RADIOMay 16, 2023

Durham Report EXPLAINED: Here’s EVERYTHING we learned

Prosecutor John Durham has finally concluded his report and the FBI’s probe into alleged Trump ties to Russia during the 2016 presidential campaign season. And the findings are HUGE — despite what some in the mainstream media may say. In this clip, Glenn explains exactly what the Durham Report says, what it means for the FBI, and why Glenn wouldn’t be happy until ‘people GO TO JAIL.’

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Let's go to Jake tapper. Because I think this one is the only example of an honest reporter, from yesterday on the Durham report. Here's what he said on CNN.

VOICE: Regardless, the report is now here, it has dropped. And it may have not produced everything that the Republicans have voted for.

It is regardless, devastating to the FBI. And to a free, it does exonerate Trump.

GLENN: Wait. What? So you know, Jake tapper was one of the first ones to really jump on the bandwagon and say, is this true.

He was involved in a Russia scandal. So for him to reverse himself, that's a big deal.

For him to be on CNN and reverse himself, that's a big deal.

Maybe we're starting to see a little bit, a little bit, of actual journalism come out from Jake tapper.

Now, here's what we found out. This is -- is this quite amazing. What we found out yesterday was the FBI had zero -- zero Intel or faith in any of this.

So they opened an investigation on something, they had no faith on. They had no Intel. And more importantly, what we found out, is that they had been briefed on the fact, that Hillary and her campaign, was going to discredit Trump by claiming Russian collusion.

Joe Biden was made aware of Clinton campaign plans. I was told, in a meeting, August 3rd, 2016. August 3rd, 2016. By then, CIA director, John Brennan in the Oval, with Barack Obama, Biden, and James Comey, the FBI director and other senior administration officials. They were discussing Russia's efforts to interfere in the election. And according to Brennan's handwritten note and his recollections from the meeting. He briefed on relevant intelligence, known to date on election interference. Including -- this is in a quote. The Clinton plan intelligence.

Now, what was that? Durham writes, specifically, Director Brennan's declassified handwritten notes reflect that he briefed the meeting's participants, regarding the alleged approval by Hillary Clinton on the 26th of July, of a proposal from one of her campaign advisers, to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security services. End quote.

Now, how can any American say, this is not a big deal? Not only did all of this -- and we knew it came from the Clinton campaign. Remember the early stories was, this came from a G.O.P. operative.

Remember that? That was the early thing. This came from a G.O.P. operative. They were doing -- they were doing research. No. No.

The president, the FBI, the CIA. Everyone knew that it was decided on July 26th, and then briefed in the Oval in August. That Hillary Clinton had something called the Clinton plan intelligence he has

Where she would release things, to try to get the spotlight off of her email scandal. Durham noted, that even though Comey was in attendance at this meeting, it did not spark any FBI action.

So Comey knew from the beginning, so every time you saw Comey on television, saying, well, we don't know. And there's some evidence that we really have to look into.

He had been briefed, in August. And took no action on Hillary Clinton. Then when the Durham report came out. Not the Durham report.

The Christopher Steele file. When that came out, they all knew that that was the Clinton plan intelligence. The Durham report goes on to say, none of them had any faith in it, at all. In fact, while filing for the FISA court filings, to be able to spy on Trump, the Durham report says, the agents didn't then or in hindsight have any belief that any of these things were true. Okay. So let's just start adding up the crimes here. You have Intel, that one campaign is going to release false information to tie them to the Russians.

Your FBI knows it. Your CIA director is briefing the president. The vice president, Joe Biden. About the Clinton planned intelligence.

And they do nothing. But then when they are delivered something that they know comes from the Clinton campaign, they turn on the machine.

They then start -- the FBI then starts leaking this information, to the press. Which they have zero confidence in.

Durham noted, that during Comey's attendance at this meeting. It didn't spark any FBI action. He further highlighted August 22nd email, that an FBI cyber analyst sent to the bureau employees and senior intelligence officials, informing them of the details of the Clinton plan.

They failed to remember any follow-up actions, the bureau might have taken after the second briefing on it.

Then the FBI, when they got the Steele dossier, remember, the one that no one in the administration believed. Anything in it.

The one that they knew came from Clinton. The one they had been told months before, was coming, in the Clinton campaign. What was it? The Clinton planned intelligence.

When they got it, they went to Christopher Steele. He's the author of the dossier.

And offered a million dollars. We'll pay you and your primary sources money, if anyone was able to prove this.

So now, when Hillary Clinton's operatives couldn't get anything really solid, they pass it to the FBI, the FBI looks at this, and goes, this is garbage. Yeah, I know.

But it could be true. All right. Offer him a million dollars, if he could come up with something.

Okay. Anybody have a problem with that?

Anybody?

Then they went, one of the FBI agents, Brian Auten, traveled to Rome, and met with Steele on October 2016.

And he made the offer, knowing that it relied primarily on one person or subsource.

The bureau paid that subsource.

That subsource was Igor Danchenko. They paid him almost a quarter of a million dollars, even after he was unable to provide any evidence for a single claim.

Your tax dollars paid him. Now, this will get worse.

More shockingly, according to the Durham report, the FBI had significant evidence that Danchenko, himself, was Russian intelligence.

It had closed a counterintelligence investigation into him, on -- in 2011.

Because agents mistakenly believed he had left the country.

The FBI investigated Danchenko as a possible Russian spy from 2009 to '11, after a colleague at the Brooking Institute, the left-leaning think tank where he worked, told the FBI that Danchenko raised the prospect of paying him for classified information, if the colleague joined the Obama administration.

A second Brookings employee also told the FBI, he suspected Danchenko of being connected to Russian intelligence.

