RADIOAugust 12, 2024

Former FBI Agent Reveals Suspicious Links Between Failed Trump Assassins And FBI

There are still way too many unanswered questions about the Butler, Pennsylvania, assassination attempt against Trump. But now, more information is coming out about a second would-be assassin. This time, it was a Pakistani man who was arrested after allegedly plotting with Iran. But FBI whistleblower and former agent Steve Friend tells Glenn that everything about this story – and the Pennsylvania attempt – points to FBI grooming. Is the FBI influencing potential assassins just to arrest them and ask Congress for more money? Steve Friend also weighs in on the story of Secret Service agents who broke into a salon during a Kamala Harris event.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: A -- a very brave man, and a good friend of the program, Steve friend is joining us.

He is from the center of renewing America fellow -- he's a fellow, sorry, at the center for renewing America.

He is also the FBI whistle-blower.

That objected to being put on to duty, to investigate grandmothers, as domestic terrorists.

He blew the whistle. And the rest of it is history. Welcome to the program, Steve, how are you?

STEVE: I'm doing well. Thanks for having me on today.

GLENN: You bet. So you were with the FBI. And I know it's not the same. But I think you probably could comment on this. I'm not hearing anything satisfying coming from the FBI, or the Secret Service.

On the assassination attempt. There's three things.

Assassination attempt of Donald Trump.

The guy that they just let in.

They knew he was on the terror list. And they just let him in, anyway.

Who was coordinating an assassination on Donald Trump.

And then the third comes out of Massachusetts, this weekend. Where Kamala Harris was on stage someplace, at an event. And the Secret Service. And local police needed a bathroom. So they covered up somebody's private security, on their business.

And then picked the lock, went in, used their bathrooms. Occupied the space for hours.

And then closed back the shop. Didn't lock it back up. But closed it.

The lady came on Monday. And she's like, what the hell happened here?

That's against the law, isn't it?

STEVE: Oh, absolutely it is. And I think if you or I were to do any sort of activity, that there would be criminal charges against us, at the very least for some sort of trespass.

But I think what these three elements that you are talking about expose more than anything else, is what I would like to dub the myth of competence, that we all sort of have in our federal law enforcement agencies. Because in pop culture, TVs, movies shows that you consume, the -- the characters in those shows and those movies, they're really sophisticated and really great at their job. And they're hunting down the criminal, and they're chasing down the back alleys, slapping the handcuffs on, and then they just fade to black.

But in reality, these agencies have now devolved into essentially DMVs with guns and badges.

And that's why, the Trump assassination attempt. You know, there are all these theories that are out there.

And you can count me in sort of the Klan that believe that incompetence was sort of heavily involved in it. And I think there's one sort of presupposition that has gone into that, that so many people have their questions about it, and rightfully so.

But we are presupposing that the Secret Service is always great, at its job.

GLENN: Oh, I think they're terrible.

STEVE: Yeah, I think that these failures are happening at every single event.

And it's just because of the providential nature of the country, and then also because of the myth of competence, that nobody has really tried and tested them. Which is why going forward, I think there's probably a heightened risk for any of these events that he will hold. But to pivot to this, the second issue with the FBI and investigating this -- this assassination attempt. I think one of the most disturbing elements, that hasn't been picked up on, was when the deputy director of the FBI, Paula Bates, said that they were going to investigate him as domestic terrorism. And that to me, to the layperson seems reasonable. You don't want to have blinders on. But being a subject mater expert here, the FBI is now going to slap a classified label on this investigation. And they're not going to be able to be transparent because you don't have a need to know.

GLENN: Jeez.

STEVE: You don't have the security clearance. I'm sorry. I'm sorry, Congressman. That's an ongoing investigation. So that's detrimentally disturbing. And the last thing, I definitely want to get to is this Pakistani National.

Now, this is what I like to call the playbook that the FBI has been running the last two and a half decades since 9/11, where essentially what they do to justify their existence as a bureaucracy, as a self-licking ice cream cone, they will identify a vulnerable person in a motion to serve maybe someone with radical intentions. But not capable of carrying forward an actual attack without the involvement of the FBI. They'll identify them. Use confidential human sources. Use undercovers. And then groom them for as long as it takes to engage. Or at least agree to engage in an activity, that can be labeled as terrorism, and then they will arrest them.

In the end, what was here, was that they imported this Pakistani through the border.

They sponsored him arriving. The FBI/Dallas office was actually assigned on him arriving, and it wasn't just to slap the cuffs on him. They followed him. And orchestrated this, that could never have happened without the involvement of government, for three months. And then justify their existence with this big dismantlement stack, which is also tied to their quotas.

This is just the FBI version of Fast & Furious, but except -- with the exception of him being with the ATF, who are now running terrorists so that we can justify our resistance as an agency.

GLENN: So he was supposed to leave right after he had set something up before the assassination.

So did they -- because I don't even know if I read what they had busted, other than him. Did they actually bust something up?

STEVE: The plot is completely absurd, Glenn. I've read through the affidavit.

This is an individual, who was essentially indigent. Didn't have the finances. And we're led to believe from the FBI, that he arrived here. And then just happened the first person, that he had a conversation with, was an informant for the government.

About soliciting hitmen for carrying forward not only assassinations, but he wanted dozens of people to have protests, that would have cover while they did reconnaissance. He wanted to get people that were going to steal documents and thumb drives from government figures. And all for the low, low price of $5,000, which he didn't actually have.

