RADIODecember 13, 2023

Is THIS why Harvard PROTECTED President Gay from plagiarism scandal?

The Harvard board has promised to let Harvard president Claudine Gay keep her job, despite multiple scandals. On one hand, she has been criticized for failing to say that calls for Jewish genocide violate Harvard's policies. And then, there's her plagiarism scandal. But is this just a random attack dug up by conservatives trying to take her down? Washington Free Beacon staff writer Aaron Sibarium joins Glenn to explain why this is not the case at all. Harvard has known about President Gay's plagiarism scandal for months — and even hired "the best defamation law firm in the country" to try and shut the media's reporting efforts down. But why go through all this trouble to protect her? Aaron explains his theory and also breaks down why these alleged instances of plagiarism are so serious.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: There's a couple of things going on with -- with a woman that runs Harv

And one of them is, hey. I have to have a room with -- with color crayons. And comic books, so you can read a comic book, and then, you know, color a happy tree. Because you feel like you're being, you know -- you have microaggressions all around you.

Stopping free speech everywhere, unless you're calling for, you know, the death of Jews.

Then, I guess, hey.

You know, free speech.

It's crazy!

But there's something else that has now been brought up, that I think people knew about in the Harvard world.

But didn't say anything.

And that is the fact that its president Claudine Gay, broke Harvard's own code of conduct on plagiarism.

And it's a pretty significant amount of plagiarism.

Including her doctoral dissertation.

Parts of it were wholly plagiarized.

And she never credited anybody.

Now, here's why this matters: You plagiarize something. I don't really care.

You plagiarize something in a book. And claim it's yours.

Okay. I care. Because that's stealing from somebody else. You plagiarize in a university. Well, you're setting the standards, and trying to hold those standards of academic excellence and honesty. And if the person who is at the top is known to have plagiarized. How do you tell the students, we're going to kick you out?

This has nothing to do with her testimony, but it has everything to do with how corrupt our -- our universities are. How morally corrupt they are.

We have Aaron Sibarium on with us now.

He wrote a great piece for the Washington free beacon. And we wanted to talk to him about this.

You went to Yale. And you were the editor of the Yale Daily News. So you know something about Ivy League, and plagiarism.

Not really celebrated, is it?

AARON: No, Glenn. It is not. It is not celebrated. And, in fact, I would say that generally, at you all of these standards to get a lecture thing, it doesn't matter how small. It doesn't matter if it's unintentional. Even if you do it with the best intentions, it's still a serious problem. You should double-check your work to make sure absolutely nothing is plagiarized. That is what Harvard tells the students in a very long document that outlines its policy very clearly. It's no fewer than five times indicates that intent is irrelevant. Any language or even just ideas or content from someone else, and don't cite them, it's plagiarism. And according to the letter of the Harvard plagiarism policies, A, they clearly violated them.

GLENN: Yeah, and like significant.

I mean, you in your article go threw it. We don't have to go threw it here. But it's significant. Why does this matter?

AARON: Well, look, people do make mistakes.

And if this were -- if this was what we found out of a corpus of, say, a hundred or 200 peer-reviewed papers, one of which had won a noble prize. He might say, okay. A few paragraphs here or a there. It's the overall content. It's not such a big deal.

I think it's worth emphasizing that she had published in total, 11 peer-reviewed articles. Eleven in the past two decades. That is a really, really small number for any academic I think at a prestigious university. But especially for the academic that the university chooses to elevate to its position.

So you're not talking about a few instances of maybe perilous citations or plagiarism. How to have 100 papers. You're talking about it out of 11 papers. Right?

So we found -- so there have been, you know, 11 peer-reviewed articles. Two of them. We found examples of plagiarism.

Then a dissertation. Then another thing that she wrote. That is in another peer-reviewed journal.

So this starts to amount to a pretty substantial percentage of her academic output. That contained at least some plagiarized material.

So as a percentage thing, I think it's not actually the best way to look at it.

It's not just a couple mistakes here or there. It seems to be a pattern. And a pattern that is fairly consistent throughout two decades of relatively meager scholarly output. Meager scholarly output.