It became a full-fledged investigation, when the FBI realized that Danchenko was a known associate of two other spies and had contacts with known Russian intelligence offices. And had said, he wanted to join the Russian diplomatic service. He also told another person, he worked on special matters for the Russian army. And that his Russian passport listed him as connected to the Russian military intelligence service. They paid him, 250,000 to prove that Trump was colluding with people like him.

He couldn't come up with that evidence. Let me take you to Jonathan Turley. Jonathan Turley said, the APA. The AP tried to dismiss this as not the crime of a century. That Donald Trump termed it.

But whether or not anyone will ever be held accountable, is hard to get around, that indeed nothing like this has ever been done before.

Or that it was so damaging and divisive to our nation. What's criminal is that it appears people might get away with it. That doesn't mean it wasn't the crime of the century. It just means, people are not being held to account.

There is so much wrongdoing involved in all of this, but let's point out one big lie, that we always knew was a lie, which the report now confirms.

Do you remember when Adam Schiff, then the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, claimed he had seen evidence, that he couldn't share with us, demonstrating the Russian collusion.

Now that the report verifies, there never was anything, what was that evidence, Adam?

Given Durham's findings that there was no basis for action, taken by the FBI. And launching the investigation. It would be a good time for former House intelligence chair, Adam Schiff to reveal the evidence that showed the Russian collusion.

There is no evidence. So here's what you have, America.

You have a former president, that knew someone was going to attack the Republican candidate, and make up a story about Russian intelligence so the press would not talk to Hillary Clinton about her emails.

The president knew about it. The vice president knew about it. The CIA knew about it. And the FBI knew about it. But they took no action at all.

Now, if that isn't throwing an election, I don't know what is. If that's not making sure, your person wins.

Because you immediately follow it up, with being delivered that -- that you know is false.

Being delivered, and then start leaking everything to the press, from official sources.

I don't know.

I'm not going to be happy, until people go to jail.

Now, the FBI did come out. And they said in their statement, the conduct in the 2016, and 2017 special counsel examined was the reason that the current FBI leadership already implemented dozens of corrective actions, which now have been in place for some time. So they fixed it.

Nothing to see here. No one went to jail. No one was fired. No one was held accountable. But trust us, they say, we fixed it.

Boy, I'm so close to using a word that I know I can't use. And follow it with you, to the FBI.

There is a serious problem. So how do we fix it?

Because they ain't going to fix it. I'll tell you in 60 seconds.

Don't know if you've noticed this yet or not, but MyPillow is an incredible company. You helped it become what it is today. And Mike Lindell, the owner and founder of Mike Lindell likes to give back to those who helped him build the company.

His latest offer is his six-piece towel set. They're made with US cotton, extremely absorbent, yet soft and durable.

The set comes with two bath towels, two hand towels, and two washcloths.

They typically retail for about 99.98.

But for a limited time, you can get this set on clearance for 25 bucks with the promo code Beck.

Seventy percent in savings, on yet another amazing product from the man who brought you the MyPillow. Here's what I like about this. At 99 bucks, that's the set my mother was to say, don't use that. That's for guests.

Okay. Well, there's no other towel. Well, you don't use that.

Wipe your hands on your pants! Okay. But for 25 bucks, everybody is in.

Six towel set. Sell out fast. MyPillow.com. Click on the radio listener special squares. Get the clearance price. Twenty bucks on the towel set. Deals will not last long. Order and enter the promo code Beck at checkout. Or you can call 800-966-3117.

It's MyPillow.com. Promo code Beck. Ten-second station ID.
(music)
Okay. There is so much more to report on what happened yesterday. But I want to give you a little ray of hope here.

Got a Twitter message from somebody who follows me. Marcus. I have personally moved on from Trump. But I can clearly understand why President Trump can't move forward.

You want to pay President Trump back for everything that he did, then you should be on the bandwagon.

Because the best thing we can do, is make sure the people who did that to him, and would do that to you, or anybody else, that they disagree with, goes to jail!

I can't move on. Dear God, who will hold the Democrats (accountable?

Well, I'm not sure it's the Republicans. But we are going to try on Thursday night. A new angle entirely.

I had a team of researchers here on Blaze media do a little digging to uncover as many Hunter Biden crimes as they could find. Mind you, I told our researchers to only provide us with the list of crimes, which they have concrete evidence.

Crimes that are so obvious, so well-documented, that a half wit prosecutor, could secure a conviction.

Nothing even close to the line, just wow, did he do that!

So let me give you a couple of the crimes, we've uncovered. In Arizona, 2016. Hunter crashed his car, while on crack.

They decided not to prosecute.

Connecticut, over the space of two days, the president's son solicited six different prostitutes, to service him.

Prosecutors declined to press any charges. Delaware 2019, records from Hunter Biden's laptop. Document a minimum of nine instances of him using or purchasing illegal drugs.

Prosecutors have declined to press charges. I could go on and on.

All told, our researchers have documented. Now, remember, only the rock solid ones, 150 crimes that Hunter Biden committed. Ranging from drugs, guns, prostitution, to influence peddling and tax fraud.

These are undisputed and well-documented. Yet, nobody is pressing charges.

I am disgusted and fed up. If any of us have done a tenth of this, we would be in prison today.

I have a plan. And I'm going to need your help. To make it work.

I'm going to outline it on Thursday, this coming Thursday, 8:00 p.m. on Blaze TV.

Commercial-free, special that is happening 8:00 p.m. on Thursday.

We need all hands on deck to make this work. So tune in. Tell your friends. Tell your neighbors. Invite them over to watch the special with you.

This -- stop waiting for the Calvary. Hello, America. You are the Calvary. It is time to ensure justice is served. Are you fed up?

Join us now. BlazeTV.com/Glenn. Use the promo code fed up.

You'll save 30 bucks.

DEBATE: Should AI Facial Recognition be Allowed in Court?

