RADIOOctober 20, 2022

Is the FBI involved in this reporter's DISAPPEARANCE?

‘Emmy-winning producer James Gordon Meek had his home raided by the FBI. His colleagues says they haven’t seen him since,’ writes a recent Rolling Stone report about an American reporter’s mysterious disappearance. Though some details remain murky, in this clip, Glenn explains everything we know so far. This is something 'I've never seen before in America,' Glenn says, and it raises several PRESSING questions: Could the FBI possibly be involved in this? Where is Meek, and why have no friends or family publicly expressed concern? What was on his laptop, and why did one of his colleagues refuse to answer Rolling Stone’s questions…?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Yeah, there's a couple of stories out that are quite disturbing. I think I'm going to start with this one and I want to read it verbatim. It's from Rolling Stone magazine, something I don't usually go to for all my facts and figures.

STU: Nor anything else.

GLENN: Or anything else. This is a really disturbing story and usually the Rolling Stone magazine is on the left. For them to bring this story to light is quite remarkable. A minute before 5:00 a.m. April 27, ABC news journalist James Gordon meek fired off a single tweet with a single word: Facts. The network's national security investigative producer was responding to a former CIA agent and they take that the Ukrainian military with assistant from the U.S. was thriving with Russian sources. This agent's tweet filled with acronyms indecipherable to the lay person like TTP, UW and EW, was itself a reply to a missive from Washington Post pentagon reporter who noted the wealth of information the U.S. military had gathered about Russian opts just by observing their combat strategy in real time. The interchange illustrated the interplay between the National Security community and those who cover it. And no one straddled both worlds quite like ABC news Meek. He was an Emmy winning deep dive journalist who was a former senior counter terrorism adviser and investigator for the house homeland security commission. His detractors within ABC, Meek was something of a military fan boy but his track record of exclusives was undeniable. Breaking the how tos of foiled terrorist plots in New York City and the army's cover up of the fratricidal death of private first class David Sherit in Iraq. A bomb shell that earned Meek a face to face meeting with President Obama. With nine years at ABC under his belt, a buzzy Hulu documentary poised for Emmy attention, and an upcoming book on the military's chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan, the 52 year old journalist seemed to be at the height of his powers and the pinnacle of his profession. But outside his Arlington Virginia, apartment, a surreal scene was unfolding and his storied career was about to come crashing down. Meek's tweet marked the last time he posted on Twitter. The first thing Meek's neighbor, John Antonelli noticed that morning was a black utility vehicle with blacked out windows blocking traffic in both directions on Columbus Pike. It was just before dawn on that brisk April day and self described police vehicle historian Antonelli was about to grab a coffee at Starbucks before embarking on his daily three mile walk. He inched closer to get a better vantage and when he saw an olive green Lenco BearCat G2 an armored tactical vehicle often employed by the FBI among other law enforcement agencies, a few Arlington County cruisers surrounded the jaw dropping scene. But all of the other vehicles were unmarked, including the BearCat. Antonelli accounted at least ten heavily armed personnel in the group. None wore anything identifying which agency was conducting the raid. Just after ten minutes the operation inside the se in a Park apartment complex, a six story upscale building for D.C. professionals, was over. They didn't stick around. They took off pretty quickly and headed west toward Fairfax County. Most people seeing that green vehicle will think it's some sort of a tank, but I knew it was a Lenco BearCat. It's a vehicle design to jump out of so you do a raid in a quick amount of time and it can return fire if they're being