GLENN: So this is not anything new. It's my understanding it's kind of been known and kicked around for a while, but just kept quiet and didn't matter. Is that true?

AARON: Well, yeah, it appears to be true. Because just last night, the New York Post reported that they had many of these examples, confronted Harvard with them. All the way back in October. And Harvard claimed, oh, we addressed this promptly. As soon as it was brought to our attention, we initiated the review. And Dr. Gay requested corrections.

Well, what the Harvard corporation didn't mention is that apparently, they intimidated and maybe even threatened to sue the New York Post for defamation after the New York Post reached out for comment.

So Harvard apparently took this seriously enough, that they thought it was worth hiring the best defamation law firm in the country. God knows how much they were paying them, to send a 15-page intimidation letter. To journalists who were coming to them. For examples of plagiarism.

Clearly, they thought it was worth pulling out the big bucks.

Shelling out a lot of money.

To shut this down. And that was all the way back in October.

GLENN: So why would they do this? To protect -- I mean, why?

AARON: I think that Claudine Gay is an emblematic of the -- of the kind of DEI ideology that is -- that is at Harvard.

You know, some people have focused on her race and gender. And I'm sure, they don't want the -- of firing, yeah, of course.

But I actually think it's more than that. It's that she -- she kind of represents the ideology they already subscribe to, and they don't want the ideology discredited.

And also, I think they haven't gotten as much attention.

She was a very shrewd political operator before she became president. She was sort at the center of a lot of cancellations, right? She helped engineer the bureaucratic administration of votes. The Israeli famous (inaudible) at Harvard. And she helped also strip Ronald Sullivan, Harvard law professor from the administrative post, after Sullivan meets the decision to serve on Harvey Weinstein's defense team. He can't defend the unpopular. That's no longer allowed.

So she -- you know, I think had a -- had a pattern of rewarding friends and punishing enemies. And sort of maneuvered the administration and bureaucratic apparatus, Harvard, around her.

Very strictly. That's a part of how she became president.

And I think that that background may be part of why they're so unwilling to let her go.

The whole kind of institution having some sense been mobilized around her. Kind of put all the places in place.

GLENN: Right. Does it play any role, that her first cousin is Roxanne Gay. Who is a feminist author and New York Times writer, who is absolutely -- absolutely a terrible human being.

AARON: Yeah, honestly, I don't know if that really -- I think they would view this with just about anyone in her position, anyone in her position, anyone with her ideology.

GLENN: Position.

AARON: I mean, and I would say, too, right? They've obviously been under pressure from donors. But they're also under pressure from their own faculty and students. And, you know, you mentioned the -- the testimony she gave where she put in forthrightly -- condemned calls for the genocide of Jews. I think part of the issue is that she couldn't really go up there and say, yeah. We support free speech in all cases. And, in fact, yes, even if you want to call for the genocide of other groups, we will protect that. Because we're so principled.

A, because it wouldn't be true. I mean, we all know it's not true.

And, B, if she would have said that, student activists would have come and tried to burn her house down.

GLENN: Right.

AARON: So they really -- to be fair to her, she is kind of in a rock and a hard place. And no matter what she does, or what Harvard does, some constituency is going to throw a fit.

GLENN: Well, I have to tell you, I do not want to see harm come to anybody. But, gee, if you get nailed by your own policies and your life is tough because you shoveled this poison, and now that poison is coming back to haunt you, you know, I have a hard time. Again, with nobody being hurt, I have a really hard time giving any sympathy to her at all.

AARON: Yeah.

GLENN: Thank you so much. One last question, is this an issue outside of her?

Should this be an issue outside of her testimony?

In other words, is this just being brought up, because there's a mob brought up on the other side, that is saying, hey, she should be fired for this.

Is this a real issue, beyond the anti-Semitism stuff?

AARON: Obviously, anti-Semitism stuff increased scrutiny on her. It would be silly to deny that. But I'm thinking what would be an issue, you know, this -- the plagiarism, isn't quite as severe as -- it's not like data fraud.

Right? There's a guy at Stanford, right? Stepped down amid allegations of data fraud. And that was really curious, right? On its own terms.

I think this would be a scandal on its own. The anti-Semitism stuff, obviously amplifies it and makes it worse.

