RADIOAugust 22, 2022

Expert predicts Donald Trump’s ‘MAJOR’ news after FBI raid

President Trump recently teased on Truth Social a ‘major’ announcement ‘pertaining to the Fourth Amendment’ and concerning the FBI’s recent raid of his Mar-a-Lago home. So what could Donald Trump be planning to do next? Journalist John Solomon, author of ‘Fallout,’ gives Glenn his best guess. Plus, Solomon details more information concerning the raid, and he recaps FBI corruption that’s existed for DECADES: ‘This is an agency that has…a very big history of abuses. Time and time and time again.’

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: John Solomon. Welcome to the program. How are you, sir?

JOHN: Great to be with you, Glenn.

GLENN: It's great to be with you. We are living in insane times. I remember we -- you know, we've talked for years now.

Did you -- did you ever really believe that it would ever get like this?

JOHN: I didn't, no. Yet, we've had this great American experience for 246 years. And I think back to that speech you gave at CPAC on February, and all the things you said, somewhere along the way, we jumped out of the roots of this great country. And we're in a place now, that doesn't resemble the America that we all grew up in. It's a very troubling time.

GLENN: Yeah. So I think a lot of people during the last couple of weeks, have learned a lot about what to do, and what to expect, when you're served a warrant at your house. It's actually a good way. It's God's way of teaching us the Constitution, I think. What happened with Donald Trump, is, again, I believe a horror show. There's no way he is selling secrets. You know, nuclear secrets to Finland, this is ridiculous.

It does now seem to appear, to be a shot across the bow because he was trying to release documents, that showed who was involved in the Russia hoax. Is that true?

JOHN: Well, listen, there is this long six-year battle between the FBI and Donald Trump. And of course, it starts with Russia collusion, which we now know as completely contrived and political investigation, but had no predicate, no merit whatsoever.

As the presidency is coming to an end, as Donald Trump is leaving office on January 19th, 2021, he declassified the documents, the FBI never wanted out in public.

They didn't want these documents out. These are the ways they handled their informants. What they do before they sign the FISA warrants. What they were telling the court, versus what they knew internally.

That just inflamed the FBI all the more. And for the last year, as I reported. The FBI secretly grabbed those documents. The president declassified them. He ordered them to be released. In the last hour of the Trump presidency, I'm told at 11 o'clock on January 20th, 2021, the FBI and the Justice Department grabbed those documents. They made up an excuse. Saying, hey, we left a couple of Privacy Act pieces of information in there, from the declassified documents.

Let's grab them. We'll fix that, and we'll release them. They grabbed them for 19 months. They kept them from the American public despite a lawful order of a sitting president.

GLENN: Unbelievable. So he had the documents, but they hadn't been redacted?

JOHN: They were redacted. They were completely ready. They were declassified. All the declassified markings. At the last minute, the Justice Department raised an issue that maybe there was a piece of information there still covered by the private sector. Let's go look at it real quickly. It looks like it was really just an excuse to grab the documents.

GLENN: All right. So did he have those at Mar-a-Lago? Do we know? Is that what they were going off of?

JOHN: No one has told me -- I haven't found anyone who told me that they had the documents there. And, of course, I've asked the president. Do you have the documents?

He's told me no.

That's why he gave me permission as a journalist, to go to the non-public section out of the national archives to try to find these documents.

That's what led us to the discovery just three weeks ago, that these documents had been grabbed by the Justice Department. And a secret hand, grabbed them and put them in the Justice Department.

GLENN: So you haven't been able to find them?

JOHN: No. We know where they are now. There's two sets. There's a classified set at the national archives. I can't see them. Because I don't have any security clearance, nor does anyone else in normal America.

Right. I could have -- that's probably not advisable. And then the second part, is there is a set with the Justice Department. And I'm taking multiple actions to try to force the Justice Department. And I hope to have really good news later this week. I've been negotiating with the archives. They have been working with the Justice Department. I have a sense, an inkling, that we might get these documents in the near future.

GLENN: All right. So what was it that the FBI do you think, was looking for?

JOHN: It's a great question, right. The first possibility is maybe what they said, is all that it is. Right? This is a dispute between the archives and former President Donald Trump, and they actually went through this unprecedented means to get documents back, by raiding his home.

I haven't found any other great explanation for people. And I think when people look bang. If that's all this was. If this was a dispute over documents, there is a civil process, that could have been followed. And that means they will have criminalized a dispute over paper. And with some serious issues involved. And I think there's another part of this, Glenn, that we haven't been able to dig into. I'm really working on now.

It is impossible for this sort of a dispute to go on, and for it to become criminalized without the Biden White House -- there's just no way, the way the system of government works. So what was the Biden/White House's role in these conversations?

I think that's the next big shoe to drop. I don't know what it is. But I'm determined to find out what it is. The way government works, you have these issues of privilege. You have these issues of I would dispute, between the current administration, the past administration. The Biden White House had to be in the loop

And I don't think their story adds up.

GLENN: Well, I have to tell you, just on common sense, and the way the world has worked in America. There's no way a decision that large, that would come back to the White House, eventually, and affect the presidency, not just Biden and Trump. But the entire presidency. There's no way the Justice Department doesn't call and at least give a heads-up. Am I wrong?

JOHN: I'm 100 percent with you. And I think there's another issue here. Remember that there -- the grand jury subpoena. Which I broke the story a couple weeks ago, was executed on June 3rd. In a collaborative way, by the way. Both sides were still working together then. That didn't address the issue of executive privilege. What does that mean?

