RADIOJuly 22, 2024

Did These Global Elites PREDICT the Trump Assassination Attempt?

There's a conspiracy theory going around: Did a firm linked to George Soros, BlackRock, and the Bush family short the stock for the Trump Media & Technology Group on the day before the attempted Trump assassination? So, is there any truth to this? Former investment banker Carol Roth joins Glenn to explain why there's more to this story. Plus, she gives her take on the CrowdStrike outage, whether Trump would make JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon or BlackRock CEO Larry Fink his Treasury Secretary, and why a President Kamala Harris might be disastrous for the economy.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So let me go to Carol Roth now, who is joining us. She is the author of, you will own nothing, and a former investment banker. I want to talk to her a little bit about Kamala Harris.

But also, about this so-called short, taking a short position, against Donald J. Trump. A day before the assassination attempt of 7/13. She's been looking into it for us. Carol, welcome.

CAROL: Hi, Glenn, have you aged 12 years in the last 10 days like I have?

GLENN: Yes, I have. Yes, I have. Yes, I have.

And I think we're going to age another 40 years by the end of the summer.

CAROL: Yeah, I think you're right, unfortunately.

GLENN: Okay. So tell me. Tell me. Is this true or not?

The Trump media option story?

CAROL: So this is one of the biggest stories going on over social media. And certainly was very odd, right? The day before he gets assassinated, there's this big set of options, contracts, betting against the stock, saying that the stock. They were betting that the stock was going to fall massively. Millions and millions of contracts. And, of course, everybody tying, what does this mean? What does this mean?

So this is what I found based on publicly available information. So registered investment adviser, called Austin Private Wealth, as you mentioned, they have to file what's called a 13F filing. This is a disclosure filing, that's required quarterly from any investment manager that has more than $100 million in assets, under management. And basically, it lists all of their equity holdings, which usually includes equity-related options and -- ETFs and stocks and the like, at the end of every quarter. And since after the quarter ends, it takes a little bit of time to gather the data, you know, that usually is filed within a few weeks after the end of the quarter.

So the filing for Austin wealth, as of the end of June, was made on July 12th.

So people who sort of, you know -- think that this was reflective of something that happened on July 12th, didn't really appreciate that this was the end of June report, that was filed on July 12th.

That sort of set off the first wave of conspiracies.

GLENN: Okay.

CAROL: The second thing, really unfortunately, is that they had a third party vendor, apparently, according to their press release. That erroneously misstated their positions. And that meant for the Trump -- the Trump media group, that they had put -- instead of putting 12 contracts, which represented 1200 shares. Each contract is 100 share. It shows that they had 12 million shares, Glenn.

So that sounds a little sketchy why they would do that, but they did that on every call and put option that they had listed.

So it was -- for Nvidia, they had 370 million shares listed. Bank of America, 110 million shares. So this was a clear error across-the-board.
And because I don't believe anything, I went back and I checked all of the previous filings.

And in all of the previous filings, they had a -- a normalized number of contracts, being shown.

So it was clear this was a mistake, and it was an outlier.

So when you put these two things together, and you look -- it looks like there's so many shares, and it's done in a time period, that looks like it was the -- you know, Friday before the assassination attempt. But really, that was just the filing date. It got very blown out of proposition.

And they recognized their error, and they did a new filing, that they had to amend with the FEC. And this is on July 15th. And for anybody who is super nerdy and likes to go through and look at filings.

This is all available on the FEC site, Edgar, which allows you to find all the filings of the publicly -- publicly available filings that are made by companies. It's an unfortunate mistake in terms of timing and sort of the scope of the mistake that was made.

GLENN: Okay.

Let me take the next one. And that is CrowdStrike.

CAROL: Yes.

GLENN: There was a major outage this weekend.

And they say, it was just a release of new software.

And it was just an error that nobody caught. How does that happen

And put the United States. I mean, there were like 12 planes flying in the sky, because of this. And Europe was hit even harder than we were.