Is AI facial recognition software, like Clearview AI, reliable enough to be used as evidence in a court of law? Glenn, who is against Clearview, has a friendly debate with Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, who wants to expand Clearview’s use in court cases. So, how do we balance the good that Clearview can do and the bad that it is capable of doing in the wrong hands (for instance, a totalitarian government)? AG Yost gives his thoughts and also previews how he hopes the Supreme Court will rule on this.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I am thrilled to have the Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost on with us. He served as the auditor of Ohio, for a long time. Like eight years.

And then he became attorney general. I think he's -- I think he won it with more votes than anybody else in the history of Ohio has. And he is defending and fighting for something called Clearview. Now, I like Dave.

But I'm against Clearview. And maybe he knows something that I don't know. So I want to have a conversation with him about what is happening in Ohio, and what's being heard now in the courts.

Dave, welcome to the program.

DAVE: It's good to hear your voice.

GLENN: Thank you, sir. By the way, thanks for everything you've done. You're really making a difference.

DAVE: You're very kind, thank you.

GLENN: Talk to me about the case now of Clearview. Which is an AI facial recognition, and it is a great tool for law enforcement. But it frightens me a great deal. Talk to me about the case.

DAVE: Sure. So let's -- let's start with the backs of crimes.

Fellows walking down the street. Minding his own business. Mind you, this guy has no criminal background. He's just -- he's a good guy.

Pays his taxes. Goes to work. He's walking down the street on February 14th, Valentine's Day. Day of love. And the bad guy, I'm not going to use his name comes up behind him, robs him on the street, shoots him twice in the back, and runs off. Now, surveillance cameras see him, that are just on the street. See him going into a particular apartment. Well, fast forward a week. Police doing their investigation, trying to figure out what happened.

And as a -- he goes to a convenience store, and the surveillance camera there, over at the cash register, picks up his face.

And he goes back, same kind of route, to the same apartment.

And so they go, hmm.

Wonder who lives there.

And they run the probation website, or the parole website from the Department of Corrections.

Lo and behold, then they run that guy against the -- excuse me, they grab a facial freeze frame, off of the convenience store footage, and run it through Clearview AI, and it's a match.

So they say, a-ha! They go in, and get a search warrant from the judge. During the search, they come up with the gun.

The murder weapon.

And so they arrest the guy. They've got a pretty good case at that point.

That guy goes to court and complains. And says, hey, that facial recognition tough is not reliable. They say right on there, that you can't rely on it.

And don't use it.

GLENN: Right.

DAVE: And the judge tosses the results of the search. Which means, this guy is going to walk, if we don't have the murder weapon for evidence.

GLENN: Right. And he tosses that because the clear view evidence is what got you the warrant. So anything is fruit of a poison tree. Correct?

DAVE: Well, that's what the argument is.

GLENN: Right. Right. Right. Right.

DAVE: But the law says there's a long-standing, decades long good faith exception. And you're only supposed to use the fruit of the poisonous tree. If there's no other -- if there's bad faith. And there's no other option to do it.

There was no bad faith here.

And, in fact, there's other useful evidence, probative evidence, including seeing the guy go into that apartment, that is useful. And supporting probable cause for the search warrant.

GLENN: It also reminds me a little bit of the glove doesn't quit, you must acquit.

The use of DNA evidence during OJ Simpson. Everybody said the same thing. That's unreliable. We don't even know what that is. Could be one out of every 100 have the same kind of -- they made all kinds of crazy things.

And so that was tossed out. Because people didn't understand how accurate, that was. Pragmatism so I don't -- I don't disagree with you at all. This is a great thing to get the bad guys.

However, Clearview. What they have done, is they have scraped billions of images, without anybody's consent off of the internet.

And I believe it's very, very accurate. And the argument would be, well, I'm not doing anything bad or wrong. So I don't have to worry about it.

But I don't -- you know, in a time where we're headed for AI the way we are. And what's happening in China.

This is exactly the kind of technology that is used for governments to track everybody.

How do you balance that the crazy world that we live in, to make sure it doesn't become a tool like China?

DAVE: Well, you know, Glenn, I worry about that too. And I think that the solution is the regulation of the use of the thing.

For example, we do not permit here in Ohio, the use of -- of facial recognition, without anything more to support an arrest warrant. It can only be used as a lead.

Then you have to go out and do the shoe leather. To prove that the guy you think it is, is the guy you're looking for.

GLENN: Which is what you did.

You used that. And you didn't arrest him because we had the AI. You arrested him because you had that, got you a warrant, you got in, you found the gun. Right?

DAVE: Well, it was a search warrant that got us --

GLENN: Right. Right. What I mean is, what you're saying you wanted to be used like, is exactly what you did. You didn't go get the guy because he was on Clearview.

DAVE: Exactly right. And here's the rubric. I know you're a fact guy. But you love -- you love, how do we think about this?

We have public spaces everywhere. So a cop can stand on the corner and observe all day long.

Ask sit there for an eight-hour shift. And just watch. And anything he sees is fair game. They're allowed to react right there. And that's not improper surveillance. Because it's a public place.

When does it stop becoming a public place? Or proper?

When it becomes a private place. If it's your home. If it's in some circumstances, your business.

You have to have probable cause, get a somewhere to sign off on that. I think when we're talking about these technological things, the question is: What is the government allowed to do with it? And what -- and did it occur in public or in private?

When we're talking about Facebook, you know, I'm sorry. It's electronic. But that's kind of a public place.

That's more like the cop standing on the street corner. On the other hand, the cop standing outside.

We just had a Supreme Court case about this a couple years ago. A cop standing on the street, but using sensitive ultraviolet thermal imaging to look for marijuana grows. They're looking at what's going on inside your private residence. That means, that's a Fourth Amendment violation.

So I think that this principle of public versus private fears. Goes a long way, to helping us think through this.