fired upon. Multiple sources familiar with the matter say Meek was the target of an FBI raid at the sienna Park apartments where he had been living on the top floor for more than a decade. An FBI representative told Rolling Stone its agents were present at the morning of April 27 at that block, but they could not comment further due to an ongoing investigation. Meek has not been charged with a crime, but independent observers believe the raid was among the first and quite possibly the first to be carried out on a journalist by the Biden administration. A federal magistrate Judge in the Virginia eastern district court signed off on a search warrant that day before the raid. If the raid was for Meek's records U.S. deputy attorney general Lisa Monaco would have had to give her blessing, a new policy enacted last year prohibits federal a prosecutors from seizing journalist's documents. Any inception requires the deputy AG's approval. They said, to my knowledge, there hasn't been any case since January 2021. In the raid's aftermath, Meek has made himself scarce. Now that the first time, this story takes a turn now and I'm not sure what we're getting here. In the raid's after math Meek has made himself scarce. None of his Sienna Park neighbors with whom rolling stone spoke with, have seen him since. With his apartment now appearing to be vacant. Sienna Park management declined to confirm that their long time tenant was gone, citing privacy policies. Okay. Similarly, you know, several ABC news colleague whose are accustomed to unraveling mysteries and cracking investigative stories tell Rolling Stones they have no idea what happened to Meek. He just fell off the face of the earth. And when people are asked, no one knows the answer. ABC representatives tell Rolling Stone yeah, he resigned abruptly and he hasn't worked for us for month. Really? Sources familiar with the matter say federal agents allegedly found classified information on Meek's laptop during their raid. One investigative journalist who worked with Meet meek says it would be highly unusual for a reporter or a producer to keep any classified information on his computer. So now, what happened to him? He hasn't been seen since April. This story goes on to, I don't know, it just gets fuzzy at the end. Let me read you the last uh, last paragraph. It is unclear what story, if any, would have put Meek in the FBI crosshairs. Meek worked on extremely sensitive topics from high profile terrorists in America, and Americans held abroad and the exploits of Eric Prince, the founder of the military contractor Blackwater, in. In recent years some of Meek's highest profile reporting delved into an ambush by isos, left four American green berets dead. ABC adapted the story in a feature length documentary which debuted last year on Veterans Day on Hulu. Okay. Is anyone, A, do we live now in Russia? The FBI is completely and totally out of control. A Emmy award winning journalist tweets facts and then is whisked away into, we don't know if it's the FBI, into black vans where no one is wearing identification on their flack jacket. Now, this sticks out to me because last night I talked to one of the guys swept up by the FBI. Remember, the father of 11, he was on my show last night. And I said, you know, how did it happen? He said they were pounding on the doors, pounding on the windows. He said I opened the window to see what was going on. They had guns pointed at the front door. I went to the door and I said I'm opening the door now. I asked them for identification and the FBI guy pointed to his chest with a little velcro thing that said FBI and he said that's your identification. Now that's disturbing in the first place. But these guys didn't have any markings. Why? And where is this guy? And why isn't, why isn't the world of ABC on fire. Where are the journalists? If Donald Trump had anyone in a gray sedan, nut eve an black van, a gray sedan, an old one, from the 60s, and an old lady got out and said hey, I'm with the Trump administration and I just like to ask you about an article, they would have been screaming to high heaven. Now we have a FBI that is completely out of control. And they pick up a journalist in April. We're just hearing it about it now?