CAROL: Yeah. This was -- I have talked about the scene before. In previous books and things like that.

And he's the author and sort of coiner of the phrase, the back swan in wider use.

GLENN: Right.

CAROL: And they talk about these systemic risks that were being brought on by the fact that we're also interconnected. And technology is really exacerbating the systemic risk.

In fact, it's one of the reasons I argued in, you will own nothing, that a central bank digital currency, on top of all of the other reasons, made no sense.

Because it increases, you know, that -- the idea that you could have this massive one-off systemic risk, instead of everything being decentralized and having maybe more frequent, but smaller risks.

So when you have a firm that is tied into basically every major company in the planet. And it's impacting how their infrastructure runs, you're increasing the -- the ability to have these huge systemic risks.

Now, how can -- is it intentional?

Is it a test run?

Is it just incompetence?

Unfortunately, I tend to think we're in the era of incompetence. And that is in many ways, just as bad.

And we've seen in all these different areas of our life, these sort of lackadaisical policies. And the fact that people are no longer in school, taught, you know, merit and excellence. And the value of their name and their work.

And they just want to be given things based on an equity. And because I showed up. You know, you do get these worse outcomes, and so, you know, how could it happen. I mean, we all sit there. Yeah. What you test for these things. But, you know, that's sort of the reality we're living in.

And I think it really should highlight and put a giant red neon sign on the fact that we shouldn't all be beyond these same systems.

There should be some level of decentralization. There should be at least a secondary fail-safe, because, you know, this is something that was massive, and was able to be brought back up. In short order.

But the next thing that may not be the case.

And this is the kind of stuff, you and I have been talking about in terms of repetition.

Because what if you didn't have ATM access for multiple days.

What if, you know, you didn't have access to a pharmacy, that couldn't get you, your medication on time. Because, you know, they couldn't access their records.

I mean, there's so many things now that are all completely reliant on technology.

Which is great, when it works, 99 percent of the time.

And when it doesn't work, it can be a disaster.

GLENN: So quickly, I just want to touch on Jamie Dimon being thrown around. What a surprise that is. When I saw him at Davos. And he said, you know, we should take a second look at Donald Trump. I don't think he's that bad of a guy, but he wants to be Treasury Secretary. But I also saw a story that Donald Trump is friends with Larry Fink from BlackRock and would consider that.

I don't believe that. What have you heard?

CAROL: Yeah. I saw that headline well, and I almost fell over.

You know, in the Jamie Dimon versus Larry Fink. I'm taking Jamie Dimon, every single day. 24/7, 365, every single time. Jamie, himself, has been positioning to get out of JP Morgan for the first time ever. He says that he's no longer a -- yeah. I will be here for the next five years. I'm looking for a successor.

What are the things that you may or may not be aware of. And this happened with Gary Cohn in the last administration. Is that if you go into it, in an administration, they make you share all of your shares. Which means, you don't have to at that point, have to pay capital gains taxes on them. So it's a really great way, if you have a lot of stocks to get a windfall.

And given the fact that Jamie Dimon is plugged in with all these people and knows what's going on, I think that's one to watch for Larry Fink. I think we all need to raise our voices, if that sounds like it's something that will happen.

Which is why I would tell you, that four people who say, should I get out of the stock market?

You have to remember, these guys are always taking care of their own. If we're talking about Jamie Dimon, in charge of things, what do you think our number one priority is going to be?

Wall Street.

GLENN: Right. So let me switch now to Kamala Harris.

Just based on the insane things she was for, when she was a senator and running, what -- what happens to the economy, under Kamala Harris?

CAROL: Yeah, this is very scary. I mean, we know that Kamala doesn't have a lot of economic stuff. We know that she likes Venn diagrams, but that's about it.

GLENN: Yes. And yellow school buses.