It means somewhere earlier in the process, somebody to wave executive privilege in order for a grand jury subpoena to be issued for executive documents. The only way Donald Trump is going to be waving it. I think we're going to find out that the Biden administration waived executive administration for Trump. And that they were deeply involved in it. That's just the only plausible explanation for why there wouldn't be a privilege claim back in June, when the grand jury first showed it to be. This first --

GLENN: Wow. So, John, I'm doing a special on Wednesday. On the history of the FBI. And how -- and how corrupt it has been. I mean, it really was corrupt from the very beginning.

You know, we had Hoover doing all kinds of stuff, that was really, really dark and bad. Are we at or beyond the Hoover days?

JOHN: Well, listen, one of the big stories I did when I was at the Washington Post, and I worked with 60 Minutes. For 40 years, for 40 years, the FBI would go into -- take it out of politics for a second.

They would go into a case, and say, that guy on trial for murder, I can assure you, that the bullets we found in his bedroom door, matches the bullets that were shot out of that gun.

And for 40 years, they testified that hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds of murder defendants were convicted based on the FBI scientists. The story I broke in 2007, showed the FBI knew all along, that that science was junk science. It wasn't true. That they couldn't make such a representation, and yet they continued to make it, well past -- I mean, during the Hoover years. Well-past -- all the way into the Mueller easier. So the history of the FBI. Which was the church hearings. Which went into the Hoover era. Or what we learned in 9/11. The mistakes of the Oklahoma City bombing. The problems with the FBI.

This is an agency that has a very big representation. But it also has a very big history of abuses. Time and time and time again.

GLENN: Any way to reign that in.

JOHN: It's a great question preponderance is some of the policy makers I've talked to in Congress. For the first time, I've heard Republicans tell me privately, you know what, it's time to break up the FBI. Maybe have them -- make them like Scotland Yard, and put the Domestic Intelligence into a different agency. There is clearly a moment of reckoning for the FBI within on the immediate horizon. The real question is, if you just take the counterintelligence division up. You put it somewhere else. The mentality still exists that there's not a regard to the Constitution. That's the part, whether it's inside the FBI or outside of it, the lack of regard for the Fourth Amendment, for our liberties in the face of a big government, that's the part that hasn't been flesh out. I'm not sure just dividing the FBI.

GLENN: Well, especially the intelligence arm.

The intelligence agencies are completely out of control. The things I've read about the intelligence agencies. And I've heard from people on Capitol Hill. Is they really don't answer to anybody right now.

JOHN: Yeah. Yeah. They have their own mindset. Their own mentality. So much of what they do, can say secret, no matter what. As we're seeing in this search warrant today. We never get a visibility, to know if the excuse they're giving to us, is real. And only years later, through lawsuits and FOIAs that we find out. Well, the officials in the intelligence community didn't match, what we were told at the time. It's that secrecy, that I think creates so much concern.

There was an opportunity to know of Russian collusion. Why Republicans were still in control of both -- to do something, to trade a permanent advocate. So that all intelligence cases that occurred in secret, there would be someone advocating on behalf of the American, whose liberties were about to be violated. They when I find on that, Paul Ryan whiffed on that. But I think there's a lot of people today, that would go back and say, you know, if I had to do over, I would probably create that public advocate who goes into the court and argues on behalf of you and me and everybody else.

GLENN: Yeah. So, John, what do you think Donald Trump is talking about, when he says that, you know -- he said over the weekend, it might be within hours. It might be Monday, that I'm going to be filing something. And big news coming. What do you think that might be?

JOHN: My reporting indicates that that the president is considering, filing a motion to remove Judge Bruce Reinhart, who by the way, just a few minutes ago ruled that the entire affidavit cannot be kept sealed. He believes, he used the word unprecedented. I'm glad he recognizes what he approves as unprecedented, but he is rejecting the Justice Department's request to keep the affidavit secret.

GLENN: Wait. Wait. Wait. He rejected the -- the Department of Justice?

JOHN: Just broke just a few minutes ago.

It's up on Just The News right now. Judge Reinhart this morning said the Justice Department's request to keep the entire affidavit for the search warrant, under seal, is rejected. That this is an unprecedented case. It requires transparency, so people can understand why the FBI was authorized to raid a former president's home. That just happened this morning. That's something that the president was cheering on.

GLENN: And how long will it be before we see that?

JOHN: Well, there are two options. Either they have to deliver the unredacted version of the affidavit on Thursday. Or a more likely scenario is the Justice Department will slow walk this. Go to a district judge, then go to an appeals court. Maybe even go to the Supreme Court.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

JOHN: My guess is they will go that route. But meanwhile the president -- to answer your question, I think the president is going to ask that a special master be appointed. A court-appointed independent person. Take the documents from the FBI and go through them and say these are -- these aren't. These are overly expansive. They shouldn't have be collected like your passports. And not leave the FBI on an honor system, given all we know. So I think that's what we'll see the president do.

GLENN: That would be great. John, thank you so much.

JOHN: Great to talk to you. Always an honor to be on your show.

GLENN: Likewise.

All right. When I say back to school shopping scam, I would assume you're thinking I'm just talking about that list of stuff you're supposed to get for you kid. Know, a bag full of stuff, that he's probably never, ever going to use anyway. Now, that's true. But there are also real back to school shopping scams out there. Buyer beware. It is important to understand cyber crime and identity theft. And how they will affect your life. And they will come cloaked a million different ways, which is why no one can prevent all of it, or catch all of the bad guys. And only LifeLock is the one that comes to the table. And says, look, we're going to do our absolute best. And we have the best track record at it. We're the longest running in the industry. But also, we have a team of experts, that are going to fix it. And work with you, to fix it.