But, again, I think the real context here is them meager, scholarly record. Right?

Again, I really don't think people would care. I wouldn't care all that much if we had found this and it was in the context of like 200 brilliant peer-reviewed papers. That's not the context.

And I think what it underscores, this woman was clearly not chosen for her scholarly manner.

If that was the criterion, they had a lot of other candidates at Harvard, would have been better.

GLENN: Thank you so much. I appreciate it. Appreciate all your work and all your writing. God bless.

AARON: Thank you.

This AI could change EVERYTHING by next year

With Elon Musk’s announcement of Grok 4, humanity is closer than ever before to creating AGI – artificial general intelligence – which would change everything. Glenn Beck breaks down what’s coming in the next year with AI, which even Elon Musk called “terrifying.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Let me tell you the biggest story of the day.

And I think it is the biggest story possibly of all mankind, as of today.

It's going to change rapidly.

I don't know if anybody -- did either of you guys watch the Elon Musk thing last night?

STU: No, I did watch a few minutes of it.

GLENN: Okay. Did you, Jason?

JASON: No. I sure didn't.

GLENN: Okay. So the xAI team was there to unveil Grok 4. This is the latest intelligence, and let me be very, very clear.

Last night was not your typical tech launch. This is a moment that demands everyone's full attention.

We are now at the crossroads, where promise and peril are going to collide. Okay?

I have explained to you, for years, AGI.
AI. AGI. And ASI. Narrow intelligence is what we've always had.

General intelligence is the next step. And that is, it's better that man, one -- one, you know, like Grok. Can do everything. That you can do.

Better that you can do.

Okay?

And then there's super intelligence. ASI.

Artificial super intelligence.

That's when things get really, really creepy.

When you hit AGI, the road to ASI could be overnight.

Okay?

We need to understand what's at stake here. Because Grok four brought us closer to that second stage, than ever before.

Grok four is a powerhouse. They demonstrated it last night.

It surpasses the expertise of Ph.D.-level sailors in all fields.

It can get 100 percent on any -- any test for any field, mathematics, physics. Engineering.

You name it.

This is not a search engine.

This is a system that tackles problems, so intricate, they -- they go beyond our existing knowledge base.

Okay?

Let's say there is -- let's say, we have a fusion reactor. And the magnetic containment system goes down. I don't even know what I'm talking about at this point.

But it goes down.

And the top minds all on earth are like, I don't know what to do. Grok 4 can step in, model the physics, design new material, stabilize the system, and avert catastrophe. And it can do it about that fast. Now, this is the capability, that Musk says is just around the corner.

Mark my words. You know, how many -- how many years did I say, between 2027 and 2030, we would start to see this?

STU: Oh, a million times.

That was always --

GLENN: For years. Right? Yeah, always the window.

And everybody, even Ray Kurzweil said, oh, that's way too optimistic. We may be 2050.

And then people started going, 2040, 2030.

Grok shows us 2026 or 2027 is when we're going to hit it. This is the last year, that we have, before things get really weird.

Okay?

Last night, Elon Musk is touting this -- this AI.

And all of the solutions.

And then he says.

Hmm. Probably three times.

Something like this.

And I'm quoting. This is one of them.

It's somewhat unnerving to have created intelligence that's greater than our own.

He then goes on to call it terrifying, twice.

Now, this is a man who has launched rockets, you know, into orbit.

Going to Mars.

And he says, twice!

You know, after he sees the results of it. He says, you know, it's really -- in a way, quite terrifying to see what it's doing.

But we just have to make sure that it remains good!

Oh, okay.

All right. Sure.

Now, the key point in the announcement was the mention of ARC-AGI.

I had never heard of ARC-AGI. I had no idea what it was. But I noticed AGI. And I went, uh-oh. That sounds important. So this is the gold standard. The bench mark testing for artificial general intelligence.

Okay.

As I've said before, AGI. Artificial General Intelligence is a machine that matches all human cognition, across all domains.

Reasoning, creativity.

Problem solving. Not just specialized tasks like playing Go or analyzing x-rays. Everything. For instance, Musk said by mid-next year to the latest end of next year, it will be able to create a full length movie, just from a text prompt.
And do it all at once!