CAROL: Yes. And yellow school buses. So that's sort of the extent of her economic knowledge. And what's scary about that is it makes her more susceptible to the bad actors. We already know that Biden was not the one who was running the last administration. I mean, that's super clear to everyone. He was positioned as a moderate, and he was the most destructive president economically and otherwise that we have seen in a lifetime.

So now you have the same people, who were pulling the puppet strings, and now they have Kamala Harris. Who has -- and I know that Justin Haskins, your coauthor has brought this up before -- you know, she has a very checkered history. She was -- I think a lot of people forget this. She was one of the Senate sponsors. Cosponsors of the original green new deal. So she had --

GLENN: Which was insane.

CAROL: Yeah. I don't think people remember, because the Biden's version is insane too.

But this was like, you know, 100 trillion-dollar insane, and that was their estimate. So this is somebody who is in the same league as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, when they're talking about policy.

We have her on video, saying things like, I don't think there should be any private health care.
And if you go back to being -- you know, somebody who wanted to step into that cosponsorship, most of the senators did not want anything to do with that. There were a handful that did. She stepped forward.

If you start going through that, it's a socialization of everything. It's not only just completely killing energy policy. But it's a socialization of labor and wages. And, you know, even more so of college, and, you know, all of these different government handouts. And, you know, basic income programs. So I think that people really need to be doubled down on, A, this is not only an extension of the Biden administration, terrible policies. Because the same people are pulling the strings. But she's also aligned with every kooky socialist on the planet.

And this is a person with a lot of political clout, afforded to, that, no. You know what, I came from this area. I ran a business.

You know, I'm strong in this, and I know.

GLENN: Right.

CAROL: I mean, do you think she has any idea of what monetary policy is? I can't think that she does. And that makes her extra, extra dangerous.

GLENN: Thank you so much. I appreciate it, Carol. Thank you for all the homework you've done over the weekend, to prepare for this segment.

I appreciate it. Carol Roth. You can follow her at CarolRoth.com/news.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

THIS is why self-reliance may be your ONLY protection from SLAVERY

Are you truly free, or is your life quietly controlled by systems most Americans never question? In this eye-opening conversation, Glenn Beck speaks with investigative journalist Whitney Webb about how the Elites, banks, and global systems have created modern forms of enslavement, all while the public remains largely unaware. They discuss the urgent need for local self-reliance, alternative financial systems, and taking personal responsibility to protect yourself and your family. This is a wake-up call for anyone who believes freedom is guaranteed, and it’s time to see the truth and act before it’s too late.

Watch Glenn Beck's FULL Interview with Whitney Webb HERE

Claire's warning: The dark side of gender care EXPOSED

Claire Abernathy was just 14-years-old when doctors told her parents she’d take her own life without hormones and surgery. They promised “gender care” would save her life. Instead, it left Claire with irreversible scars, broken trust, and a lifetime of regret. Her mom was told she was required to comply. No one ever addressed the bullying, or trauma Claire endured before being rushed into medical transition. Now, years later, both Claire and her mother are speaking out and exposing how families are misled, how doctors hide risks, and how children are left to pay the price. With federal investigations now underway, their story is a warning every parent needs to hear.

Deep State NGO CAUGHT trying to restart opium trade in Taliban-run Afghanistan

Was an NGO with deep government ties trying to RESTART the opium trade in Taliban-run Afghanistan while former Taliban members were on its payroll...only to be caught DESTROYING the evidence?! The State Department's Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy Darren Beattie joins Glenn Beck to expose what he found when he was made Acting President of the United States Institute of Peace. Plus, he debunks ProPublica’s claim that DOGE “targeted” an “Afghan scholar who fled the Taliban.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Darren, welcome to the program. How are you? Darren, are you there? Is he there?

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: Okay. Check if he's there. Is he? Dick Cheney. Dick Cheney.

STU: Trying to shut him down. They don't want peace. They don't want peace.

GLENN: They don't. They don't.