And it is only at LifeLock by Norton. Now, join, and you'll save 25 percent off your first year with the promo code Beck. Call 1-800-LifeLock. 1-800-LifeLock or LifeLock.com. Use the promo code Beck. Save 25 percent now.

Ten-second station ID.
(music)
There is a -- I can't say this anymore. An unbelievable story.

There is another believable story, because it's only believable because of everything else that's going on.

You know, it's funny. We're called extremists. But only common sense and tradition now is extreme. It's extreme because everything else is insane.

We have an amazing story about a guy, who was canceled by Google, that you have to hear. Because this one affects you. And I haven't really heard anybody really tie this together, on how this will affect you. It's an outrageous story. We will have this coming up in a second. What do you think of John Stossel, and what he just said?

STU: Pretty amazing. You know, it does seem like -- the overreach is clear. And the -- and the courts may back up some of the Trump side of this. Which is always a plenty surprise, I suppose. When you go into this level of scrutiny. But I do think that there's a chance that this stuff really backfires on them. I think -- you know, you've always had the right, be the one who is defending the FBI in a lot of these institutions. And say, look, we understand. And we've said this a million times. We understand there are some problems in some of these institutions. They need to be rooted out.

It seems like the right after this, is getting to the point, where they're just giving up on that. Like, we can't.

GLENN: Hang on just a second.

Would you call John Solomon back just a second and say, sorry, Glenn has one more question that I forgot to ask him. I want to ask him about the whistle-blowers. Because he's in a position, to know. Are we seeing more whistle-blowers, than usual?

Because that's the feeling I get, reading some stories.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: And hearing from Congress. That FBI agents are coming forward, and going, this has got to stop. And that to me, is heartening.

STU: You're also hearing this from people -- was it Grassley that came out with a big list -- was it 14 whistle-blowers on this one story?

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: That's not the typical -- this isn't like, I don't know, a hard-core Trump ally. He's just a normal kind of institutional Republican. He's been there for 500,000 years. And he's the type of guy you wouldn't necessarily think would be making erratic claims about this type of thing.

GLENN: No. He's kind of old school, reasonable reasonable, just consistent. Just consistent.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: But he's been saying that -- and if they're not -- if you are in the FBI, I plead with you. Plead with you to have zero tolerance for anything unconstitutional and whistle-blow. Come to us. Come to Project Veritas. Come to anyone. Anyone.

But please blow the whistle.

Because you're all going to be painted with the same brush, you know. What happened -- what happened with the police, in many cases, now, this is not the case with BLM. It just gave fuel to BLM.

Is the -- the -- for a long time, the police officers would close their ranks. And they would protect their own.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: You can't. If there's a practice bad guy, you've got for rat them out, otherwise, you'll all be deemed bad.

And I would like to be in a position where I trust the FBI. I don't know if I'll ever be there again. I don't know if I'll ever be there.

STU: And that's probably a healthy thing. There should be some general skepticism. You know, many of our people more on the Libertarian side of -- of the right have pointed this out many times. That conservatives tend to have a real skepticism of government, except for law enforcement and sometimes the military.

And that's not always the best thing to do. You should have the skepticism of government on all these facets. You just shouldn't wildly blame law enforcement for being wrong every single time.

GLENN: I want to be in a neutral position, you know.

STU: Hey, judge things by the facts. That's all we're asking here.

GLENN: Right. And the problem is, if the Intelligence and Justice Department have gone bad, who do you call? Because Ghostbusters is out of business. I don't know if you know that.

STU: No. Yeah, they're in business.

GLENN: No. That's a parallel universe.

STU: Really? That didn't really happen?

GLENN: No. Uh-uh.

STU: A better universe.

GLENN: No. The last I saw, all the equipment was, you know, buried in some place in the middle of the country.

STU: Probably better than what actually happened, you know.

GLENN: So we -- we need the trust in our institutions, and our FBI.

Please, if you're in the FBI, set the record straight. And -- and get rid of all of the bad things in your life, and whistle-blow!

You see something, say something. Are you getting tired of being told that you're what's wrong with America?

Are you tired of corporations going woke right and left?

Well, the good news is, you're awake. And so you don't have to pay for -- for services from a company that hate you. And then have some of the profit that they make, invested in the organizations that also hate you. And want to destroy everything that you love.

Patriot Mobile is your phone company. It is the one that will give you your cell phone and give you the same great service. The coverage. They're on the same cell towers as all the others.

And they love you. And they are actually in fighting for you. Go to PatriotMobile.com/Beck. Or call 972PATRIOT. PatriotMobile.com/Beck. 972PATRIOT. Use the offer code Beck. Get free activation. Join the movement. Pay less. Get great coverage. And actually be with a company that is fighting for your God-given rights. PatriotMobile.com/Beck. 972PATRIOT.

STU: BlazeTV.com/Glenn. The promo code is Glenn to save ten bucks to BlazeTV. More coming up.
(OUT AT 9:28AM)

GLENN: Hello, you sick freak. Yes, what would Monday be without a monkey pox update?

The CDC, the Center for Disease, Control, and Prevention has released a study over the weekend, suggesting that people should wear a mask, to protect themselves from monkey pox.

Now --

STU: Wait. There's no evidence that this is an airborne virus?

GLENN: No.

STU: So why would we wear a mask to avoid monkey pox?

GLENN: Well, I've said --

STU: It's an airborne virus. Would have seen how little they work. But why would --

GLENN: Well, because we've had -- we know now, monkey pox, the CDC came out last week, and said, monkey pox is something that is being spread, mainly through men having more than ten partners, and it is a sexual disease. It is being spread sexually. It's not a sexual disease. But it's being spread sexually.