STU: That might be the most disturbing part of the story, the fact that a journalist could be taken out of their home in a raid by the government, and no one, no journalist reports it? No one's tweeting about it? There's no discussions for six months?

GLENN: Yeah. And by the way, his partner who worked with him on the documentary that they produced, he told Rolling Stone I'm a nut commenting on this story. And then hung up. This is not good, America. This is not good. The fear and the madness has got to stop. We must end it November 8 we must end it November 8. I don't think America, I don't know, I don't want mainstream media anymore so I don't know what everybody else is saying, I don't even listen to other talk radio shows, I don't listen to anything. I don't know what warnings you're getting elsewhere, but if you're not hearing an urgent warning on the loss of your country, our Bill of Rights, your freedom, and your economic freedom, you're listening to the wrong people. This is very disturbing and when we come back I'll try to tell you about the other story that I don't think even legally I can. It's a fun world, in a minute. Am I overreacting to these things? Am I looking at all of these pieces and at any time are you going Glenn, Glenn, Glenn relax.

STU: I don't think lot of people are feeling the same way you are.

GLENN: Okay.

STU: I do. Again, we don't know.

GLENN: Don't know the story.

STU: We might find out there's an explanation for this, there's an anecdote in there where one of his coworkers said he called me up and had all sorts of real problems in his life and had to pull out of the project.

GLENN: Which bothered me because it lead you to believe that he might be suicidal.

STU: Right. No, I know.

GLENN: That doesn't help that story.

STU: But it could be, that's true. But that's just one element of a million stories we've done over the past couple of months that make you think there are massive problems going on.

GLENN: Somebody disappears from April until October and you don't find a body and nobody is doing a man hunt? Nobody's even talking about this story. How is that possible.

STU: How is it possible? How is the media for forget the government actually doing it, which would be incredibly disturbing, but why, where are this guy's friends, this guy's associates, the people who he depended o who depended on him. Why weren't they out telling the story four or five months ago.

GLENN: Let me do the commercial here. It's American Financing. We are in, it's really weirds right now with an exception of inflation, when you look at the loan rate, we're about 5%. Historically, verify this, if you can, that's like a pretty low rate.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: If you go back 40 years, 30 years, that's a low rate. So we are historically at a really pretty good rate. Average, maybe six percent, seven percent, but we're looking at 5% and going this is insane. No. The world went insane after the crash in 08. The world went insane. That wasn't normal. Now, the extra whammy is how much you have to pay for everything because of inflation. American Financial is there to help you. If you are trying to buy a new house, they can help you get the best loan. If you are struggling your credit cards they may be able to help you. Please call them for a financial review, it's free, it's no strings attached. It will take you about ten minutes. American Financing,800 906 2440 AmericanFinancing.net. Ten second station ID. >> This is the Blaze Radio Network. Listen at home, at work, and in the car. Find out how at the blaze.com/radio.

GLENN: Welcome to the this is amazing. Simon Schuster, I'm just reading this some more. He co authored Americans Who Undertook One Last Mission: An Honored Promise in Afghanistan, when he coauthored with lieutenant Scott Mann, a retired green beret. Meek even featured a picture of the soon published book in his bio on social media. Post April 27, the book jacket photo disappeared from his bio and Simon Schuster scrubbed his name from all of the press materials. The first sentence of the jacket previously read in April, ABC news correspondent James Gordon not got an urgent call from a special forces op rater serving overseas. Now it says in April an urgent call was made from a special forces operation serving overseas. Why is he being erased? Why is he being erased? Welcome to 1982, gang. Back in a minute. >> The Glenn Beck Program.

GLENN: Every day is different. Every day is like, every week is like a decade. It's moving so quickly and I just want you to know that we're going to be fine and there are things that you can do and we can do that are really important. One of the things you is to have people watching your back while you're busy doing things. On line, no one can prevent identity theft but it is a real problem especially if we're getting into a digital war with somebody like rush a. Life lick log protect what's yours save 25%, life lock dot com, Life Lock.com promo code Beck or 1 800 LifeLock 1 800 LifeLock, promo code Beck at LifeLock.com.

STU: All the best election coverage at blaze TV dot com/Glenn use the promo code Glenn to save yourself 10 bucks. >> This is the Blaze Radio Network, truth lives here.

GLENN: Welcome to the Glenn program. My staff is reaching out to the FCC to have a conversation about something that I will, I will delay a day and see what, see what my team I need to tell you this story, but I don't think legally I can and I want to, I want you to hear the story the gloves have to come off and I think our attorneys and the FCC need to be involved before I move forward. If not, well then we'll tell you the story in another way. But the gloves need to come off and I want some answers. So we'll get to the second story I was telling you that I'm not sure I can tell you on the air, we'll give you an update hopefully tomorrow maybe tomorrow we'll tell you the story.

STU: A weird time to do a radio show.

GLENN: I've never dealt with this.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: You've been in it for 22 years, 24?

STU: 24.