GLENN: Yeah, they are.

So, Dave, I want you to know. I mean, I hope this hasn't felt like a hostile interview.

I want you to know. I'm a fan of yours. But I'm very, very concerned of this slippery. Almost straightdown slope to the cage that AI could build for people.

And we could have all of the best intentions. But it falls into the wrong hands.

You know, we lose several elections in a row.

And, you know, it could be -- it will be a prison. It will be a panopticon. Like it is, in China.

And so that's why I'm concerned about it.

So this is in front of the Supreme Court. Closing arguments haven't happened yet.

DAVE: Nope.

GLENN: How do you think this is -- the court will look at this. And what do you think will happen?

DAVE: Well, it's a case of first impression, right?

I mean, we haven't had a lot of cases, challenging the intersection of the Fourth Amendment, protecting our privacy, in our homes. And papers.

And this new technology. So we're arguing for a narrow reading of it.

But that it should be -- it should be an available tool.

GLENN: Right.

DAVE: To your point earlier, I couldn't agree with you more. It scares me, what government can do about this.

If you think about, back to the Biden administration. And social media ask what they were doing.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

DAVE: Multiple that. Make that geometrically larger. That's the potential. We've got to be vigilant.

GLENN: What is the difference between this, and, for instance, in Texas, you can't clock me speeding with a camera.

A cop has to be there, to stop me. And even they can take a picture of me, driving the car. Et cetera, et cetera.

They cannot ticket me for speeding. It has to be a physical police officer.

What is the difference between this, do you think?

DAVE: Well, and that's a great -- that's the same law we have in Ohio. And that's a great example of how the government can restrain technology. To prevent it from going too far.

That's not a constitutional issue. That's a statute that the general assembly passed. And said, we're not going to let you do this. Yes. You've got the technology. We're not going to let you do this. That's just too far.

GLENN: Okay. Dave, I mean, I appreciate that at least you and others are thinking deeply about this because we're on the verge of a whole Brave New World.

And I honestly don't know what the right answer is. I mean, the law -- you know, law-abiding citizen in me, is like the guy clearly -- you've got the gun in his house. He clearly did it.

But the person that is concerned about this new technology, and things like China.

I just don't know how to balance it yet. But I appreciate the conversation. Thank you so much.

DAVE: Thanks for having me on.

GLENN: You bet. That's Dave Yost. He's the Ohio Attorney General, and that is happening in Ohio right now.

Insights from Glenn Beck's Lee Harvey Oswald Shot Recreation

We still have plenty of questions after the JFK Files release. So, Glenn wanted to put one of them to the test: Could Lee Harvey Oswald have made the shots that assassinated Kennedy in the allotted time, as the Warren Commission said he did? Glenn recently put the theory to the test and tried to make the shots himself. The full recreation attempt will be available exclusively to BlazeTV subscribers on March 26, 2025. But first, Glenn gives a preview of the 2 incredible things he discovered ...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Yeah. Well, I went up to Oklahoma this weekend.

To a friends house. Or a friends ranch.

He's got a shooting range. And we went up, because we were shooting something that is for Wednesday's special.

Last week, we shot what's his name?

Oswald's gun. The exact copy with the exact ammunition.

And the ammunition itself leads to you conspiracy theories like crazy.

I mean, the more -- the more we do things on this.

Like, we will just disprove that.

Then you're like. Eh.

I mean, one of them is the ammunition.

This gun is -- was for Greek fighters in World War II!

It's a really crappy gun. The -- the scope today, the same exact scope, if you can get it, very rare.

If you can get it. It is so crappy. That it's a 10-dollar scope, today. Okay?

Back then, it was -- and it's really -- this gun is -- has everything going against it. Okay?

And the ammunition, there wasn't ammunition for this gun. The CIA after the war said to the DOD, you've got to make a bunch of ammunition over to this gun. And send it over to Greece. Okay?

So it was all CIA-ordered ammunition. It didn't sell. It was there. So they shipped it back, later.

Now, how did Oswald get the ammunition that was -- was ordered by the CIA, brought back by the CIA, and the DOJ.

How did he -- we have those shells. They are $40 a piece. So we were using the shell.

We used absolutely everything. And last week, the gun jammed on us. Actually, the firing pin went out, and we couldn't get it fixed fast enough for what I did yesterday.

So I went out last week, and I shot.

And it was just stationery, at the exact stance. Can we -- can I hit those things, using this gun?

Yes. Then we decided, we have to do it though, moving. And the exact angles, and as high up to six stories as we can get.

So yesterday, I go to -- go to Oklahoma. To this great side by side ranch. Where, you know, it's for hunters.

And the guy who runs it, is a guy who is a Beretta sharpshooter, if you will. The kind of guy that he will go to gun shows and stuff.

He will throw up a quarter, and he will shoot a hole through the quarter. He's that kind of guy. Really good shot. And he said, this is difficult.

I'm like, eh, is it? And he's like, yes. Glenn. This is a difficult shot. We're going to be here all day. Let me just say, my day lasted -- I expected maybe 20 minutes. It was an eight-hour day to do this. Okay?

STU: Wow.

GLENN: So we take the shot. I don't want to reveal what we found. We found two things that I did not expect. I thought for sure it would go a certain way, and it didn't.

And then on top of that, he comes back, and he's -- because we had it in the back of a car.

Shoot through the back of the car.

And we did!

And so it was the same angle.

Absolutely everything.

And he comes out, after the shoot, and he said, I want you to look at this.

And he shows us something on the car.

And I said, wait a minute.

Wait. Explain this.

Because it seemed odd. Once he pointed it out. I said, wait a minute.

And he said, yeah. We started talking about it. The whole crew came around.

We're doing research today.

Because if the Warren commission did not talk about this. And they had to have.

STU: Right.

