RADIOMarch 15, 2024

INSANE: Fani Willis Ousting Case Comes to SHOCKING Conclusion

Fulton County Judge Scott McAfee has allowed District Attorney Fani Willis to continue prosecuting former president Donald Trump’s Georgia election interference case … and Glenn has a few words for him. “I have never seen a clearer case of perjury,” Glenn says, after the world watched Fani Willis defend her relationship with her special prosecutor “friend.” Glenn warns that if this judge can ignore GPS evidence in this case, how many criminals will this allow to go free? But why did Judge McAfee issue this ruling in the first place? Is he a “coward” who is afraid of repercussions from the anti-Trump left?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

All right. We just had some breaking news here.

STU: Yeah. We have our Fani decision.

Fani Wilson. Remember, the course, what was on the line was, is she going to leave? Is she going to be forced out, and they will have to find an entirely new situation, basically restart from scratch? Was what was on the line here.

GLENN: Because she perjured herself.

STU: Again, and this is, of course, the case against Donald Trump in Georgia. And the judge, Scott McAfee, has come out in a 23-page ruling issued.

He said that the defendants failed to meet their burden, in proving Willis' relationship with the special prosecutor, named Wade, was a conflict of interest.

Enough to merit her removal from the case. The judge did find an appearance of impropriety. And said, either Willis -- and her office may leave the case. Or wade must withdraw from the proceeding.

So basically, what will happen here is the dude will get fired. And she will be able to keep going. Now, this is not the a --

GLENN: That's unbelievable!

STU: That's incredible.

After what they've done.

GLENN: Have you ever seen a clear case of perjury?

STU: Everyone on earth knows she was lying. He was lying.

GLENN: There's no justice. There really is no justice. I mean, if you want to know highway African-Americans felt, in, you know, the 1930s, '40s, '50s, especially in the South?

Here it is! Here it is!

You can see it with your eyes. You hear the testimony, and you just know it's rigged. It's rigged.

Because there is no way, any reasonable person would come up with that.

STU: What do you mean, an appearance of impropriety?

How can I possibly think it's just an appearance of impropriety. Again, we talked about this in the beginning. If they had come out and said, look, Nathan wade is just the bad guy out there.

Yeah. I had an affair with him. He was an incredible man. I had to have a piece. But he's an incredible attorney. And I'll admit to everything. And I hired him because he's the best. Probably, they just skate. Instead, they decided to lie throughout the entire thing.

GLENN: Boldly.

STU: Boldly. The face of judge --

GLENN: It is not. You know, you can debate. Well, I made a mistake.

Well, I was -- no. They boldly took the stand.

Wanted to lie.

STU: And did lie.

GLENN: And did lie. Over and over.

STU: Over and over again.

GLENN: How?

STU: It was noted by the judge, that the situation was not proper. However, basically, they're just going to make him leave.

GLENN: Yes. But how does she stay?

Forget the relationship. How does she stay even an attorney, if she has perjured herself?

STU: Right. This is so far beyond the relationship. I barely cared about the story, when there was a relationship involved. Okay.

Whatever. But once she started lying on the stand, and he started lying on the stand, and it was proven. There is absolutely no way she should be in a position of power, and she certainly, and so should he, lose his law license.

There is no law. If attorneys can get away with that. None. None.

None.

STU: It's quite the statement. But it's hard to disagree with.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: They were overt in this. We all know. Just looking at this from a human perspective, we know they were all lying. They didn't go through a perjury trial. Right?

They didn't go through a bar hearing, where they had to fight for their license. They went through something that was -- a proceeding that was supposed to lean on this case. In this case, they will let her stay on. Obviously, that will be the choice she makes, by the way.

GLENN: But how? How?

How can the judge believe anything that she is presenting or saying, if the judge knows, she boldly, knowingly, lied in two other cases.

How?

STU: I certainly can't believe a word she's saying. I don't know how he can.

GLENN: I can't.

STU: It is incredible. And you would be right to look at this and say, this is seemingly very unfair.

I mean, I don't know how I can look at this, and say, anything other than, they -- look, they definitely want Donald Trump to get in legal trouble.

You know, there's no question about that. And if they don't -- if they keep Fani Willis on the trial, there's a chance these things come to fruition before the election. If they throw her off, basically it's over.

And they don't want that.

GLENN: A new study shows that what the Supreme Court doctrine that was the old doctrine created by the Supreme Court, allows 96 percent of private property, is open now to warrantless searches.

The DEA, in a completely other new story, shows that they had a surveillance program on Americans.

They have collected massive amounts of telephone records, for 20 years.

And it was shuttered, because of the Edward Snowden revelations in 2013. The inspector general has released a report heavily redacted.

And that has been released. That was released six years later. The Washington Examiner has just received a copy of it.