STU: It's sort of a long-term intimate contact needed to spread this.

GLENN: Correct. So they didn't say that everyone should wear a mask.

STU: Uh-oh.

GLENN: I'm wondering if that's like a face condom, or what exactly -- how do you -- I mean, unless they're just lying to us, and one of those two things is wrong. Either the mask or how it spread.

If you're trying to logically figure it out, you've got to do some pretty complicated Common Core math. And show me your work, on how you got there.

STU: Hmm. I have a question about monkey pox.

GLENN: Yeah. I don't think I should answer it.

STU: No. Probably not. But they keep saying, we were talking about this phrase, men who were having sex with men. Which is the phrase now used. It's not gay people, or bisexual people. It's men who have sex with men. They keep saying that phrase over and over again. For some reason.

GLENN: Well, because gay sex, I think, could be sex between two women.

STU: Well, it's usually, there's an L in the LGBT, right? They could -- they keep saying, like, this is happening in the LGBTQ --

GLENN: I don't know what words mean anymore. I don't know what words mean.

STU: So this is my question, what about men who have sex with trans women? Could they be affected with this?

GLENN: No, that's completely different. It is to them.

STU: Here's the thing, they're biological men who have transitioned to women. I think this is what I would be accused of.

GLENN: Hater. Hater. Hater. I don't think monkey pox --

STU: Will the monkey pox -- is that --

GLENN: I don't think you can label someone who is now claiming to be a woman.

STU: Monkey pox will essentially approach the trans woman and say, I was thinking about infecting this particular man.

GLENN: You. Yeah.

STU: Then I realized, actually, this person is identifying as a woman, therefore, it's totally safe to have sex with this person.

GLENN: Right. Monkeys are not animals, man.

STU: Wait.

GLENN: All right. We have a really important story to share with you. It broke over the weekend. And it involves Google and a dad.

STU: Yes. So a dad in San Francisco, this is February 2021. If you know anything about San Francisco, this was like mid-lockdown. They were still in pull full fledge, right. Of lockdown. So the dad. Stay at home dad, had his son. And his son is having some issues in a sensitive area, if you would. And a rash of some sort, some redness, some swelling, breaking out.

GLENN: Monkey pox.

STU: Now, of course -- now, this wasn't monkey pox. This was pre-monkey pox era. This child is having some discomfort. You're of course not allowed to go outside for some reason. So they're doing a virtual doctor's visit. While they're doing this virtual doctor's visit. The doctor requests photos to understand what's going on.

GLENN: Look, I'm not going anywhere really dark with the doctor, is it?

STU: No.

GLENN: Good. I'm just asking for the listener.

STU: Well, if you survived the monkey pox update, I think you already are here.

GLENN: Right. This one is a lot more tame.

STU: Yes. This is more tame. So he takes some photos, to give to the doctor of his child's area. Sends the photos.

The doctor recognizes what the rash is, what the issue is, sends antibiotics. Gets it knocked out immediately. Everybody is happy.

GLENN: Got it. So, I mean, want to recap this story. It's during covid lockdown. Dad is locked in the house. The doctor has these virtual visits. The doctor, a good guy. Asks the father, a good guy, to take a picture of the sensitive areas of the son who is a good guy. So the doctor can diagnosis and give the right prescription.

STU: Which he does, and it works. Everybody is happy. Apparently not. Not according to the people over at Google. Who have an algorithm, running over all his photos, that are in the cloud.

GLENN: Oh.

STU: And this photo that was apparently uploaded automatically to the cloud.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: Sends -- sets off some alerts, that say, this could be child porn. Now, of course --

GLENN: But it's not child porn.

STU: It's not child porn.

GLENN: Now, was Google monitoring this guy, because they suspected child porn?

STU: No. This is an automated algorithm, that is scanning the photos much every single person who uses Google cloud.

GLENN: Everyone. Uh-huh. Okay.

STU: Now, you might say, there's some utility to this. If it was child porn, it would probably be really good that this was alerted. And maybe some child could have been protected from some horrible, horrible incident.

GLENN: Sure. So they should have maybe reached out to some doctor. Well, but the doctor could have been -- he was on the receiving end, so to speak.

STU: Right. But what needs to happen here? The algorithm sets off these alarms. And then it goes to a human. And the human would have to determine at some level. So this happens, apparently. It's egregious enough for the people at Google, to alert the police. And shut down his entire account. Shutting down his access to his email. Deleting all of his photos from the beginning of his child's life all the way through. Deleting all of his documents.

GLENN: Okay. So wait a minute. Hang on just a second. If you were trying to catch somebody who was in child porn, the last thing you would want to do is tip them off that the authorities are on to them. So Google just -- they call the police. Then they just delete everything?

STU: At least from his access point. So he cannot access any of his stuff. Now, of course, this means he can't access the photos to prove he's innocent. Because now he no longer has excess to the photos that he took, that were his.

GLENN: What happened to the doctor's office that received the photos?

STU: Well, nothing at this point.

GLENN: Okay.

STU: So this goes on. He goes to Google, and appeals it. And says, look, my kid was sick, the doctor asked for these photos. I sent them. They reject his appeal.

Then months later, he gets a letter from the San Francisco police department. San Francisco police department has alerted him that they have begun an investigation. Have looked at all these photos.

He gets in touch with them, and explains to the San Francisco Police Department, hey, look, this is what was the situation. The Police Department sees all the evidence, and agrees with them. And says, okay. Obviously, no crime here.