And he was doing things like asking the -- the informant to put his phone in a drawer, while they had conversations. I mean, that's not a Faraday bag. Not really operational security. These illusions of grandeur that he had, to me, indicate that he was a prime person that the FBI likes to target. The people who are vulnerable. And not for nothing. You know, let's just say, he's a bad guy. What's to say, they don't import him here.

And he just says, you know, this plot that I have. Doesn't sound like it is going to be achievable. I'll just grab a butcher knife and stab the next infidel that I see. And then the FBI should be up for that.

So this is them believing in their own competence, that certainly nothing bad will happen while we have him on the hook for three months.

And they have been lucky. We have been lucky, that nothing worse has happened. I think the bottom line, is that the FBI is inventing these cases, so that they can go to Congress, and say, look, all the good work we've done here.

Why don't you give us enhanced funding. Why don't you give us enhanced tools?

Think of all the good work that we could do, that Lindsey Graham wants to do now, and that is giving the FBI, back door access, to encrypted communications. That way, the FBI can circumvent the Fourth Amendment.

GLENN: Jeez. Oh, my gosh.

Lindsey Graham. Lindsey Graham. Lindsey Graham.

So let me see if I have this right. Was this guy that they picked up, or, you know, finally arrested.

And told us all about it. Was this just a distraction from the assassination?

BLAIR: I think the timetable works out to be, that he was arrested on July 12th. The assassination attempt happened on the 13th. Which to me, certainly explains the -- the messaging that we got about this Iranian threat. Because the FBI was really super concerned about who they groomed, to engage in our terrorism, which never was going to happen.

And really did have their eye on the ball. And then at least get to the speculation about a character like Crooks, who not for nothing, kind of strikes me as fitting squarely into the profile of somebody who would be recruited and targeted for grooming to engage in something that he was not predisposed to do.

And then maybe did the thing that I just talked about. When instead of grabbing the butcher knife and stabbing an infidel, grabbed his dad, and said, I will take a shot at a candidate for office.

GLENN: So who is -- who should pay for -- for this? I saw that the -- I think it was the fire chief of Butler County just resigned over this. Because of staging and everything else. I don't -- I could be wrong. I don't think it's the local laughter's place.

I mean, you know, when the Secret Service come in. They usually come in and say, here's what you're doing. And you do that. And you don't ask any questions.

You know, who -- whose fault really was this?

Who should pay for this?

STEVE: There's going to be a lot of accountability, hot potato as it comes to the assassination attempt. Because you can see Kim Cheatle go up there and says, the buck stops at me.

But it was really local law enforcement's job. And just having been at both levels, you can easily see that route being something where the locals say, hey, that should be covered. And the Secret Service said, okay. We'll cover it. And then it didn't get covered. And then they're looking back and forth at each other, saying, hey, that's your job. No, that's your job.

And then meanwhile, that didn't get covered at all. But I think ultimately, because the Secret Service is supposed to be the chief agency there who is calling the shots, it needs to be them, who falls on this.

And it needs to be an independent investigation. Because I don't trust the FBI. And it's not just a personal amendment. The FBI has a track record for investigating assassination attempts like a 2017 congressional baseball shooting, where the shooter with the Bernie Sanders supporter showed up at the ball field. And asked where the Republicans were, and then proceeded to shoot Steve Scalise. And the FBI said, that's not an assassination attempt. That's suicide by cop.

So there needs to be an independent investigation maybe funded here, can be used in the Congressional leverage here for the upcoming budget.

It can also be a request from the Pennsylvania State Police. Because I know there's a federal nexus here. But it was in their backyard. And I just don't see any reason why they couldn't conduct a thorough investigation. I would trust them far more than the FBI, which is to say, this was domestic terrorism, perhaps. Or perhaps we already have a domestic terrorism case opened on Crooks. Either way, we can't talk about sources and methods. This is an ongoing investigation.

Maybe we'll give you something here in a decade, when nobody is really paying attention.

GLENN: So one last thought, the woman in Massachusetts, that had her business just taken over. Without her permission. Without her even being there or knowing it.

They covered the camera.

They broke in. Picked the lock. And went in and spent hours in there. Just because, I guess they could.

She's not pressing charges.

She says, you know, I'm really angry. I am feeling violated.

You know, they have a job to do.

No. If people don't stand up, I think that's a violation of the -- of the Third Amendment.

I mean that never gets any attention.

I think that's a violation of the Third Amendment. But it's certainly breaking and entering. And if people don't push back, and say, no. I'm sorry.

If that were anyone else, you would be in jail today.

So I -- I am sorry, I might like you guys, I understand your situation. But you cannot do that. Because it will never stop.

STEVE: This is the national consequences of what we experience in 2020, when they said, you have to stay home and stay safe, and shut down your nonessential businesses that you use to feed your family and pay your mortgage.

And this is the chilling effect that it has. And I share your sentiment about the Third Amendment. It would be interesting to see an energetic attorney take that up.

But the government does not respect your civil liberties. They do not respect the Bill of Rights. And this is just another example of a fact that they are willing to impede on those. Just for their own convenience. I mean, how hard is it to find a bathroom?

GLENN: Yeah.

Steve, thank you so much. Thanks for everything that you do. Stay safe. Steve Friend. Former and current whistle-blower on the FBI.

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.