RADIOApril 29, 2024

The BIGGEST Issue With Trump’s SCOTUS Immunity Case

Former president Donald Trump is battling multiple legal challenges. But everything could change if the Supreme Court rules that he has full presidential immunity. However, there’s a big issue. Former Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Andrew McCarthy joins Glenn to explain why he believes the Court may NOT grant Trump full immunity. Plus, Andrew weighs in on whether Trump has a chance of moving his trials away from New York and Washington, D.C. and why former presidents haven’t been taken to court before.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Andy McCarthy, a National Review contributing editor, the Institute's Senior fellow, and a former chief assistant US attorney general. We won't hold this against him.

He was a former US attorney in the -- in the district of Manhattan.

So we'll just leave that alone.

Andy, how are you?

ANDY: Glenn, I'm doing great. How are you?

GLENN: Very, very good.

So let's start with the big story. I think, and that is the Supreme Court.

And what they were arguing last week, can you give me your honest take on what -- what this is really about for the future. Beyond Donald Trump. And how you think this will affect what is happening with Donald Trump.

ANDY: Glenn, I think it's important that you frame a question that way. Because it seemed to me.

And I reread the transcript over the weekend.

After listening to the oral argument.

The court is a lot more concerned, about the presidency, than about Trump.

GLENN: Sure. Should be.

ANDY: Yeah.

And it's -- it's an important point make. Because a lot of the coverage, has been this hysteria over whether, you know, the Trump packed Supreme Court is in the tank for him.

And they're going to get rid of Jack Smith's prosecution.

I don't think that will happen at all.

It's possible that Smith won't get his case to trial.

Depending on what the court does.

What I think the court is going to do, is send the case back to judge chuck in. Who was the trial judge in Washington. With instructions to sort out what things in the indictment against Trump are what you would call official acts, that might arguably be immune from prosecution, because they go to the core responsibility of the presidency.

And what are private acts or private wrongs. That he would not have immunity for, even though they have been enduring his presidency.

But the -- the upshot of the questioning, of the lawyers. Including Trump's lawyer, and this is particularly by Justice Barron. Justice Kagan. Trump's lawyer admitted that there's a lot of conduct charged in the indictment, that is private conduct, that really wouldn't be covered by an immunity claim.

Even though Trump has been saying a lot of stuff about absolute, complete immunity. And I think the concessions he made in the argument, that is John Sauer. Trump's lawyer, would be enough. If Smith was willing to tailor his indictment, down to the things that Sauer conceded, they could go ahead with the trial on just those acts.

He would lose a lot of evidence, but he probably should.

GLENN: So what are some of the acts that could fall under -- you know, private, and so you could prosecute. And what are the acts that are the president, and you don't prosecute?

ANDY: Yeah. So the one bright line that we can take away from this. Is that there seems to be consensus, that there is a -- a divide between office seeking, and the carrying out of the duties of an office.

So if something is purely in the nature of trying to get reelected. That's deemed to be private. Because it's not part of the duty, of the presidency.

It would be the same for anyone who was seeking office. Whether that person was an incumbent or not.

And then there were other things, that are clearly presidential.

So just to give some solid examples. That came out of the argument. Trump's lawyer conceded, that if Trump made a private scheme with private lawyers to get electors, designated for him and to supply documents to the Congress. Suggesting that they were the authentic, actually slate of electors, designated by the state.

That would be private conduct.

Because it's -- it's purely office seeking. And he carried it out, only with private lawyers.

On the other hand, there's an allegation in the indictment, that Trump tried to use the justice department. To signal to states, that there were serious concerns about fraud. And consider both removing the attorney general, when he got pushback. And considered sending a letter, that they never sent from the Justice Department to the state of Georgia, to tell them, you know, that they needed to do more scrutiny over what happened in the popular election. Trump argued very strongly. And I think the court will probably go along with this. That that is the president's control over the Justice Department, is -- is purely a presidential act, that has no part in a criminal prosecution.

GLENN: Correct.

ANDY: On those are the kinds of things that they are talking about sorting out.

GLENN: When Trump sat another group of electors, or tried to. That's what -- that's what the friends of Dershowitz did. I don't remember all of the attorneys. In the 2000 election.

That's what they were recommending, to be done. You have to do that. Or you have no case.

ANDY: Yeah. Well, let me just be clear, Glenn. They're not saying that Trump wouldn't have a defense at trial.

What we're talking about now is purely immunity. That is who he got the trial from happening in the first place. I think there's significant defenses to the fraudulent electors playing. Beginning with the fact that the electors themselves, didn't think they were fraudulent. They thought they were contingent.

They thought they were basically sitting in as a slate of electors, in the event that Trump prevailed either in the state courts or in the state legislature, to throw out the popular election. Then that would activate.

But they weren't trying to fool anyone into saying, that they were the actual electors that had been certified by the state.