So, in other words, it will say, create a movie, and you just explain the Godfather.

It will do the casting. It will do the writing. It will do the filming, if you will. It will -- score the music, and it will happen that fast.

Almost in realtime. We are nowhere near the computational power now, to do that separately.

But this will do it all at once. It will make a movie with all of it, simultaneously.

So the arc AGI system is the benchmark on how close we are to AGI. Remember, scary things happen at AGI.

Terrifying things happen at ASI. ASI could be a matter of hours, or days after we hit AGI.

Grok 4 scored 16.2 percent on the ARC-AGI scale.

Why is that important? You're like, well, only 16 percent away.

Because last time, it barely broke 8 percent.

And that -- they took that test, last time with Grok three.

And it took us forever to get to 8 percent.

Now, what is it? A year later.

We're at 16 percent. Remember, these things are not linear. The next time, we could be at 32, we might be at 64.

We are on the verge. This is the last year of -- I can't believe I'm saying this. Of normalcy. Okay?

This year is -- we're going to look back at this year, probably two years ago, gosh, remember the good old days, when everything was normal.

And you could understand everything.

This is how close we are!

Everything you and I talked about last night, Stu, about what we're doing in January, make -- put -- does it make it even more critical that that happens like, oh, I don't know.

Right now.

STU: Yeah. For sure.

GLENN: You are going to need to know your values, your ethics, your rights.

You are going to need to know absolutely everything.

Now, Grok 4 is not true AGI yet.

It lacks the full autonomy and the generalized reasoning of a human mind. But it is the closest that we've come.

It's a system that can adapt, innovate, at a level that outpaces specialized AIs by a wide margin.

This is a milestone. This is not a destination, but it's something that should jolt everybody awake. So here's what's coming over the next six months. By December 2025, that's this Christmas!

December 2025, he believes, Musk, that Grok 4, will drive breakthroughs in material sciences.

So, in other words, imagine a new -- brand-new alloy, that is lighter than aluminum. Stronger than steel.

And it revolutionizes aerospace and everything else, or a drug that halts Alzheimer's progression, tailored to a person's DNA.

Grok will drive breakthroughs through material science. So brand-new materials that nobody has ever thought of.

Pharmaceuticals that we never thought could be made.

And chemical engineering, putting together chemicals that no man has ever thought.

That's going for happen by December.

Imagine a chemical compound that makes carbon capture, economically viable. The climate change stuff, that's over.

It will be over.

Because this will solve that! These are not fantasies.

This is Grok 4.

Musk said something that he never thought. He believes that within the next year, by 2027, Grok 4 will uncover new physical laws.

So that will rewrite the understanding -- our understanding of the entire universe.

That there will come -- like there's gravity. Hey, you know what, there's another law here that you never thought of. Wait. What?

That, he says, will come by 2027. This is going to accelerate human discovery, at an unprecedented scale.

I told you, at some point. I said, by 2030. It might be a little earlier than that.

Things will be happening at such a fast rate, you won't be able to keep up with them.

And it will accelerate to the point to where you won't even understand what all of this means.

Or what the ramifications are!

Are you there yet?

In six months, Grok 4 could evolve into a system, that dwarfs human expertise in economics, defense, all of it.

Now, again, it's a bit terrifying to quote Elon Musk. Why?

Because we don't know, what else comes with this.

This is like an alien life form.

We have no idea, what to predict. What it will be capable of.

How it will view us, when we are ants, to its intellect.

Okay?

It is a tool, but it is also Pandora's box.

If Grok 4 is the biggest step towards AGI.

And maybe one of the last steps to AGI.

My feeling is: What I've been saying forever.

2027 to 2030, I'm leaning more toward the 2027 now.

Because of this announcement last night.

We are on the verge of AGI.

And everything in human existence changing overnight.

And as Musk said himself, two times, it's terrifying!

We should act like it is terrifying.

Or risk losing the control of the future, that we're all trying to build. That's the biggest story of the day.

I think! In my opinion.

Bill O'Reilly reveals how Trump can END Epstein files nightmare overnight!