GLENN: 24 years? I've been doing this for 45. Nothing like this ever. Ever. People need to understand that. When you listen to people like Joe Rogan or Dave ruin or any really good podcasters, that podcast. They haven't seen broadcast. So they don't know the standards that we've always had to live up to and they were without question. We never even got close to the those things. You never had when you have media experience and you're not one of the club or the cult, when you have that and you see how much things have changed and I mean, it's remarkable. And how fast it is changing. We are talking about this story from Rolling Stone and Stu and I were talking about it off the air and I think we should talk about it more. ABC news producer's home raided by FBI. This is from the Rolling Stone. Why is this only in the Rolling Stone. Emmy award winning producer James Gordon Meek had his home raided by the FBI, this is back in April. Colleagues say they haven't seen him since. The neighbors haven't seen him since. His home is now just vacant. It rooks like it's empty. What happened? Where is he? Is there a missing persons report out on him? Is there anybody in his life? Why doesn't the story quote anyone from his family? Now, maybe, maybe because you know, the one guy he was his director and producer on a film that they were working on that they won the Emmy for, when Rolling Stone contacted him about hey, where is he? What happened? Was I'm not commenting on this story and hung up the phone his colleagues, investigative journalists at ABC, have no idea what happened to him. He was just picked up at 5:00 in the morning after he tweeted Facts, that was his last tweet, and then gone. Now, in reading the story, and I can't explain this other than a feeling because the story kind of changes halfway through. It makes this incredible charge. Now, either Rolling Stone, which is possible, Rolling Stone has something and they're hyping it up, but why would they do that? So they're making it look like this is something cloak and dagger, you know, the FBI, that maybe because they don't like the FBI? Good. Stand in line. Maybe it's because that the way that doesn't make sense in today's world where journalists are supposed to love the FBI.

STU: Certainly Rolling Stone is left wing, but they also have, they have a strain of, I don't know, the intercept; right? A sort of anti

GLENN: Military.

STU: Military, anti law enforcement strain to their reporting that you could see them being critical even when a democrat is in office. We should also point out, to be fair, Rolling Stone does not have the best record when it comes to telling factual stories.

GLENN: True, true.

STU: They have had massive payouts they've had to make. If I remember right they were one of the ones, weren't they the Virginia case

GLENN: Yeah, they were.

STU: Where they basically a

GLENN: Accused this teen of rape.

STU: Accused of rape and it was a big scandal and then the whole thing fell apart.

GLENN: Correct.

STU: So they've had many, many issues over the years.

GLENN: Okay. But here's the thing. In the first part of the story they make it, they lead you to believe that he's gone. He's just gone. Nobody's seen him. I mean, they say that. Nobody has seen him. No one knows where he is. The last time anyone saw him way the morning of the FBI raid. This is in April. But then the next paragraph in the raid's aftermath, Meek has made himself scarce. Now that not making yourself scarce.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: That means you've made yourself invisible. You've fallen off the map.

STU: I think the accusation is that he didn't make himself anything. The point is he was made by outside forces to be invisible.

GLENN: Correct. So but that bothers me. That sentence bothers me because that says the reporter is either reaching and doesn't really have everything but enough for the story to be printed, but the editor comes in and says wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute. You can't say they took him and he disappeared because do you know that? Well, no. Okay. I need you to soften this up because then for a couple of paragraphs it kind of, kind of softens it up. Nowhere does it say they did anything to him the one colleague that co wrote a book and was the co writer of this book, the guy who's had that now handed to him and Meeks' name is completely off the book and he's been entirely taken out, for what? What ha reason? What reason? He's the one who says yeah, he called me and he was just distraught and said I can't work on the book anymore. I said I understand, okay.

STU: That would be the reason; right? In theory, if you believe the narrative of the story that he's saying that I mean, like the alternate theory here would be that this guy just has massive problems going on, maybe his people around him don't want to talk about it because again I'm just throwing this stuff out there, he's in rehab or he's having emotional problems, or some sort of physical ailment. That doesn't line up with the fact that this all seems to have happened after the FBI raid. That the part of it

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: If there was no FBI raid you might say why is this guy missing, we don't have any answers.