The office of inspector general exists to provide oversight of government agencies. Among the new details of the DEA program, is that it refused to comply with parts of the IG investigation, for seven months. And no one faced any consequences.

Can you trust inspector general reports anymore?

Can you trust that Congress even has oversight or even if they want to have oversight?

This, the country has broken down. And all of the problems that are happening, right now. Are because we've abandoned all of our principles.

Does it ever feel to you, let me take a break.

Let me just take a break. Sorry, we didn't expect that news broke, just as I was finishing that commercial.

STU: Let me give you a quick rundown of what their argument is. And what the judges argument is in this case, Glenn. Basically, they start out and go through -- reading through it, while you're talking.

Go through the idea of why weather she financially benefited from it first. Her argument was, we don't have proof of that. We don't know for sure.

They essentially bide the Fani Willis argument of number one, she already makes a bunch of money. She already doesn't have massive debts. She wasn't doing this purely for financial gain. They bought the idea that okay. She paid for one of these trips.

Which it does seem like she did one of the birthday trips that she mentioned many times. So it wasn't like -- and I sort of agree, right?

Like I think you do too. This isn't necessarily, entirely about, oh, we hired this guy, just so I could take trips.

Like, I don't think that's necessarily what happened.

GLENN: Right. It could have.

STU: I think they were broken up. They wanted to take trips. And it just happened to work out well.

I don't know if that's the primary reason.

It's more like, she wanted the guy she was sleeping with, to be close.

And that's a massive problem there. Let me give you this paragraph. This is after they basically say, look, there's issues there. But we can't prove that was her motivation.

Without sufficient evidence, that the district attorney acquired a personal stake in the prosecution, or that her financial arrangements had any impact on the case, the defendant's claims of an actual conflict must be denied. This finding is by no means an indication that the court condones this tremendous lapse in judgment. Or the unprofessional manor of the district attorney's testimony during the evidentiary hearing.

GLENN: Unprofessional.

STU: He's admitting that he knows, that she was lying, basically.

GLENN: That's not unprofessional. It's perjury.

STU: I would agree.

I mean, that's a separate. You don't necessarily get charged with it, in that way.

You would have to have a separate hearing on it. Still, it rises to that standard, to me.

He says, rather, it is the undersigned opinion, that the Georgia law, does not permit the finding of an actual conflict for simply making bad choices, even repeatedly.

And it is the trial court's duty to confine itself to the relevant issues and lay brought before it.

Other forms or sources of authority, such as the general assembly -- he's giving a path here.

The general assembly. The Georgia state ethics commission. The state bar of Georgia.

The faulted county Board of Commissioners. Or the voters of Fulton county.

May offer feedback for any unanswered questions that linger. This is directly from the ruling.

But those are not the issues determined to the defendant's motions, alleging an actual conflict. So he's basically.

I think you can very fairly look at this. And say, he's being very challenged by a Jesse Jackson disciple. You can argue --

GLENN: Lose your job. Verify to lose -- what a coward.

STU: Well, he would deny it.

GLENN: Terrified to lose your job.

How dare you. Your job is a constitutional boast. And you're terrified -- what you know I'm terrified of?

I'm terrified of being shot and killed. I'm terrified of an out-of-control government, swooping in, and arresting my employees.

Or arresting me.

That's what I'm -- that's what I'm afraid of?

Okay. Plus, everything else that is going on, that I am worried about my family and my children.

How dare any of you judges be afraid that you'll lose your job. Boohoo. Cry me a river.

It is our Constitution and our country, that is at stake.

And none of this monologue has anything to do with Donald Trump. None of it.

We all know she perjured herself.

I don't care about the relationship. I don't care about the money.

The people of Georgia should. What I care about, more than even the case with Donald Trump, is that this woman perjured herself, and so did her boyfriend.

They knowingly, gleefully, wickedly perjured themselves. Over and over.

Neither of them, should have a law license today.

Neither of them!

STU: Allegedly. So we --

GLENN: Allegedly.

STU: Just trying to protect you from being sued. But, no. I think there is a standard here, where like, as a person who is a normal human being, looking at what they say, I -- I'm not a lawyer. I don't know every little in and out of what they're doing here.

We'll have the mom to talk about it. But it's to me, blatantly obvious. I said this 100 times.

No human being in history, has, actually, done the things they said they did.

Nobody.

And that is outside of the cell phone data. Where we know, she was there.

GLENN: I know. I know.

STU: Societies blatantly obvious to any human being.

GLENN: It is the cell phone data.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: It is that. Forget about --

STU: They've addressed that.

GLENN: Et cetera, et cetera.

It is the cell phone GPS location, by triangulating the phones. That they know he was -- may not know he was in bed with her.

But I'm sure the CIA has some satellites that can see the heat of bodies through a ruse of houses.

STU: They can look through now and see through Wi-Fi, and see who is in the rooms.