He is -- he is a big-time anti-globalist. I've got to tell you, what we're doing with the State Department. I absolutely love. The State Department has been a big problem for this country for a very long time. It's what's gotten us into these global wars. These endless wars, and everything he is.

And, I mean, I don't know what happened to Marco rube, but he is tremendous.

And the way president Trump is appointing different people like Darren, it's fantastic. Darren, are you there? Darren.

STU: Something must be wrong with the lines. Because we are talking to him offline on the phone here. And it does seem to be working, but not coming through our broadcast board here for whatever reason.

GLENN: Well, let's see if we can get that fixed, and maybe let me just talk here for five, six minutes on something else. Then we'll take a break and come back and see if we can get him.

There's something else that I really want to talk about. And that is this flag-burning thing. Now, it's not an amendment.

This is something that the president is putting up in an executive order and has very little teeth to it.

But I -- I -- look, I understand. As a guy putting an enormous flagpole up at my house today.

I mean, an enormous flagpole.

I love the flag. I love it!

And there are a few things that make me more angry than see somebody you set our flag on fire.

For a lot of people, that's a punch in the gut, especially our military people. And it has been planted on distant battlefields. It's raced after victory. Saluted in the morning, or should be in our schools and folded and given to the hands of grieving families. It feels like spitting on every sacrifice, that ever made this nation possible. And the argument against flag burning is really simple: It dishonors the idea of all of that. Okay?

And it defends millions of people, including me. It disrespects, I think the veterans that bled. The families who mourned. The dream that binds us together.

However, here's the hard truth: Symbols only mean something, in a land where freedom is alive.

If you outlaw the burning of a flag, the you have placed the cloth above the Constitution that it represents. You have made the flag an idol.

We don't worship idols. If you can only praise the flag and never protest it, it just stops being a symbol of freedom. And starts being an idol of obedience.

Now, that's the argument for allowing it. At least to me.

Because the real strength of a free nation is -- is to -- it's -- it's how we protect, not the speech we love, but how we endure the speech we hate!

And the Supreme Court has already ruled on this. And, you know, they -- the line they drew wasn't an easy one. Freedom of speech, stops where it directly -- directly insights violence. And that's it same thing, kind of, in this executive order.

You can burn the flag. But if I'm not mistaken, but if it incites violence, then you're in trouble.

And that's true. But the bar of inciting violence is so incredibly high. And it's -- it doesn't have anything to do with speech that offends. It's not speech that stirs anger. Not speech that wants you to punch the speaker in the mouth. It's speech only, that provokes imminent and specific violence.

And unless it's that be with the government doesn't have any right to -- to get into the business of silencing speech. Ever. Ever. Ever.

It is a hard line. And that standard is really hard. It's painfully hard.

Because what our citizenship requires, this is civics. What our citizenships require, is that we defend -- oh, I hate this.

We defend the right of your opponent to mock everything that we hold sacred.

Now, I want you to think of this. You can burn a Bible. You can burn the Word of God. But some want to make it illegal to burn a flag. Where are our priorities? You can burn the Constitution. The words that actually are the ones that stir us into action. But you can't burn a flag.

You can't burn a Koran. Can't burn them. Can't. Can't.

You will -- you will quickly come to a quick end, not legally. But you will come to a quick end. I don't ever want to be like that. Ever!

You burn a Bible. I think you're a monster. What is wrong with you? What is wrong with you?

But you have a right to do it. Why are we drawing a line around the flag? It -- the reason is -- is because we feel things so passionately. And that is really a good thing, to feel love of country so passionately. But then we have to temper that. My father used to tell me, that I think this country needs to hear over and over again, every day. My father -- we would talk to somebody. And we would walk away. And he would go, I so disagree with everything that man just said. But, Glenn, son, he would say. I will fight to the death for his right to say it. He used to say that to me all the time. Which now lees me to believe, I know where I've got my strong opinions from. Because dad apparently would disagree with a lot of people all the time.