GLENN: If I were the editor, I would be asking is there a missing person's report out on him? Has anybody filed a missing persons? This guy can't be a guy that can just disappear and has no friend that says hey, you know, I'm really concerned with him. We haven't seen him since April. He hasn't tweeted, he hasn't done anything since April. You know, if you're a good friend of his or a family member, and you think that he's having some issues, you are even stronger on that.

STU: Yeah. And they don't have family members quoted in there.

GLENN: They have no family members.

STU: They're not saying hey, we're looking for him too, we don't know. It's co workers and co works, it's possible, certainly this day and age where everyone's working at home, may not see a co worker for a long period of time. You'd think they wouldn't write the story, though, if they did not have an indication. If they knew ten minutes after they write it that one of their family members is saying I just saw him at lunch yesterday, You've got to have some sort of confirmation.

GLENN: He's not in New York, have you looked at his home town?

STU: Right.

GLENN: You know what I mean?

STU: Yeah. He just took different job. He's been working at talk y bell for the past six months.

GLENN: That would be like you saying I was here one day, it was the summer, Glenn just disappeared for months. He's been gone since June and it's August. Yeah, I'm up in the mountains.

STU: He's at the ranch.

GLENN: He's at the ranch, right.

GLENN: You can't do that.

STU: Right. They don't, I assume they want to avoid looking that dumb today if a family member is like hey, here he is, we swam in the pool yesterday. You want to have some belief in the media, I guess. I think what's more shocking here, we're picking apart this report, but why weren't these people asking questions about their friend, about their co worker? Where were the reporters where they can write about every rumor about Donald Trump, they can accuse him of being a Russian asset for five years but they don't have any interest in their own friend and his whereabouts? That kind of weird, is tent?

GLENN: Mmhm. That's why I started this hour with never seen this in America before. I've never seen this in America. This is what you expect in a banana republic. This is what you expect government to do in Russia. And the idea again he had classified I don't think on his laptop. He's a journalist, he's protected by law and they recently reinforced that law by saying if it's a journalist laptop you have to have the assistant AG to sign off on that warrant. The AG didn't. So how, how is that even, how does that square with the story? Why did they conduct the raid with the roomers they were looking for some classified information. You can't conduct the raid for that on a journalist. You've broken the law. The good news is the FBI's looking into it. As soon as they get those pro life clinic bombers they'll be on this one.

Shocking twist: Terror label removed in UnitedHealthcare CEO case

A New York judge has dismissed state terrorism and first-degree murder charges against the man who killed UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. Should the charge have been kept? Why is the state only pursuing second-degree murder charges? And will he avoid the death penalty? Former Chief Assistant US Attorney Andrew McCarthy joins Glenn Beck to explain what’s really to blame for these decisions.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: We have a good friend, Andy McCarthy who is a Nashville review contributing editor. He's also a former chief assistant US attorney, and a guy who when he speaks, I almost always agree with him. And when I don't, I'm probably wrong. Especially when it comes to things like this, because this was his expertise. He was a former chief assistant US attorney. And he worked on terror most of his career. I mean, he -- he is -- he is well-versed on terror charges and how to try them.

This Luigi Mangione case, the terrorism charges have been dropped. And, Andy, if I remember right, came out with an article I think last year said, this is not going to stand.

These terrorist charges aren't going to stand. And I don't understand why they won't.

And I don't understand how only be charged with second-degree murder.

When it was clear he was stocking the guy. Privy planned on killing him.

He was waiting for him outside.

That's premeditation, which is murder one.

But I know Andy will have all the answers for us.

Can you make sense of this for us, Andy?

ANDY: Yeah. I'm afraid I can, Glenn.

I think to start with the second point first about why it's murder two, rather than murder one. Back in the McCaughey days, which is like the 1990s in New York, when he was governor.

STU: Yeah.

ANDY: They tried to revise the New York capital murder statute. Because they haven't done a death penalty case in New York in decades.

And this was not -- this ultimately was not a successful effort. They still haven't revised the death penalty.

But what they did, they took the things that you could get the death penalty for, which in New York, were only things like killing a police officer or killing a prison guard in the prison.