He did not commit a crime here. This was not child porn. He was sending them to a doctor. So now you have the dad. You have the doctor. You have the police department, all saying the same thing.

GLENN: And the boy.

STU: And the boy. This is not a crime. There is no abuse here. Seems all appearances. All the evidence that we have. A good dad, trying it help his son, through a difficult moment in his life. The only standout here is Google.

So now the story escalates to the New York Times. The Times comes in, documents all of this. Has actually, apparently looked at the photos now. And has also determined, this is not child porn. Right? So we're sure on this one, it seems. Every point of evidence.

GLENN: I think people at the New York Times might be able to know what child porn looks like.

STU: They may very well be able to do that.

GLENN: So he wanted -- so they've gone through all of this. The dad wanted to sue Google, because, you know --

GLENN: They've shut --

STU: They shut him out. They say no. Even with the word of the police department. They still said no.

So he wanted to sue Google. He realized it was too expensive. He didn't have the money to do it. So he is just basically now in the constant state of trying to get them to change their mind, even with all of this. The Times contacts Google and gets a comment on the record where they say, yeah, we're not reversing it. After all of this. The police department is on the record saying, we have a copy of all of his data, but on a jump track. And they are saying, they want to work with the dad, to get him access to all his information back. But at this point, Google is still denying it.

GLENN: Now, imagine when Google and the United States are in bed with each other more than they already are. Imagine the ESG aspect of this. Dad is put on a list by Google. Google shares information by the government. The government shares information by the banks. Dad does not just lose all of his pictures. All of his contacts. And his Google phone. Dad would lose all phones. Dad would lose his banking. Dad would lose absolutely everything, because he would be too much of a risk.

And who do you go to? Who do you go to?

The New York Times? Who do you go to, to say, hey. I need to get my name off of this list. It doesn't -- now, let me add one additional thing to this. I told you last week, that the World Economic Forum, has said, that bullying and everything else, online and disinformation, misinformation, malinformation is too big of a problem globally.

So they are now pushing for high-tech and governments to endorse a system that would look at your tweet or whatever in question, and the algorithm would decide whether or not that is good or bad. If it's bad, it then makes a tree of everything that you do. So it goes back, and it looks at, who is influencing you?

And if those people -- it deletes you. Then it goes to all of the people with contacts. All of the people in your social media realm. And it looks for anyone else, that is spreading that information. And on each of those people, there's made a tree. And they lose their access. All the way down -- this is according to -- look it up at the WorldEconomicForum.com. Or org. Would you look it up, which one is it. But look it up at the main page of the World Economic Forum. It was there at least last week. Where they were talking about making a tree that would -- I mean, 7 degrees from Kevin Bacon. If this happened with this guy, I guarantee you, it's only a matter of time, before they get my name or your name. Because it trees out. And the World Economic Forum says that it's not enough to get the problem, that is manifesting itself on social media.

They need to see where that idea originally came from. Because they now need to silence ideas, before they get into the bloodstream of the population.

If that's not terrifying, especially coupled with this, that is actually happening. And you have a chance of stopping this. But you won't have that chance to stop these kinds of things. Look at how hard it is to get your name off of a No Fly List. You're on there -- you're on there by mistake. Look how long it took people to get their names off of no fly lists. You can't even find out from the government, if you're on it or off it. What the status is. Or why you're on it or off it.

STU: Yeah. In fact, one of the things that came up in this investigation. They said, well, we've also flagged a video from six months ago.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: And we thought that was problematic too.

He's like, well, what video? They're like, well, we're not going to give you access to it. So he can't even defend the video that he supposedly had on his phone.

GLENN: You can't -- you have a right to face your accuser.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: But that's only in governmental law. Back in just a second.

I don't know about you. But I tend to think, that I can immediately tell quality work when I see it. Taking and buying and selling homes, for example. You know the quality work, you know when somebody is going beyond the job that they just have to do. And they love their job. And they're excellent at it. This is a free service to you. To find the people that we think are the best real estate agents, with the best track record. And the -- and the best work ethic in your area. It's RealEstateAgentsITrust.com. Free service to you. You just go there. Say where you are. If you're selling or buying. And if you're moving across the country, or across the street, we'll find the real estate agents, that can help you. RealEstateAgentsITrust.com.
(music)
(OUT AT 9:49AM)

GLENN: This is the Glenn Beck Program. Back to John Solomon. John, I'm sorry to call you back.

JOHN: No problem.

GLENN: I just needed one more question from you. We were talking about the FBI and the warrant and what happened to Donald Trump. I have been hearing from Congress, that they're seeing tons of whistle-blowers come forward. And that gives me kind of hope. You're in a position to know, are we seeing whistle-blowers, and is it -- and is it more than just one or two?

JOHN: Yes, it is. That's a great question. And it's true. We've been writing a lot about it at Just The News. Fourteen separate different Justice Department and FBI whistle blowers, including at least one in the very senior ranks, have come forward to either Congressman Jim Jordan in the House or Senator Chuck Grassley in the Senate, and their allegations were, as we were discussing earlier in the show, that there was this politicization particularly in the Washington field office, where the current raid was conducted by -- the two examples that Chuck Grassley has put out there, that is very clear. An analyst wrote a document, trying to take legitimate evidence against Hunter Biden. And claimed it was disinformation that caused a part of the Hunter Biden investigation. Temporarily closed down in the election. That's one example of a bad politicization going on in the FBI. According to the whistle-blowers. The other is the same office, the Washington field office, opened an investigation on Donald Trump. Not the one we're talking about now, but an earlier one. Without having a proper predicate, meaning there wasn't evidence, much like the case in Russia --

GLENN: Jeez.