But that was the essence of freedom. That is the essence of what sets us apart. Standing for universal, eternal rights like free speech. It's not easy. It means you have to take the size of those people that offend you. It means -- it doesn't mean you have to disagree with it. You can fight against it. You can argue back and forth.

But you -- can you tolerate the insults to the things that you love most. That is so hard, and that is why most of the world does not have freedom of speech. It's too hard! But our Founders believed people are better than that. Our citizens can rule themselves!

And the only way you can rule yourself is if you don't have limits on freedom of speech. So the question is, do we want to remain free? Or do we want to just feel good? It really is that simple. It's why no one else has freedom of speech. It's too hard! I think we're up to the task. Okay. Give me 60 seconds. And then we will try again.

The -- there's certain moments in history, that test not just entire nations, but the hearts of those who live in the nations. And right now, the people of Israel are living in one of those moments. Sirens in the night. Families huddled together.

Elderly men and women. Who remember a time when help never came. All of them wonder. Is anybody going to stand with us, this time?

The International Fellowship of Christians and Jews exists to answer that question. They provide food, shelter, security, and hope. Real hope and help in the middle of a crisis! And every act of generosity from people like you sends a clear message. You are not alone. When you support the fellowship, you are joining hands with believers all around the world to lift up God's people, when they need it most. And it is a promise in action. It's a testimony that our faith isn't just words. It's love delivered right on time. And this is your chance to be part of something that really, truly matters. Something that is eternal. To stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel. And say, we're with you. We're not going to fight your wars. Not going to fund your wars. But we're with you. You have a right to live and exist in peace. To learn how you can help. Visit IFCJ.org. IFCJ.org. Go there now. IFCJ.org. Ten seconds. Back to the program.
(music)
All right. Let me -- let me bring Darren in. Darren, are you there now?

DARREN: Yes!
GLENN: Oh, God. Thank goodness.
Thank you for putting up with us. I don't know what happened with the phone system. But, first of all, tell me what the US Institute of Peace is. I've never even heard of it.

DARREN: That is a fantastic question. And I'll try to give the abbreviated answer, because I know we don't have several hours.

GLENN: Good. I know.

DARREN: But US Institute of Peace is one of lesser known, but quite important member of the NGO archipelago, that was created in the '80s. It belongs to the same cohorts as national endowments for democracy.

GLENN: Oh.

DARREN: And some other -- some other better known NGOs that really in the broad context of things. In kind of the sweep of things, was created as a kind of reorganization of the government structure in the aftermath of the church type committee hearings that expose a lot of the dirty dealings of government agencies such as the CIA, and so sort of a broader response to that government lie was to create this NGO layer of governance, with an armed distant plausible deniability, a kind of chameleon character of not exactly being government, not exactly being private, in order to fulfill some of those more sensitive functions that had been exposed in the course of the church hearings.

And so US Institute of Peace is one of those NGOs that had particular focus on conflict regions. But, of course, as I think you -- you suggested earlier, peace requires at the very least, an asterisk. Because there involves a lot of things, that conventional, most American citizens would not think should belong as part of the portfolio of something calling itself an institute of peace.

GLENN: So what was the thing with the -- with this Taliban member that was getting money from us?

DARREN: Right. So this is an interesting case. So there's a whole saga of a takeover of the US institute of peace under -- under DOGE.

And that's really a fascinating story unto itself. Just to give you a sense of what these characters were like. They barricaded themselves in the offices.

They sabotaged the physical infrastructure of the building. There were reports of there being loaded guns within the offices.

GLENN: Wow!

DARREN: There was one, like, hostage situation where they held a security guard under basically kind of a false imprisonment type situation. It was extremely intense.

Far more so than the better known story of USAID. And in the course of all of that, they tried to delete a terabyte of data, of accounting information that would indicate what kind of stuff they were up to.

What kind of people they were paying. And in the course of that, DOGE found that one of the people on their payroll. Was this curious figure, who had a prominent role in the Taliban government. And then seemed to kind of play a bunch of angles across each other.