Bill O'Reilly joins Glenn Beck with his plan for how the Trump administration can fix the Epstein Files fallout "overnight." Plus, he explains why he believes there's only one way that former FBI Director James Comey and former CIA Director John Brennan get indicted by a grand jury.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: All right. Bill O'Reilly.

Welcome to the program, sir! How are you?

BILL: Welcome. (inaudible)

And right off the bat, I have to correct you.

GLENN: Yeah. You're not alive. What know.

BILL: I mean, you know -- you don't know that?

GLENN: Yeah, yeah. No. I -- I thought you were dead. Anyway --

BILL: You were dead to me, oh!
(laughter)
I --

GLENN: I get it.

BILL: That's just another brick in your wall, Beck.
(laughter)

GLENN: It's good to talk to you, Bill.

Tell me -- you had a conversation with -- with President Trump, what, a couple of months ago, and I talked about --

BILL: Yeah. St. Patrick's Day, he invited me to sit on a cabinet meeting, which he does sometimes.

And he said, look, we've got files, Kennedy, King, Epstein -- what do you think? And I said, well, first Kennedy you've got to put out pretty much everything, which he did. King, he didn't. I don't know why. Because that's important too.

And then on Epstein I said, you have to be careful here, because this is now being used in political precincts. Both sides want to destroy anybody that was associated with Epstein. And the problem is that a federal investigation. They don't make a determination whether you had a -- what kind of relationship you had with Epstein. They just said, so-and-so had lunch with him.

Or maybe so-and-so had -- saw him at a party. And I said, any name of a human being associated with Epstein, in any way, that person is going to be destroyed. Because you know, the press is not going to put anything into context.

So I said, but it's very important that the Justice Department tell the folks what they know.

And you don't have to get specific with anything.

But you have to say, this is the information that we've compiled. And that's not hard.

And I don't know why the Trump administration is not doing that.

GLENN: Wow!

So, first of all, it's your fault, that we're not getting any names. We learned a lot here.

BILL: Probably my fault, but the president --

GLENN: You know what, I think you're right. I don't want all the names of the people. I want to know --

BILL: And I don't either.

GLENN: Right! I want to know the Justice Department has sorted through the things, and then have gone through. And said, this is criminal. This is not. These people are being indicted, et cetera, et cetera. But to come out and say, there is nothing there, I mean, it's -- it's at least --

BILL: It's ridiculous.

GLENN: It's mass incompetence, at least from Pam Bondi. How could she come out and say, it's all sitting on my desk?

And then when she doesn't release it, she says, well, that's because the FBI in New York is thwarting this process. There are people up there, that are trying to keep this from me.

And then she makes no arrests on that. We never hear about that again.

And then now all of a sudden, there's nothing to see.

BILL: Well, listen, Pam Bondi does not make decisions on her own.

No cabinet member does.

All the decisions come out of the West Wing.

So what I believed happened was, Trump was so obsessed with the big bill, with Iran, with Putin, with China.

That this -- they didn't even think about this. Okay?

GLENN: I believe that.

BILL: And it slowly began to unravel. And then I caught it by surprise.

But this is the easiest fix. Somewhere so easy.

BILL: So if I'm in charge, and that would be a great thing for everyone, except you, Beck -- but every other American, if I were in charge, tremendous. You would be in Botswana. Right.

GLENN: Right. Oh, I know.

Yeah. Yeah. I would be the ambassador of the white farmers in -- in South Africa if it were up to you. I know. I know.

BILL: No. You would be wandering around going, I am Glenn Beck. And they would go, who? That's what you'd be doing.

GLENN: That's every day.

BILL: So this could happen within the hour. Pam Bondi announces a press conference for tomorrow.

At that press conference, sitting next to her, is Merrick Garland, everyone.

You had this stuff for four years! Now, I understand that Mr. Garland has gone native and is living in a -- well, we can find him. We can pull him out of there, and have him and Pam, sit there and answer questions in a general way about what evidence the Justice Department of the United States has compiled.

GLENN: Not going to happen.

BILL: That's it!

Well, if it's not going to happen, then President Trump is going to take a hit.

But he's calculating that this will say that it's that night important.