JOHN: -- to open up. That's what these guys are talking about, these men and women that are coming forward. Fourteen of them, you're right on the money, Glenn.

GLENN: So that's a good sign. We're seeing more than usual. It's not just maybe the political guys on the other side.

JOHN: Yes. No. I think this is right. This is a greater heartburn among career people.

GLENN: Good. Thank you for that. John, I appreciate it. God bless. John Solomon, of course, is the CEO and editor of chief of Just The News, which is a news site you should go to every day and check the news. That's good news. And, again, I want to encourage anyone -- anyone at any level, if you're seeing it in your city level -- you're seeing it to the FBI level, the NSA, CIA. Please, whistle-blow. We need to know good guys are in there.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

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

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

Watch Glenn Beck's FULL Interview with Max Lucado HERE

Bill O'Reilly predicts THIS will be Charlie Kirk's legacy

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

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

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

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

BILL: Family okay? All of that?

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

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

GLENN: It is.

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

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

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

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

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

Ultra dangerous.

And a few hours later, Charlie Kirk is assassinated.

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

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

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

People create around their own lives.

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

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

He decided that he wanted to do that.

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

GLENN: Yes, he was.

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

That's what Charlie Kirk did.

And he lost his life.

By doing it!

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

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

But it really isn't.

And this is the ongoing story.

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

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

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

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

GLENN: He is.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And then you have the big Jesus revolution after that.

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

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

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

And you're never going to get them back.

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

Let's run it down.

The corporate media is finished.

In America. It's over.

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

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

And the hate is the key word.

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

I will do it GE today. With major Garrett.

GLENN: Wow.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me ask you about --

BILL: When am I wrong?

When am I wrong?

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Yeah, okay.

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

BILL: Yeah.

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

So --

GLENN: You think that they could.

BILL: 60 Minutes used to be the gold standard.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

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

GLENN: I don't either.

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

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

They never, ever watched network television.

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

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

They don't watch --

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

GLENN: Yeah. Right.

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

Same voices, with huge followings.

Huge!

All right?

We couldn't get on there.

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

GLENN: I know.

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

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

BILL: Yes, it was his defiance.

GLENN: Yes.

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

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

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

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

GLENN: Why?

BILL: Because Putin would use nuclear weapon.

He wouldn't. He's a psychopath.

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

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

GLENN: I'll be there. What time?

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Should people CELEBRATING Charlie Kirk’s death be fired?

There’s a big difference between firing someone, like a teacher, for believing children shouldn’t undergo trans surgery and firing a teacher who celebrated the murder of Charlie Kirk. Glenn Beck explains why the latter is NOT “cancel culture.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I got an email from somebody that says, Glenn, in the wake of Charlie's assassination, dozens of teachers, professors and professionals are being suspended or fired for mocking, or even celebrating Charlie Kirk's death.

Critics say conservatives are now being hypocritical because you oppose cancel culture. But is this the same as rose an losing her job over a crude joke. Or is it celebrating murder, and that's something more serious?

For many, this isn't about cancellation it's about trust. If a teacher is entrusted with children or a doctor entrusted with patients, publicly celebrates political violence, have they not yet disqualified themselves from those roles? Words matter. But cheering a death is an action. Is there any consequence for this? Yes. There is.

So let's have that conversation here for a second.

Is every -- is every speech controversy the same?

The answer to that is clearly no.

I mean, we've seen teachers and pastors and doctors and ordinary citizens lose their job now, just for saying they don't believe children under 18 should undergo transgender surgeries. Okay? Lost their job. Chased out.

That opinion, whether you agree or disagree is a moral and medical judgment.

And it is a matter of policy debate. It is speech in the public square.

I have a right to say, you're mutilating children. Okay. You have a right to say, no. We're not. This is the best practices. And then we can get into the silences of it. And we don't shout down the other side.

Okay? Now, on the other hand, you have Charlie Kirk's assassination. And we've seen teachers and professors go online and be celebrate.

Not criticize. Not argue policy. But celebrate that someone was murdered.

Some have gone so far and said, it's not a tragedy. It's a victory. Somebody else, another professor said, you reap what you sow.

Well, let me ask you: Are these two categories of free speech the same?

No! They're not.

Here's the difference. To say, I believe children should not be allowed to have gender surgeries, before 18. That is an attempt, right or wrong. It doesn't matter which side you are.

That is an attempt to protect life. Protect children. And guide society.

It's entering the debate about the role of medicine. The right of parents. And the boundaries of childhood. That's what that is about. To say Charlie Kirk's assassination is a good thing, that's not a debate. That's not even an idea. That's rejoicing in violence. It's glorifying death.

There's no place in a civil society for that kind of stuff. There's not. And it's a difference that actually matters.

You know, our Founders fought for free speech because they believed as Jefferson said, that air can be tolerated where truth is left free to combat it.

So I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, at all. I don't think you do either. I hope you don't. Otherwise, you should go back to read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Error can be tolerated where truth is left to be free to combat it.

But when speech shifts from debating ideas to celebrating death, doesn't that cease to be the pursuit of truth and instead, just become a glorification of evil?

I know where I stand on that one. Where do you stand?

I mean, if you go back and you look at history, in colonial matter -- in colonial America, if you were to go against the parliament and against the king, those words were dangerous. They were called treason. But they were whys. They were arguments about liberty and taxation and the rights of man.

And the Founders risked their lives against the dictator to say those things.

Now, compare that to France in 1793.

You Thomas Paine, one of or -- one of our founder kind of. On the edges of our founders.