GLENN: Exactly right. If -- if that triangulation does not hold up as evidence.

STU: To be fair, I don't think that's what he said.

I don't think he's saying the cell phone data doesn't hold up.

I think he's basically admitting, they had this relationship, and they were lying.

GLENN: Yeah. Wait.

So he can allow them to go on a case, when they shouldn't be. When they perjured themselves.

It's his court, as well as another courtroom.

STU: Again, I disagree with this ruling.

That's why I read that paragraph.

He's basically stating. I don't have the legal authority to do this on these grounds.

He's saying, these other institutions should be the ones doing this. They should be the ones disqualifying her. I can only act under the law, I have. At my behest right now.

Look, I tend to agree we strongly.

But that is his argument.

He says, he's limited by the law. It's not just -- you can't. If there was a financial aspect.

He could throw her off.

He said, I don't have the financial aspect locked down enough. Therefore, I can't do it.

GLENN: You have perjury.

One is fraud. The other is perjury. Under oath. By an officer of the court.

STU: I know.

GLENN: I got news for you, gang. If this is the way you can just go to court, you think any lawyer is not going to tell murderers, and everything else, exactly what to say?

No. No. No.

Change -- the change story a bit.

STU: Yeah. Stick to your story.

This is a Mafia tactic, right?

If the Mafia were to exist, this would be one of the tactics they would do.

GLENN: And of course we don't need any more enemies. And if they do exist, I love the mob.

STU: But I think that is real. All you have to do, and they proved that they talked.

They talked -- coordinate your story. That's basically what occurred here.

They -- they had a very similar story.

And like, again, I don't think -- I don't think Fani Willis was saying, hey. If I hired this guy, I would be able to go to Napa Valley, in six months.

I don't think that's the full motivation. To your point, a much greater violation has occurred.

They went in front of this judge, and blatantly lied in my view.

Over and over and over again.

And that doesn't --

GLENN: I mean, I just want to say, in your view, no. Let's follow the science.

GPS coordinates. That is not reliable technology.

STU: According to the GPS coordinates. And that's not reliable technology. To your point, there's a lot of criminals out on the street later today.

GLENN: Let me just say this real quick. Please, dear Jesus come. Or send us an astroid.

Because I can't take much more of this.

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

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

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

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

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

Michelle Obama has a podcast. Who knew?

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

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

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

Cut one please.

VOICE: Wait, you guys like each other.

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

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

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

OBAMA: I know. I know.

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

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

VOICE: Okay. Don't make me cry.

PAT: Aw.

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

VOICE: And welcome to IMO.

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

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

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

VOICE: Of course, I've been listening.

PAT: What? No!

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

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

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

Gives her a little peck on the cheek.

PAT: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

GLENN: Does that --

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, maybe.

PAT: I think it was a little uncomfortable.

GLENN: It was a little uncomfortable.

It's still, maybe. Maybe.

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

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

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

PAT: He was about to vomit. Yeah.

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

He doesn't like women, what is happening?

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

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

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

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

Don't even start with me.

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

PAT: The other awkward thing about that.

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

Where she's considered reeving him.

GLENN: Yeah.

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

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

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

I don't know.

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

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

Grandma, we're getting a divorce.

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

And I said, what?

We're getting a divorce.

And she said, how dare you.

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

And I said, what?

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

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

PAT: Wow.

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

PAT: Yeah. Yeah. Uh-huh.

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

PAT: Did she know your first wife?

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

No, Trump’s tariffs ARE NOT causing inflation

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But I don't think I'm wrong.

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

That tariffs don't work.

They increase inflation.

It's going to cost us more.

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

Tell me what's going on.

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

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

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

But, anyway, go ahead.

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

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Correct.

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

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

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

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

There's very, very little movement overall.

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

Wait.

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

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

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

So where are they?

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

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

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

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

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

Because that's a real option.

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

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

That's entirely possible.

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

That's not where the inflation is coming.

Instead, it's coming from housing.

That's part of the CPI at that time.

Housing is the cause of inflation right now.

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

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

It's not building.

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

GLENN: Okay.

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

Or housing prices to buy a new house.

They are talking about rent.

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Right.

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

I mean, come on!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah. All right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Yeah. But we had one month.

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

JUSTIN: I looked it up.

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

It was 20 something years ago.

So this is incredible, really.

And if it works.

You and I talked about this before.

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

So that they can be competitive.

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

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

The plan is, go all in on artificial intelligence.

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

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

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

They don't care.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You have no hope.

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

GLENN: Yes.

Well, I tend to agree with you.

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

I war gamed this, probably in 2006.

I'm thinking, okay.

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

They won't be real on popular.

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

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

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

What can be done now.

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

But they need each other.

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

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

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

And I don't think I am.

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

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

Agree with that or disagree?

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Yeah. Right. Right.

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

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

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

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

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