But I don't know why you would not do it.

I just don't know. And I'm usually pretty good at predicting what the president does or does not do.

GLENN: So here's the thing, Bill.

I think he keeps focusing on Epstein. It's not that big of a deal.

It's not about Epstein. It's about justice.

It's about, can we trust the people -- correct!

It's all about credibility and justice.

And he's not seeing that. And I don't know how he's missing that. Because I agree with you.

He's been so busy on so many other things.

BILL: That's right. That's right.

GLENN: This is not at the top of his priority list.

But he did campaign on it.

BILL: Right.

And I don't know if there's anybody inside the White House.

He looks to be annoyed, when this subject comes up.

GLENN: Oh, I know.

BILL: And here's the -- what works -- you have to understand.

A guy like Donald Trump runs it all.

If he's annoyed, nobody will want to annoy him more. Okay?

GLENN: Oh, I know.

BILL: That's how it works. The older arch is, because Epstein got favorable treatment.

By the feds, in the first go around in Florida, that there's a deep suspicion about this case.

But if you break it down, if the Biden administration had any dirt on any Republican associated with Epstein. It would have been out.

And vice-versa.

If the Republicans had any dirt on any Democrats. Now, we know that former president Clinton, was involved with Epstein to some extent.

I don't know if that was a factor, okay? I don't know.

But your right for once. You're right. It's about credibility. It's about the American people trusting that we do have equal justice for all!

So what do you -- what do you make of now the Russia gate thing, coming out, today. Or yesterday.

The FISA court.

The fact that they're now saying, hey.

You know, we need to hold Brennan accountable.

We're like five or six days away.

Weeks away from him, you know, slipping past the -- the statute of limitations.

I mean, all these things are out today.

There's that. There is also the -- let's see here.

The Secret Service -- I think this happened a year ago.

But it's being reported as if it's news.

Secret Service suspends six agents assigned to protect Trump during a Butler assassination attempt. I mean, all these things are coming out. Like, look, we're busy on all these things. And I do believe they're busy on these things.

But it's like the Keystone Cops are in charge of the PR on this. It's bad.

BILL: Well, there's a lot of politics involved in both of those cases. Number one, in order to get Comey and Brennan to get indicted by a grand jury. Federal grand jury, and that's the only passage, you would have to have a whistle-blower, saying, yeah, these guys abused their power. I worked for them. And they absolutely wanted to get Trump.

And they knew the Russia dossier was phony.

And they did it anyway.

If I have that Justice Department.

Then you can get those guys.

If you don't have it, they will not be even indicted by a grand jury.

GLENN: So how is it that we do not have that Justice Department?

How do we not have that Justice Department?

BILL: Well, look. I don't know whether they have a whistle-blower or not, okay?

And if they have a whistle-blower, I want the case to go forward.

I want those two men indicted.

You can't do that, at that level.

As far as the Secret Service is concerned, monumental screw up. Everybody knows it. They fired the morons in charge of it. That woman -- I was embarrassed listening to her, trying to explain.

They didn't know what the deuce was going on. But this was across-the-board, in the Biden administration.

You know, it was a year ago Sunday, this upcoming Sunday.

GLENN: Right.

BILL: And it's just another example of how the Biden administration was the second worst administration in the history of this country. People have no idea how bad it was.

Every single agency was chaotic. Nothing worked. And this is just part of that. And we'll have a slew of stuff on Sunday. Nothing really meaningful.

I mean, they suspended the Secret Service agents, as they should have. They fired the director as they should have. The guy was a nut.

I don't know if there was anything more to that. I doubt it.

I'm more interested in the guy in the bushes. Because they don't know anything about him. I would like to know a little bit about him.

But again, the federal government, it doesn't really matter. It's the government. They never want to tell us stuff, Beck, never.

We always have to pull it out of them. It's almost like Russia or something. Come on!

GLENN: Right. Yeah. Let me ask you, let me take you back again to the Epstein thing.

I noticed yesterday, there were these people who were on the left. Who were taking tweets of mine. That say, look. These things don't make sense. On the Epstein thing. And they just have to be answered. And not anti-Trump at all.