And they made those the only murder in the first degree. Variety. Homicide, and all other murder.

GLENN: Why?

ANDY: Well, because they were trying to clean up -- their idea was, they were trying to clean the statute in a way that murder one would be revised as capital murder.

GLENN: Death penalty.

ANDY: Right. And all other murder was going to be second-degree murder, so because --

GLENN: That's insane.

ANDY: What we're dealing with Mangione, under New York law, would not have qualified for the death penalty because that would have been very, very narrow, and it's mainly killing police officers or prison guards.

That puts it into the category of second-degree murder. That doesn't mean, by the way, that it's unserious.

It has a -- I think the -- the offense in New York is like 25 years to life. Societies -- it's --

STU: The guy should get -- I mean, you could. You could argue against the death penalty. But guy should get either the death penalty, or life without payroll.

Not 25 years! This guy -- help me out on this one. How is he not a terrorist? He had the intent to terrorize. He said himself, he wanted people to look over their shoulders.

I mean, he is a textbook terrorist. And premeditation. Textbook!

ANDY: Yeah. To -- to prove terrorism, you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, an intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population.

And you have to sort of get out of the -- the mindset that murder is terrorizing. I mean, all murder is terrorizing, to the people who are obviously involved in it. And to the extent that it intimidated people. But we can't turn every murder into terrorism.

GLENN: Correct.

ANDY: Terrorism --

GLENN: But he did it for. But isn't terrorism about trying to scare the population to either vote different or change the laws to be so terrorized that they -- in this particular case, he was trying to send a message to the -- the industry, you better watch your back, because there's more of me.

And you'll get it in the end.

That's terrorizing a group of people to get them to act in a way, the terrorists wants them to act.

ANDY: Yes.

GLENN: Isn't that how they define it?

ANDY: It's not terrorizing the government to change policy or terrorizing the whole civilian population. What the judge said, this was very narrowly targeted at the health care industry, and this particular health care executive.

And I --

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: Wow.

ANDY: And I just don't think it trivializes the murder to say that it's not a terrorism crime.

GLENN: Okay.

ANDY: You know, the federal government, Glenn, just so we're clear on this part of it. There were two charges brought here. There's a -- the federal charges and the state charges.

So Alvin Bragg, the -- the New York DA, brought the terrorism charge.

GLENN: What a joke.

ANDY: I said, at the time, I thought he was bringing it because he knew the Justice Department wanted to charge this guy. So he wanted to make a splash. Like the Justice Department wanted to make a splash.

When the Justice Department indicted it, even though Biden is against the death penalty, and the Democratic administration was against the death penalty. They indicted it as a death penalty case.
Because they wanted to make a big to-do over it. Even though, you know, if you look at the fine print, they would never impose the death penalty.

They had a moratorium on the death penalty. So in order not to be outsplashed, what Bragg turned around and did was indict this -- what he -- like ten times out of ten, indict only as a murder case.

If you could get Bragg to indict something that was actually a crime. And he decided to make it a terrorism murder case, so that they could compete for the headlines in the press.

Unfortunately, this is kind of what happens in these -- in these cases.

But to your point about stalking and all of that stuff.

The federal charges. Which are the death penalty charges, include exactly what you're talking about.

The fact that this guy was stalked.

That it was done in a very cold-blooded way.

And actually, if he gets convicted in the federal -- can in the federal system, now that Trump is running the Justice Department, rather than Biden, he gets convicted on the death penalty charge, he's going to get the death penalty.

GLENN: Okay. So it's not like he's getting murder in the second degree, and he'll be out in 25 years. The federal government is also trying him. Will it be the same trial?

ANDY: No. No.

In fact, the interesting thing, Glenn. Just from a political standpoint, I hate having to get political on this stuff.

GLENN: I know. Me too.

ANDY: If we can avoid it. The Biden Justice Department was working cooperative with Bragg. I don't think the Trump Justice Department is going to work cooperative with Bragg.

GLENN: No.

