0 happening right now at these ICE riots, and you realize that these are actually largely ANTIFA that are going to be questioned. They're why they're not Hispanic. They're not immigrant.

They have no ties to the communities, and they're simply interning, you know, Mexican flags or BLM flags. That doesn't bode well in the community.

Remember, Hispanic Americans are largely voted for in favor for President trump.

So there is hope. But you can't sit on your hands. You have to get active, you have to get engaged, and you have to be telling people that.

GLENN: You know, for years, I've been angry at the billionaires on the right. That have just not stepped up to the plate.

I really, I suspected with the tides foundation and then with Biden and you all of these green new deals, and everything going on. That money was being funneled off the top.

And then as soon as we appointed DOGE. I said, oh, my gosh. The money is coming from us.

Then he started to find him. That is so critically important. Are we going to stop that funding?

ANNA: Well, yes. And so that's what we've been doing with some of these rescission packages at the White House, that has authorized. We have to move quickly. And we have to be more aggressive with it.

I will tell you, remember, I think just in general, sometimes people can be lazy.

And so what I've been telling people, is you have no idea, the level of personal sacrifice, that Elon really took on.

From taking on DOGE. Especially going after USAID. Which is just like a pot of just corrupt nonsense.

He actually just released, as we were about to call in. He released drug testing results. He had himself drug testing. Because they were saying, he was doing all this crazy stuff.

And he wasn't. Right? They've attacked companies. They literally used his personal family matters in the press. And then they tried to drag a wedge between him and the president.

So what I will tell you is, it's not just him. It's any member of Congress of the Senate. You saw what happened with the president. They tried to assassinate him twice.

Okay?

So if you take this on, the American people need to back these people up.

Because it's not like we're taking it on, because we, you know, want to have our personal lives and our family members put on the line here.

It's because it's the right thing to do. And if we don't do it, who will?

You have to really make sure, everyone sitting together. Remember, look out for the disinformation campaign.

And keep supporting people who do the right went.

Because we need more of them.

GLENN: Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna.

Congresswoman, thank you.

JEFFY: Thanks Glenn.

GLENN: You bet. We'll talk again.