And yet, the anti-Trump people were retweeting that, and they're trying to -- they're trying to get the right to fight against itself again and split people away from Donald Trump, where I don't think this Epstein thing is -- is splitting people from Donald Trump, at least at this point.

And I -- you know, I -- my wife stopped me from answering some of those tweets, yesterday.

Because it's never good, when you -- when I tweet in anger. Which I did.

But -- or was going to. What did you think about how this is being used against the right to try to separate us even more?

BILL: Everything is political. Everybody knows that for you.

But the MAGA people, from the mail I get. And I get a voluminous amount of mail. They're not happy.

GLENN: Oh, I agree. I'm not happy.

BILL: Now, are they going to throw President Trump under the cliché-ridden bus? No. Because to them, the greater good is being served by a fair tax bill.

Trying to cut waste.

Dealing with Iran effectively. And hopefully dealing with Putin.

That's another thing, that's on Trump's plate.

He has to deal with Putin now.

Has to. And that will be the next big story.

GLENN: How is he going to deal with it?

BILL: Lavrov and Rubio, are in Indonesia, as we speak.

And I assume that Rubio is delivering a message. That you either stop, or we're going to just absolutely crush you economically. Which the United States can do. By saying. No bank does business with Moscow.

And if you do business, no matter what bank you are, we're going to put you out of business.

Okay?

GLENN: Yeah. I've only got a couple of seconds. But didn't we already do that under Biden?

BILL: No! We didn't do the banks. We did the sanctions. And the sanctions they can always get around, because China is going to buy as much oil from Russia as possible.

You stop the banks, from doing all business with Moscow? Who is going --

GLENN: Isn't that what the SWIFT thing was all about?

When we kicked them off of SWIFT, wasn't that what that was all about?

BILL: No! Because they can still do a huge business with countries buying their oil.

And they got to pay Putin and Russia for the oil, and that has to go through the banking system.

If you stop the banking system, he can't get paid.

GLENN: Hmm, it's amazing. I'm glad I'm not the president right now. I think he's made some very brave decisions, and he is walking a tightrope. I mean, the world is on edge. And I pray for --

BILL: He looks very tired to me. Very tired. I haven't talked to him in a while, which is unusual. But you're right. You're absolutely right. That's the second time you've been right in this conversation. My God!

GLENN: I know. It's crazy.

BILL: What in the world.

GLENN: I was wrong about you being dead.

BILL: What is happening?

GLENN: It's good -- it's good to talk to you, my friend. Is everything okay? Is everything going well?

BILL: Everything is all right, Beck. We are not only successful, but that's old news. We've been that way for 50 years, but I appreciate you having me on your fine program.

GLENN: Okay. I love you.

BILL: Stu is still breathing.

GLENN: Hmm.

BILL: So that's good. Right.

But I've got a big book called Confronting Evil. Of course, we sent it, and of course you denied getting it. That comes out September 9th, so put me on a dance card.

GLENN: Well, we'll have you on. And you can also find Bill and his YouTube page. YouTube.com/BillOReilly. Or is it The Walking Dead?
(laughter)
He's not even laughing. Maybe he hung up. Bill O'Reilly, great to have him on.

FLASHBACK: Kash Patel says FBI Director has Epstein's "Black Book!"

During a 2023 interview with Glenn Beck, now-FBI Director Kash Patel adamantly proclaims that the FBI and specifically the FBI Director is in direct control of Jeffrey Epstein's "Black Book" of clients. So now given the most recent claims by Patel and DOJ Attorney General Pam Bondi, what has changed from his perspective since taking this role? What do YOU think is the explanation for this change in tune by Kash Patel?

Watch Glenn Beck's Extended Interview with Kash Patel from 2023 HERE

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

Are Epstein's "Blackmail Videos" Being Used for Leverage RIGHT NOW?

What was Jeffrey Epstein's operation all about. If he was at the center of a massive blackmail operation to compromise those in positions of power, who is in possession of that information now? Glenn Beck and ATF Whistleblower John Dodson analyze the details of this situation and give their thoughts on what is the most likely reality surrounding Epstein.

Watch Glenn Beck's FULL Interview with ATF Whistleblower John Dodson HERE