GLENN: If they didn't talk about this, it was -- because there's no way around it, and we'll show it to you on Wednesday's show.

It's fascinating!

It is absolutely fascinating.

STU: Sounds it!

GLENN: Yeah. It's really great.

STU: What was it like, going through the process of re-creating that?

GLENN: It was weird, because we had put balloons.

STU: Right.

GLENN: Where everybody was. And so we put balloons there.

And the idea of -- I could relate to him on nerves.

Because I was thinking, okay. So what other elements did he have to deal with? And the only one that I couldn't re-create is, I'm shooting the president.

And I'm probably going to walk away dead.

STU: Of course.

GLENN: So, you know, that's the only thing. That would slow you down. Make you a sloppier shot. Or anything else.

And we couldn't re-create that.

STU: That's a big one.

GLENN: Yeah. The other thing is, he was in a Lincoln continental. Even moving, it's 11 miles an hour.

That thing is not bouncing around. We had it in the back of a truck.

And the truck was being dragged through this field.

And it -- it kept losing -- you know, the field is bumpy.

STU: Not paved.

GLENN: Yeah. Not paved at all. Not even smooth.

So I think that kind of made up for him being was this. Because that -- that's what Scott was saying.

He was like, this is a difficult shot.

Because of that!

So I think we kind of balanced it out.

But it's really amazing.

We're doing a show from the Oval. Wednesday. And we have got -- we've got somebody on that has a tape. He's bringing it. Would not release it. To us. So he's coming in, and he's bringing the tape of a conversation that he says, two people talking about Johnson.

And Johnson's involvement.

We also have Roger Stone on the program.

STU: Really?

GLENN: Yeah. Talking about that.

Because I also want to go in with Nixon.

And he's part of the Nixon thing. Because the more you find out about what our CIA was doing.

The things we'll show you on Wednesday, that we've now confirmed.

And we didn't even know we were looking for this.

But the things that came out of those JFK files now that we confirmed, shows that the CIA is absolutely out of control then, and it will make you question everything else that you know in history.
Was that real, or was that not real?

And so that's Wednesday night.

9 o'clock. Blaze TV.

Join me. BlazeTV.com/Glenn.

Just use the promo code Glenn, and you will save.

STU: Doesn't Roger Stone have a Nixon tattoo? So he was definitely -- he was there for that.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

STU: A big fan.

GLENN: Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

But I don't know how I feel about Nixon thousand.

I mean, I know how I feel about Nixon.

I don't think he was a good guy.

I don't know how I feel about -- what I know said. My dad said, he's just like everybody else. He just got caught.

I think he's bare minimum.

Right about that.

It may have been, he's just like everybody else. But they set him up.

STU: Hmm. This is interesting. This is interesting. Because we have all these documents. And as usual, they've calmed no one, it seems.

GLENN: But this has only made it worse. I think. This has only made it worse. And we're trying to disprove things. When you see what happens in the field, I think you'll -- I think you'll really be surprised.

You'll really be surprised. At what we found. And what happened.

STU: That's interesting. I can't wait to see this. This is Wednesday night. On your normal show.

Your normal special.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: By the way, you can subscribe to Blaze TV. BlazeTV.com/Glenn. The promo code is Glenn. You can save 30 bucks off your subscription.

Nerdrotic: Everything Disney RUINED in "Snow White" Remake

After years of controversy, Disney’s “Snow White” remake, starring Rachel Zegler and Gal Gadot, is officially a flop. ‪@nerdrotic‬ joins Glenn Beck to discuss the many, many places Disney went wrong and why he’s “ecstatic at this failure.” The film, which was made at the height of the woke movement, now feels “dated” and is chock full of “communist propaganda.” The seven dwarves, he says, “are the stuff of nightmares.” And it’s clear that Disney “doesn’t know what a Disney Princess is anymore.” Nerdrotic also reviews some of the other shocking changes Disney made to the 1937 classic, including who they replaced the “prince” with and what became of those “7 magical creatures” that Disney reportedly wanted to replace the dwarves with.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: And I want to talk to you because you might be as happy as I am at the failure of Snow White.

And I wanted to talk to you about what you're seeing with Snow White.

GARY: I'm ecstatic at this failure. It's been two years, and it's been one of many now, predictable Disney failures.

And it -- it's really built up to a head and been hit with the cultural zeitgeist. And it's more than just a movie at this point. Because normally I wouldn't even watch a princess movie, but it became such a punching bag in the culture war, and a symbol.

And Rachel Ziegler has become the symbol of everything that's wrong with modern Hollywood right now. And seeing it just crumble, does my heart good.

Because the universe tends to unfold as it should, Glenn.

This is the balancing act. This was a movie that was made before the cultural shift. Or during it, actually.

And now it just feels dated. And the audience has spoken. They were -- honestly, Glenn, every trailer that hit YouTube was getting ratioed into oblivion.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

GARY: Yeah. So Disney was telling you exactly what this movie was going to be. And the audience was telling them exactly what they thought of it. And now unsurprisingly, it's flopping.

GLENN: So, you know, you say this was made at the height of it.

And I think this is also, this movie, her reaction, the way they did all of it. I think this is part of the undoing of that era, as well.

GARY: Absolutely, and we've seen that play out in the last year. If we want to even go back to the Acolyte, or go back before that with the Marvels. These were movies made with the mindset of identity politics, intersectional feminism, which really goes against what Hollywood has done for hundreds of years, or 100 years.

Hundreds of years, sorry.

Which is, you know, tell good stories that are authentic.

And a lot of that is either the hero's journey.

Or just the good old-fashioned fairytale with some romance.

And Hollywood doesn't know how to be good, anymore.

They are so -- they are so black pilled. They are so dystopian. They are so nihilistic at this point.

That when you see something that is just good, that it -- it disgusts them.