ANDY: And the interesting thing about that is under New York law, they have a very forgiving double jeopardy provision. Which basically means, if the Feds go first, that will probably block New York state from going at all.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

ANDY: Because of their expansive protection. And I think what Biden's Justice Department was willing to let Bragg go first.

So that they would go second. And then everybody would have --

GLENN: Trump won't do that.

ANDY: I'm not sure the Trump guys will play ball with that.

GLENN: No. Okay.

So are you confident the justice will be served in this. Oh.

ANDY: Well, I think -- you know, look, I think if your idea of justice served. Are this guy be convicted of a severe murder charge and never see the light of day again?

I am confident in that.

GLENN: Yes.

ANDY: If you believe as I do, that if you're going to have a -- a death penalty in the law, which our Constitution permits.

GLENN: He deserves it.

ANDY: If you're going to have it, he deserves it. And if he doesn't get it. He would be among a long line of people, who probably didn't deserve it and must get it.

Though, I guess it depends on what your idea of justice is. But I guess if we could agree that justice is this guy never sees the light of day again, I think justice will happen here.

GLENN: Right. Okay.

Can I switch to Charlie Kirk?

ANDY: Of course.

GLENN: How is this unfolding? What are your thoughts on this. What are your thoughts on -- you know, I really want to make sure I don't want to go too far. I don't want another Patriot Act kind of thing.

But I do believe, you know, the -- it appears as though, there may have been many people involved. At least in knowing.

What does that mean to you? And what should happen?

What should we be doing? What are we doing that is right and wrong?

ANDY: Well, to the extent -- I'm sorry -- I do -- I do think, Glenn. That this is being very aggressively investigated by both the state authorities and continuing by the federal authorities.

I heard Kash Patel, because I happened to be on television this morning. And they -- they broadcasted that while I was on.

And he was talking about how they are going through all of the social media stuff.

To see, who may have had an inkling about this beforehand. And if there was any conspiratorial activity, they're going to go after it.

Now, the chats that have come out so far, that have been reported in the last couple of days are chats in which Robinson admitted to committing homicide and told the people that he was chatting with -- that he had already arranged his surrender.

If that's all these people knew, that is to say, he had --

GLENN: Then there's nothing there.

ANDY: And he was turning himself in. Well, they might be good witnesses in terms of what his state of mind was at the trial of Robinson.

But I don't think that implicates them in criminal misconduct.

On the other hand, the feds are going to keep digging.

And I assume Utah is going to keep digging.

And if they find out that someone was involved in planning it, I think those people will be pursued.

GLENN: You know, there's probably Texas would be a bad place to commit this crime.

Utah, however, they have the death penalty. And they used the death penalty.

And the governor who I'm not a big fan of this governor.

But, boy, he has been very strong, and I think right on top of this whole thing.

And he said, day one, you will get the death penalty. We catch you. We prove it in a court of law. You do get the death penalty. And I think that's coming from this guy.

ANDY: Well, it's deserving. Because if it's ever indicative of premeditation and repulsive intent, I would say, this is a textbook case of that.

GLENN: The idea that Trump is now going to go after -- possibly RICO charges for people like George Soros and, you know, organizations like that, that are -- are pushing for a lot of the -- the -- the Antifa kind of stuff. Do you see any problems with that. Or is this a -- a good idea?

ANDY: I just think the first thing, before you get into RICO. And all these. You know, RICO is a very complicated statute, even when it obviously applies. So I think the bedrock thing they have to establish, is that you are crossing the line. From protected speech. A lot of which can be obnoxious speech. And actual incite meant to violence. And if you can get invite meant to violence.

You know, I didn't need RICO to prosecute the Blind Sheikh, right? I was able to do it on incitements of violence and that kind of stuff. Those are less complicated charges than Rico.

But the big challenges in those cases, Glenn, is getting across the line into violent action. As opposed to constitutionally protected rhetoric.

GLENN: Is there anything to the subversion of our -- of our nation. That you are -- you are intentionally subverting the United States of America.

You are pushing for revolutionary acts?