Sort of one of these sixer types in the middle of Afghanistan.

The question is, what the heck is an organization like this, having an individual, who is a former Taliban member on their payroll.

It underscores how incredibly bizarre the whole arrangement is. And to just reinforce that. I think even more bizarre than having this former Taliban guy on the payroll is the kind of schizophrenic posture exhibited by the chief -- one truly bizarre thing is that one of the US Institute of Peace's main kind of policy agendas was basically lamenting the fact that the opium trade had dissipated under Taliban leadership. They had multiple reports coming out, basically saying, this is horrible, that the opium trade is diminished under the Taliban. Meaning, finding some way to restore it. How bizarre is that!

GLENN: What was their thinking?

DARREN: Well, it's -- it's very strange, and it depends on what kind of rabbit holes you want to go down. But the whole story of opium and Afghanistan and its connection to, you know, government entities, is a -- is a very intricate and delicate and fascinating one. But it seems very clear that the US Institute of Peace was involved in that story to some degree because their public reports. They had a full-the time guy of basically lamenting the fact that the opium trade dissipated under the Taliban. And, meanwhile, they're funding this former Taliban guy.

GLENN: Unbelievable. Now, ProPublica got this. And you have released the statement on it. And ProPublica just completely white-washed this -- said this guy was a victim, and his family was taken hostage. Was his family ever taken hostage because he was exposed?

And correct the ProPublica story, would you?

DARREN: Yeah, I mean, the ProPublica thing, as usual and as expected was a total joke.

GLENN: Yes.

DARREN: I mean, this guy, I'm not an expert on this particular person's history. But what's very clear is he was a former Taliban guy, and he was probably one of these people, who was playing all sides, made a lot of enemies. I know that there were several kind of attempts on his life by the Taliban, in the course of various -- various decades.

This has nothing to do with -- with DOGE.

I mean, he's a known quantity in the region.

And somebody who has made a lot of enemies.

And he was not -- he was on the payroll of the US institute of peace.

And nobody is expecting something like that. So then, and, again, there's this sort of hostile takeover situation.

Where the people are barricading he themselves in. Trying to delete all this data.

And sure enough, what's in the data, is stuff like this.

These random former Taliban guy, making his contract with $130,000.

GLENN: You know, this is the -- this is the real Deep State stuff, that I think bothers people so much.

Look, we expect our CIA to do stuff, we don't necessarily want to do it. We expect it.

When it's in the State Department.

When every department is pushing out money to NGOs to overthrow governments and everything else.

It's out of control!

It's just completely out of control.

And who is overseeing all of that.

DARREN: That's a great question.

I think part of the NGO -- UCEF was almost a cutout of a cutout.

A fourth of its money came from USAID.

In many ways, it was a cutout of USAID. Which itself was a cutout.

So there are many layers of distance. Plausible deniability.

And UCEF, I think institutionally really perfected this chameleon structure of being able to plausibly present itself as government. When that was convenient for what they were doing.

And also to present itself as a private organization, when that was convenient.

It's a very intricate setup that they had, that was truly optimized for this chameleon character of plausible denial operations. In conflict zones. Doing God knows what, with American taxpayer money.

And it's just an absolute hornet's nest.

We have recovered that terabyte that they tried to delete. And once we get things settled in the building itself, I intend to do a kind of transparency effort, whereby we release all of this material to the public.

GLENN: Good. Good.

DARREN: Just like I'm doing at the State Department. I'm currently acting as secretary at the State Department. And doing a transparency effort here. After I eliminated the global engagement center, which was sort of the internal censorship office within the State Department, decided, we've got to -- we've got to air this out to the public.

So within the next couple of weeks.

We'll have our next tranche of helps you of thousands of emails, documenting what this were doing.

GLENN: I would love you to go back on, through those emails.

I think you guys in the State Department are doing an amazing job. Thanks for being on.