And now, they -- while they're trying to fix stuff, they don't even know how to do it. They don't know what a hero is. Disney doesn't know what a Disney princess is anymore, which is crazy.

GLENN: Yeah, you know, it's funny. When I was working at CNN.

Stu, do you remember this with Hal? He was a great writer. I was working at CNN.

And I don't remember, maybe the funeral of Ronald Reagan was happening, or there was -- something was happening, an anniversary. And I was going out West for a week of shows, and I said to Hal before I left, I said, hey, next week, this is coming up. Can you write a really good piece on Ronald Reagan and America? He said, sure. I get this piece of garbage back. I mean, it was like, come on.

And I call Hal up. And I said, Hal, you're a good writer. What the heck happened? He said, Glenn, I've tried. I worked harder on that than I've ever worked on anything. But I have to tell you, I hated Ronald Reagan.

He said, so I didn't -- I don't know what people like about Ronald Reagan. And I understood then, you know, you can't fake it.

You cannot write -- these guys in Hollywood, they cannot reflect, you know, the right direction. Because they don't -- they hate it. And they don't understand it!

GARY: No. And it reviles them. The whole concept of a male hero, in particular.

We've seen -- what happens is masculinity has been drained out of Hollywood.

And it turns out, they needed it. That's what it was built on.

Now, it doesn't mean -- and so is femininity.

Which, you know, Snow White is essentially feminism versus femininity. And sure, yes. It's made in 1937.

But it boggles my mind that Disney took the film that built their empire.

GLENN: Yes.

GARY: That is a paradigm shift movie. That is sacred text in Hollywood.

And just threw away the original script and gave us -- and I'm not kidding. Communist propaganda.

GLENN: Why do you say that?

GARY: In Snow White.

Oh. It's filled with it. Throughout -- you get it in the second or third line of the film. They're introducing Snow White's parents, which was new. It's not from the original.

And they somehow run a socialist kingdom, where they run everything, but everybody has to share everything and everybody has to share in the bounty. Right?

And then, instead of Snow White meeting a prince, they replace the prince with a thief. And her desire is not to find a good man. It's to lead.

So, of course, we want to give her a career over maybe a fulfilling life, and it really does feel like -- well, they did. They did massive reshoots during the strike. So they tried to fix some of it, so it's kind of half a fairytale and half -- as the BBC says, Glenn, a Marxist call to arms. Even the BBC calls it out for its Communist propaganda, which is saying something.

GLENN: Jeez. So somebody said -- here's my favorite line from a review: Rachel Ziegler only gave -- only became a princess, and looked like a princess in the same -- in the same way, she looked like a product of incest.

So... anyways. Anyway.

Stu is telling me. He read a review.

Somebody said, even the background. It just looks. Everything looks fake.

I would imagine, that's because, didn't they have to strip all of the other people out of it, to replace all of the not-dwarf-style people out? And replace them with animation?

GARY: I think the dwarves were going to be in it all along. I think they were going back and forth on -- because they initially were going to cast them, and then they didn't. And then they -- the Peter Dinklage controversy happened. And I think they thought a good compromise would be to make them CGI, which makes them look like demons. They're the stuff of nightmares, but the bandits were always going to be in there. But their roles were greatly reduced.

GLENN: Hang on just a -- Stu, didn't we see pictures of like this tall guy out in the woods?

GARY: Yeah, those were the bandits. They were going to be part of it. And instead of a prince, Jonathan leads the bandits. And the bandits are just there, because they feel like all the food should be shared. And the bounty of the land belongs to everybody, who tends to it.

And it's such a clash of messages, where it's, again -- it's supposed to be some kind of socialist utopia. But except Rachel Ziegler's snow white is the boss. So we're not going to question that.

GLENN: So did they leave the evil queen? Is she evil? Well, she has to be, because she's a Jew.

GARY: Yes. She is. And Gal Gadot. And bless her heart, she does her best. She's not a very good actress. And it turns out, she's not a very good singer either.

But she's pretty.

But yeah. And some of the most iconic scenes from the original, because I rewatched the original before I saw this -- are gone. They're missing the I Am wishing song. And Some Day My Prince Will Come song. And they turn them into songs about leading. And her end, sorry to spoil it for everybody. The witch falls off -- lightning strikes. Nah, and she falls off.

No. She just gets sucked into a mirror at the end.

They extended role. But that's not good. I would have reduced the role.

GLENN: But there is a magic mirror.

GARY: Yes.

GLENN: And does the magic mirror tell you, you can be pregnant if you're a boy?

GARY: No. But maybe that was left on the cutting room floor. But they definitely left out the description of Snow White, where they said "her skin is white as snow." They left that out. I wonder why.

GLENN: Unbelievable.

Thank you so much, man. I just had to talk to you today. Because I knew you would just be joyful.

As I was.

I was actually a little disappointed in the numbers. I was hoping it would do worse.

GARY: It will. It will.

The international numbers. These films do better internationally.

And they're doing terrible. So this is not going to have the life they want. And it's going to lose hundreds of millions of dollars. The budget was 215, before marketing.

GLENN: What happens to Ziegler?

GARY: Oh, she goes to Broadway. That would be my guess. Her movie career is over. They're never going to put her on a red carpet again. She has -- that has been the well-documented, worst PR disaster in Hollywood history without a doubt.

GLENN: Unbelievable. Gary, thank you very much. Appreciate it.

GARY: Thanks for having me on, Glenn. You bet.

GLENN: You bet. That's Gary Buechler. He's from Nerdrotic. If you follow him. Nerdrotic. Nerdrotics. @Nerdrotics on Twitter, if you want to follow him. He's got some good stuff over at YouTube, maybe you should check out.

I enjoy his disdain for Walt Disney and the Walt Disney studios, because it's new to me. And it's kind of fun.