He thought that what was happening in France is exactly like the American Revolution.

Washington -- no. It wasn't.

There the crowds. They didn't gather to argue. Okay? They argued to cheer the guillotine they didn't want the battle of ideas.

They wanted blood. They wanted heads to roll.

And roll they did. You know, until the people who were screaming for the heads to roll, shouted for blood, found that their own heads were rolling.

Then they turned around on that one pretty quickly.

Think of Rome.

Cicero begged his countrymen to preserve the republic through reason, law, and debate. Then what happened?

The mob started cheering assassinations.

They rejoiced that enemies were slaughtered.

They were being fed to the lions.

And the republic fell into empire.

And liberty was lost!

Okay. So now let me bring this back to Charlie Kirk here for a second.

If there's a professor that says, I don't believe children should have surgeries before adulthood, is that cancel culture, when they're fired?

Yes! Yes, it is.

Because that is speech this pursuit of truth.

However imperfect, it is speech meant to protect children, not to harm them. You also cannot be fired for saying, I disagree with that.

If you are telling, I disagree with that. And I will do anything to shut you down including assassination! Well, then, that's a different story.

What I teacher says, I'm glad Charlie Kirk is dead, is that cancel culture, if they're fired?

Or is that just society saying, you know, I don't think I can trust my kid to -- to that guy.

Or that woman.

I know, that's not an enlightening mind.

Somebody who delights in political murder.

I don't want them around my children! Scripture weighs in here too.

Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaketh. Matthew.

What does it reveal about the heart of a teacher who celebrates assassination?

To me, you go back to Scripture. Whoa unto them that call good evil -- evil good and good evil.

A society that will shrug on speech like this, say society that has lost its moral compass.

And I believe we still have a moral compass.

Now, our free speech law doesn't protect both. Absolutely. Under law. Absolutely.

Neither one of them should go to jail.

Neither should be silenced by the state.

But does trust survive both?

Can a parent trust their child to a teacher who is celebrating death?

I think no. I don't think a teacher can be trusted if they think that the children that it's right for children to see strippers in first grade!

I'm sorry. It's beyond reason. You should not be around my children!

But you shouldn't go to jail for that. Don't we, as a society have a right to demand virtue, in positions of authority?

Yes.

But the political class and honestly, the educational class, does everything they can to say, that doesn't matter.

But it does. And we're seeing it now. The line between cancel and culture, the -- the cancellation of people, and the accountability of people in our culture, it's not easy.

Except here. I think it is easy.

Cancel culture is about challenging the orthodoxy. Opinions about faith, morality, biology.
Accountability comes when speech reveals somebody's heart.

Accountability comes when you're like, you are a monster! You are celebrating violence. You're mocking life itself. One is an argument. The other is an abandonment of humanity. The Constitution, so you understand, protects both.

But we as a culture can decide, what kind of voices would shape our children? Heal our sick. Lead our communities?

I'm sorry, if you're in a position of trust, I think it's absolutely right for the culture to say, no!

No. You should not -- because this is not policy debate. This is celebrating death.

You know, our Founders gave us liberty.

And, you know, the big thing was, can you keep it?

Well, how do you keep it? Virtue. Virtue.

Liberty without virtue is suicide!

So if anybody is making this case to you, that this is cancel culture. I just want you to ask them this question.

Which do you want to defend?

Cancel culture that silences debate. Or a culture that still knows the difference between debating ideas and celebrating death.

Which one?

Shocking train video: Passengers wait while woman bleeds out

Surveillance footage of the murder of Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska in Charlotte, NC, reveals that the other passengers on the train took a long time to help her. Glenn, Stu, and Jason debate whether they were right or wrong to do so.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: You know, I'm -- I'm torn on how I feel about the people on the train.

Because my first instinct is, they did nothing! They did nothing! Then my -- well, sit down and, you know -- you know, you're going to be judged. So be careful on judging others.

What would I have done? What would I want my wife to do in that situation?

STU: Yeah. Are those two different questions, by the way.

GLENN: Yeah, they are.

STU: I think they go far apart from each other. What would I want myself to do. I mean, it's tough to put yourself in a situation. It's very easy to watch a video on the internet and talk about your heroism. Everybody can do that very easily on Twitter. And everybody is.

You know, when you're in a vehicle that doesn't have an exit with a guy who just murdered somebody in front of you, and has a dripping blood off of a knife that's standing 10 feet away from you, 15 feet away from you.

There's probably a different standard there, that we should all kind of consider. And maybe give a little grace to what I saw at least was a woman, sitting across the -- the -- the aisle.

I think there is a difference there. But when you talk about that question. Those two questions are definitive.

You know, I know what I would want myself to do. I would hope I would act in a way that didn't completely embarrass myself afterward.

But I also think, when I'm thinking of my wife. My advice to my wife would not be to jump into the middle of that situation at all costs. She might do that anyway. She actually is a heck of a lot stronger than I am.

But she might do it anyway.

GLENN: How pathetic, but how true.

STU: Yes. But that would not be my advice to her.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: Now, maybe once the guy has certainly -- is out of the area. And you don't think the moment you step into that situation. He will turn around and kill you too. Then, of course, obviously. Anything you can do to step in.

Not that there was much anyone on the train could do.

I mean, I don't think there was an outcome change, no matter what anyone on that train did.

Unfortunately.

But would I want her to step in?

Of course. If she felt she was safe, yes.

Think about, you said, your wife. Think about your daughter. Your daughter is on that train, just watching someone else getting murdered like that. Would you advise your daughter to jump into a situation like that?