VOICE: You know, there's a lot of let allegation that arose out of that, in connection with the Cold War and the McCarran Act. And, you know, you remember all the stuff from the -- from the '40s and '50s, forward.

GLENN: Yeah. I know.

ANDY: And I think when that stuff was initially enacted, the country was in a different place.

I think when the McCarran Act was enacted, it was a consensus in the country, that if someone was a member of the Communist Party.

Hadn't actually done anything active to seek the violent overthrow of the US, but mere membership in the party. I think if you asked the question in 1950, most people would have thought that was a crime.

And by 1980, most people would have thought, it wasn't a crime. Based on the Supreme Court --

GLENN: Yeah. I don't.

Look, if you're a member of the Communist Party, you can be a member of the Communist Party.

But if you are actively subverting and pushing for revolution, in our country, I think that's a different -- I think that's a different cat, all -- entirely.

ANDY: Yeah, that's exactly right. But if you had that evidence of purposeful activity, and look, if you had a conspiratorial agreement between two people that contemplates the use of force, you don't need much more than that. You don't need an act of violence. If you have a strong evidence of conspiracy. But you do have to establish that they get over that line and to the use of force, at least the potential use of force.

STU: Yeah, okay.

Andy, as always, thank you so much. Appreciate your insight. Appreciate it.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

Max Lucado & Glenn Beck: Finding unity in faith

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

Watch Glenn Beck's FULL Interview with Max Lucado HERE

Confronting evil: Bill O'Reilly's insight on Charlie Kirk's enduring legacy

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

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

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

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

BILL: Family okay? All of that?

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

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

GLENN: It is.

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

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

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

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

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

Ultra dangerous.

And a few hours later, Charlie Kirk is assassinated.

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

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

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

People create around their own lives.

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

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

He decided that he wanted to do that.

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

GLENN: Yes, he was.

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

That's what Charlie Kirk did.

And he lost his life.

By doing it!

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

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

But it really isn't.

And this is the ongoing story.

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

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

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

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

GLENN: He is.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And then you have the big Jesus revolution after that.

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

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

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

And you're never going to get them back.

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

Let's run it down.

The corporate media is finished.

In America. It's over.

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

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

And the hate is the key word.

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

I will do it GE today. With major Garrett.

GLENN: Wow.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me ask you about --

BILL: When am I wrong?

When am I wrong?

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Yeah, okay.

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

BILL: Yeah.

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

So --

GLENN: You think that they could.

BILL: 60 Minutes used to be the gold standard.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

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

GLENN: I don't either.

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

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

They never, ever watched network television.

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

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

They don't watch --

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

GLENN: Yeah. Right.

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

Same voices, with huge followings.

Huge!

All right?

We couldn't get on there.

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

GLENN: I know.

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

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

BILL: Yes, it was his defiance.

GLENN: Yes.

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

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

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

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

GLENN: Why?

BILL: Because Putin would use nuclear weapon.

He wouldn't. He's a psychopath.

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

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

GLENN: I'll be there. What time?

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Should people CELEBRATING Charlie Kirk’s death be fired?

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

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

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

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

Is every -- is every speech controversy the same?

The answer to that is clearly no.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No! They're not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now, compare that to France in 1793.

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

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

Washington -- no. It wasn't.

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

They wanted blood. They wanted heads to roll.

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

Then they turned around on that one pretty quickly.

Think of Rome.

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

The mob started cheering assassinations.

They rejoiced that enemies were slaughtered.

They were being fed to the lions.

And the republic fell into empire.

And liberty was lost!

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

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

Yes! Yes, it is.

Because that is speech this pursuit of truth.

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

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

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

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

Or that woman.

I know, that's not an enlightening mind.

Somebody who delights in political murder.

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

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

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

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

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

And I believe we still have a moral compass.

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

Neither one of them should go to jail.

Neither should be silenced by the state.

But does trust survive both?

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

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

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

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

Yes.

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

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

Except here. I think it is easy.

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

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

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

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

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

You know, our Founders gave us liberty.

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

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

Liberty without virtue is suicide!

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

Which do you want to defend?

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

Which one?