It's kind of fun to see them just kind of crash and burn on this.

I guarantee you, it won't change anything.

And I couldn't know?

Just like the democratic party. They let the rebels inside.

They let the revolutionaries inside. Thinking that, okay. Well, it's -- you know, we can control it. We're Disney. We can control it.

No. And now you've lost complete control of the company.

Just like the Democrats have lost -- well, there's a good, regular old Democrats. They disagree with all of the -- no, no, you don't. No, you don't.

Chuck Schumer is running like a scared little girl, you know, trying to look like he's tough. Like I'm a revolutionary, just like you.

And it's just so ridiculous to see. But they can't put that genie back in the bottle. And, I mean, I hate to use that metaphor with Disney, but it's true. They can't put that genie back in the bottle. It's over. It's over. How are you going to clean that place up, and get rid of all the revolutionaries? You can't. That's all that's there now.

Are Leftists Swatting Conservatives? What to Do if You're Targeted

Are conservative influencers being targeted by leftists who are calling in fake 911 emergencies? A disturbing number of prominent conservatives have been falsely swatted in recent days. So, Glenn sits down with his local sheriff, Bill Waybourn of Tarrant County, and he urges you to do the same. Sheriff Waybourn gives an update on how common these false flag calls have become and also says that Trump's Attorney General Pam Bondi is "absolutely on board" with prosecuting people. He also weighs in on how "the Cartel is being shut down" by Trump.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: You know, if you have any doubt on which side in the country is dangerous. Both sides could be dangerous. But there is one side of the political debate. That has an actual active revolutionary army. And that is the left.

And we are seeing it. The earlier I played in the podcast. That the words of -- of Chuck Schumer. Who I guess he's trying to prove that he's manly or something.

But he is talking about. We are targeting Republicans in their own areas.

Which goes to some. He might just mean, like Sarah Palin meant, we're targeting, you know, through political process.

But there's too many people on the left, that are actually targeting. And let me give you this. A website called DOGE quest has published the personal information of Tesla owners, nationwide in -- in an apparent bid to shame and also intimidate them.

Because they're saying, you're a supporter of DOGE. And because you bought -- because you bought a car. Maybe you bought it because you believed in global warming.

I don't think you were probably on the Trump train, but okay. The site called DOGE Quest, reveals all of this information.

The operators who also posted the exact locations of Tesla dealerships said they will remove identifying information about Tesla drivers, only if they provide proof, that they sold their electric vehicles. Now, I don't know about you. But that sounds like the very definition of terrorism.

People have been doxxed. And there is something else that is happening.

And that is, people sending in S.W.A.T. teams. It's called swatting.

Let me just show you a montage here of some of the people that are being swatted. Look.

VOICE: Swatting against conservatives. We told you yesterday about Texas radio host Joe Pags being swatted.

VOICE: This morning, a growing number of conservative influencers are getting targeted by Schwartz.

VOICE: They were so urgent in getting the police to break down my door, and possibly kill me. In my doorway, they told them, I heard them on the scanner traffic, that he's bleeding out upstairs. Please hurry, and get inside.

VOICE: When I walked up to the door, he was pointing a gun at me. You know.

VOICE: We did just get swatted. The officer said they received a phone call that -- that somebody murdered somebody in the house and was planning a suicide by cop.

VOICE: And podcaster Nick Sortor also posted, both my dad and my sister were swatted tonight. A dozen cops attempting to kick my dad's door in at gun point.

VOICE: Yes, sir!

VOICE: Just a few hours ago, Infowars reporter and anchor Owen Shroyer was swatted at his home.

VOICE: And then most recently, Juanita Broaddrick posted, well, I just got swatted. About ten police and S.W.A.T. team showed up. They said the caller said there were two masked men and people said that had been shot.

GLENN: This is -- this is terrorism.

And those people who are making these calls, should go to prison for a very, very, very long time. Luckily, I know my sheriff in Fort Worth County.

I know, the guy who is protecting me and my neighbors. I know who he is. And he knows who I am, which, Sheriff Waybourn, welcome to the program.

That is the first key, is it not?

BILL: That is the first key, relationships are very, very helpful in these situations.

GLENN: So as we are sitting here, and I didn't mean Fort Worth, Tarrant County.

When we are sitting here, and you're seeing things like this happening, what -- what does that mean to you? And how you have to behave. And what you're walking into.

BILL: Right. When they get these urgent calls. They have got to respond. They have to be ready to go for law enforcement. In case it is real.

I will tell you, especially in the greater Fort Worth area. And the surrounding areas. They are very well aware of it.

There have been several of these. In this area, over the last year. There's probably been 15 or 16 cases.

GLENN: You're kidding me.

BILL: No. And I will tell you, they all turned out good. As far as law enforcement's reaction. Nothing went wrong or somebody got hurt. Because I think we've got some great law enforcement.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

BILL: But when they're rolling towards that. I mean, the Intel starts at the moment that the 911 phone is listening and the dispatchers are trying to listen for different clues about what might be going on there. And they're passing it on.

And then we have other intelligence which I won't make public.

GLENN: Yeah, sure.

BILL: But we're trying to do that. Now, we're -- there's some preventive things that we need help from the homeowner.

GLENN: Okay. Like?

BILL: Well, one is, let's hide your information. Because a lot of this is coming over the gaming systems. It's really big. That's like 95 percent of the gaming systems, where you don't know who you're gaming with. But they know who you are. So we've got to protect your identity. We've got to protect your privacy. And try to block all things that show who you are.

And maybe some double stuff, where you -- you have code words. Or stuff. So you know who you are dealing with.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

I tell you, the gaming systems are terrifying. My son, he was being groomed for this pedophile.

And luckily, we found out about it. And the FBI came into the house, and they took the gaming system. And they said, it's all happening through the gaming system.