That girl sitting across the aisle was somebody's daughter. I don't know, man.

JASON: I would. You know, as a dad, would I advise.

Hmm. No.

As a human being, would I hope that my daughter or my wife or that I would get up and at least comfort that woman while she's dying on the floor of a train?

Yeah.

I would hope that my daughter, my son, that I would -- and, you know, I have more confidence in my son or daughter or my wife doing something courageous more than I would.

But, you know, I think I have a more realistic picture of myself than anybody else.

And I'm not sure that -- I'm not sure what I would do in that situation. I know what I would hope I would do. But I also know what I fear I would do. But I would have hoped that I would have gotten up and at least tried to help her. You know, help her up off the floor. At least be there with her, as she's seeing her life, you know, spill out in under a minute.

And that's it other thing we have to keep in mind. This all happened so rapidly.

A minute is -- will seem like a very long period of time in that situation. But it's a very short period of time in real life.

STU: Yeah. You watch the video, Glenn. You know, I don't need the video to -- to change my -- my position on this.

But at his seem like there was a -- someone who did get there, eventually, to help, right? I saw someone seemingly trying to put pressure on her neck.

GLENN: Yeah. And tried to give her CPR.

STU: You know, no hope at that point. How long of a time period would you say that was?

Do you know off the top of your head?

GLENN: I don't know. I don't know. I know that we watched the video that I saw. I haven't seen past 30 seconds after she --

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: -- is down. And, you know, for 30 seconds nothing is happening. You know, that is -- that is not a very long period of time.

STU: Right.

GLENN: In reality.

STU: And especially, I saw the pace he was walking. He certainly can't be -- you know, he may have left the actual train car by 30 seconds to a minute. But he wasn't that far away. Like he was still in visual.

He could still turn around and look and see what's going on at that point. So certainly still a threat is my point. He has not, like, left the area. This is not that type of situation.

You know, I -- look, as you point out, I think if I could be super duper sexist for a moment here, sort of my dividing line might just be men and women.

You know, I don't know if it's that a -- you're not supposed to say that, I suppose these days. But, like, there is a difference there. If I'm a man, you know, I would be -- I would want my son to jump in on that, I suppose. I don't know if he could do anything about it. But you would expect at least a grown man to be able to go in there and do something about it. A woman, you know, I don't know.

Maybe I'm -- I hope --

GLENN: Here's the thing I -- here's the thing that I -- that causes me to say, no. You should have jumped in.

And that is, you know, you've already killed one person on the train. So you've proven that you're a killer. And anybody who would have screamed and got up and was with her, she's dying. She's dying. Get him. Get him.

Then the whole train is responsible for stopping that guy. You know. And if you don't stop him, after he's killed one person, if you're not all as members of that train, if you're not stopping him, you know, the person at the side of that girl would be the least likely to be killed. It would be the ones that are standing you up and trying to stop him from getting back to your daughter or your wife or you.

JASON: There was a -- speaking of men and women and their roles in this. There was a video circling social media yesterday. In Sweden. There was a group of officials up on a stage. And one of the main. I think it was health official woman collapses on stage. Completely passes out.

All the men kind of look away. Or I don't know if they're looking away. Or pretending that they didn't know what was going on. There was another woman standing directly behind the woman passed out.

Immediately springs into action. Jumps on top. Grabs her pant leg. Grabs her shoulder. Spins her over and starts providing care.

What did she have that the other guys did not? Or women?

She was a sheepdog. There is a -- this is my issue. And I completely agree with Stu. I completely agree with you. There's some people that do not respond this way. My issue is the proportion of sheepdogs versus people that don't really know how to act. That is diminishing in western society. And American society.

We see it all the time in these critical actions. I mean, circumstances.

There are men and women, and it's actually a meme. That fantasize about hoards of people coming to attack their home and family. And they sit there and say, I've got it. You guys go. I'm staying behind, while I smoke my cigarette and wait for the hoards to come, because I will sacrifice myself. There are men and women that fantasize of block my highway. Go ahead. Block my highway. I'm going to do something about it. They fantasize about someone holding up -- not a liquor store. A convenience store or something. Because they will step in and do something. My issue now is that proportion of sheepdogs in society is disappearing. Just on statistical fact, there should be one within that train car, and there were none.

STU: Yeah. I mean --

JASON: They did not respond.

STU: We see what happens when they do, with Daniel Penny. Our society tries to vilify them and crush their existence. Now, there weren't that many people on that train. Right?

At least on that car. At least it's limited. I only saw three or four people there, there may have been more. I agree with you, though. Like, you see what happens when we actually do have a really recent example of someone doing exactly what Jason wants and what I would want a guy to do. Especially a marine to step up and stop this from happening. And the man was dragged by our legal system to a position where he nearly had to spend the rest of his life in prison.

I mean, I -- it's insanity. Thankfully, they came to their senses on that one.

GLENN: Well, the difference between that one and this one though is that the guy was threatening. This one, he killed somebody.

STU: Yeah. Right. Well, but -- I think -- but it's the opposite way. The debate with Penny, was should he have recognize that had this person might have just been crazy and not done anything?

Maybe. He hadn't actually acted yet. He was just saying things.

GLENN: Yeah. Well --

STU: He didn't wind up stabbing someone. This is a situation where these people have already seen what this man will do to you, even when you don't do anything to try to stop him. So if this woman, who is, again, looks to be an average American woman.

Across the aisle. Steps in and tries to do something. This guy could easily turn around and just make another pile of dead bodies next to the one that already exists.

And, you know, whether that is an optimal solution for our society, I don't know that that's helpful.

In that situation.