Luckily, the gaming system has a record. And so, it's recording everything.

Can you -- have you found. Or can we find these people?

How come we can't find -- does it -- does it triangulate the phone, if you're on a cell phone, and you're someplace? And you're calling it into 911.

Can we find these people?

LIZ: Sometimes, we can find these people. Some of these people are oversees. They're not even here in the United States, but we go after them.

If you will pardon the term, with the gust of a hound dog, using all resources, both federal, state, and local resources, to try to locate them.
And find out who they are. And when we get our hands on them, we will prosecute them for the felony that they've committed.

GLENN: And what are you hearing from Pam Bondi and the federal?

LIZ: Well, ironically, I talked to her this morning, but we didn't get to discuss this. But she is absolutely on board, prosecuting people federally, if at all possible.

That's just the temperament of who our attorney general is.

GLENN: Yeah. I want to ask you. Because I don't know -- I met Pam. But I don't know her.

And I'm a little concerned that, you know, the Epstein thing.

I'm hoping, and maybe you can help me on this. I'm hoping that she said, wait.

We're not releasing these things right now. Because we have internal cleanup to do.

And we are also building cases, against these people.

And we want to release it, when we can say, and we're prosecuting. Do you think that's her approach?

BILL: I think that's absolutely probably her approach. She is a very, very smart woman.

And a great prosecutor.

And so she's doing the cleanup, as you say.

And I think that she is watching very carefully, what she can and can't do.

GLENN: What is the difference between the last administration and the recent administration?

In your position.

BILL: In my position, it's that the cartel is being shut down.

And, you know, I visited with the Director of DPS last week, and they're averaging a little less than 200 crossings a day on the entire Texas border.

You know, last year, at this time. We're talking 15,000 a day. So that's absolutely the first thing that I would say, is that is happening.

But also, that the administration is coming alongside of us.

And some other areas. Like, THC. The THC products that are such a threat to our kids these days did I see.

They're coming alongside of us. As Texas is trying to pass laws. And we're trying to absolutely curb that issue.

GLENN: You know, I look at what's happening in Mexico.

With these cartels.

And I would -- I would think, putting myself in the shoes of a Mexican.

I would think to myself, I can't say anything about these cartels.

I know people who have run against. And said, they will clean it up. And they're dead. And their family is dead.

I want this to happen, but I can't really say anything, and my government is in bed with it.

I think the Mexican people, the average Mexican person. If we go in and say, okay. Mexico, you didn't do anything about it. And we're killing them all.

I think they will turn and say, you know what, let's go concentrate on some other market. Not in America.

Because they're serious about it. And I think the Mexican people would be happy.

I know I would be.

I would be thrilled. Is that your take?

LIZ: That is absolutely my take.

And I know just last week, unfortunately, they lost five Mexican National Guardsmen who were ambushed and killed bit cartel just a few days ago.

So they're fighting back. And they're trying to do some things.

But as we know, that government -- you know, I've said this publicly.

Is I don't trust them.

GLENN: You shouldn't.

LIZ: You know, we need to see what they're trying to do. And hopefully, they will stand you up. The cartel has --

GLENN: Are they capable?

Are they capable? Every time somebody stands up, they're dead.

BILL: They're dead.

GLENN: So are they capable of standing up, as -- as, you know, politicians, or even a group of politicians? Because, oh, that's a death sentence for them.

BILL: That is a death sentence.

I agree with you. I've said over a year ago.

I said, what would you like to happen? When the conservative president comes in.

I said, on or about Day 15 or 20, that the cartel is woken up by the 82nd Airborne.

And that I think we go in and clean them out, would be best for everybody.

GLENN: You think that's coming?

BILL: I don't know, because our president is unpredictable.

GLENN: Yeah. I know.

BILL: But he has labeled them terrorists. So they are on notice, and I think anything is possible. And if I was a cartel leader, I might say, okay. Guys, we're closing shop.

And we're moving. And where are we going? That's what --

GLENN: Yeah. I think -- you know, the pushback on sending somebody in, is that, well, they're just going to retaliate in our cities.

You retaliate in our cities, and then it gets much worse for you.

I think if we just take out a few families, the kingpins.

BILL: That's right.

GLENN: And it all happens overnight, so fast. Everybody wakes up and says, oh, my gosh.

I really think. They won't retaliate. They will turn their attention someplace else.

Why risk that?

America is serious.

BILL: I agree with you, 100 percent. Because cartel ain't in business to be at war with America. They're in business to sell things.

GLENN: Right. Right.

BILL: And if it's not working out, you go to a different place. So I agree with you. I think that if we take out a few of the kingpins. A few of the leadership. I think that would do it.

GLENN: Are you concerned -- we just talked about swatting. Have we had any Tesla attacks or anything?

BILL: We have none, that I know of, in Tarrant County.

GLENN: Yeah. Well, that's -- used to be the conservative county. In -- in Texas.

But it certainly isn't anymore. Boy, we're on a razor's edge. I'm really, truly worried especially well Hollywood coming in. I'm very worried that we could lose Texas. People in Texas, that grew up in Texas, spent their whole life in Texas. And are not paying attention.

They think Texas will always be Texas.

It's -- it's on a knife's edge.

BILL: We need to always be on our game.

We need to always be working in -- and spreading our conservative values. And educating the public as best we can.

GLENN: Sheriff, always good to see you. Best to your family.

You bet. Sheriff. Bill Waybourn.

A -- a sheriff that if you don't have one like him, you should get one. You know exactly -- if you don't mind me sharing, sheriff. Before you leave.

I asked him at one point. What happens if the federal government comes in and starts taking citizen's guns.

And he said, well, if I may quote you.

The -- all my deputies need guns.

And I just have to deputize everybody in the county.

I just love that. I love that.

Thank you, Bill.

I appreciate it.