GLENN: Can you get a fair trial on that? If indeed he has to go to court?

ANDY: Well, I think it's tough for him to get a fair trial, in Washington.

GLENN: Why isn't -- why can't someone make the case here?

Why can't his people make the case? That you can't get a fair trial, with the jury pool in New York, or in Washington, DC.

ANDY: I think Trump's problem is he's too famous in some ways.

The problem is that unlike almost any other defendant, he goes and says, one of the things that they can always says about him. He's the most famous guy in the world. And no matter where you have the case, you have the same pretrial publicity problems. And they kind of reject out of hand, the thought that because a jurisdiction votes substantially against Trump as a political matter.

That means they can't be fair to him as a legal matter.

You know, you can -- you can debate that all you want. About whether that's a sensible distinction to draw or not.

But it's a distinction the courts draw.

GLENN: Okay. What do you think is come downtown pike on this?

Based on -- go ahead.

ANDY: Yeah. I think they will send the case back to Judge Chutkan with instructions to go through the indictment and figure out, what's a public act and what's a private act.

If Smith wants to fight on that, then he's never going to get to trial, prior to Election Day. Which, of course, is his aim.

Because this would still be a live immunity claim, and immunity is one of the few things that you can actually appeal pre-trial. So I don't see how he would get to trial. But I do think Smith, if he wants to. And if it's that important to him to get to trial, quickly. He could say, you know what, I will dispense with all of the acts that you say are immunized, official, presidential acts. And we will just go to the trial on the private stuff.

It would be a weaker case for him.

But it wouldn't be an unwinnable case.

GLENN: And what is the punishment?

ANDY: Well, that's an interesting question. Because that may depend on another Supreme Course case this term. The one they argued, a week before on the obstruction statute, that is key to Trump's case.

That obstruction statute has a 20-year penalty. And it's the two main counts in the indictment against Trump.

The other two counts only have five-year penalties. So if the Supreme Court says that it rejects the way the Justice Department has been using the obstruction statute. Which it might. Then that would require probably a big overhaul of Smith's case. Because those charges are very important to him.

But if the court upholds that statute. Which it also might. Then you are looking at a potential of, you know, 40 years imprisonment.

Now, he won't get 40 years. But statutorily, there would be 40 years imprisonment.

On those charges. And I think ten on the other two. The other two are fraud on the United States. And the civil rights charge.

So he would be looking at, you know, statutorily 50 years imprisonment. Which would indicate, under the sentencing guidelines, that he would get, I would think. You know, four or five, six years.

Of a sentence. If he gets convicted on those charges.

GLENN: Unbelievable. You know, last week, the Biden administration was making the case, well, Donald Trump is the on me one that has ever broken the law. That's why we've never had this before. That's such crap, and we all know it.

Why haven't we had this problem before?

ANDY: I think a lot of the criminal -- the potential prosecutable criminal conduct has come up, late in presidential terms. Like, for example, with Clinton.

The pardon scandal happened as he was going out the door. And I was in the Justice Department, at the time.

There was -- there was over a year of pretty intense debate within the Justice Department, about whether he ought to be charged with bribery or not. In connection with those pardons.

But I think there's -- maybe this has changed now.

But there's always been a current of like, when a new administration comes in. Particularly if it's a new administration of a different party. They don't want to revisit what happened, with the last guy.

They want to just go ahead, on their own stuff.

This whole idea, we're looking forward. We're not looking back. That certainly had a lot to do with why the Bush Justice Department didn't prosecute Clinton.

And I think with Obama, there was a lot of rhetoric, during the 2008 campaign, about war crimes against Bush and all that stuff.

But when they got into power. They not only weren't interested in prosecuting anyone on war crimes. They reopened the CIA investigation. But then they closed it.

But they actually ended up adopting a lot of Bush/Cheney counterterrorism.

You know, I think, there's a lot of rhetorical campaign stuff about how, you know, lock her up.

And we will put these guys in jail.

But it doesn't come to pass. I actually think Trump is serious about it, this time. Because they've seen what they've done to have.

That's why I thought it was amusing in the Supreme Court argument. For the government lawyers to get up and say, you know, you don't have to worry about this.

This is just generous with Trump, it will never happen again.

And in the meantime, Trump is ahead in the polls. And he's running as the retribution candidate. He's promised he's going to do this stuff, right?

So -- so it's an amazing time to be alive, right?

Andy, tell me about how Alvin Brag's doing, so far.

ANDY: It's a terrible case. I think -- I wrote a column about this today, called How Judge Merchan is Orchestrating Trump's Conviction.

And I was reminded of, you know, the fact that Trump when he was a young guy, learned a lot about litigation from Roy Cohen.

And, you know, what Cohen used to say, his first principle of hardball litigation was, don't tell me what the law is, tell me who the judge is.

And I think Trump knows that. He knows it very well.

And as I'm closely watching the rulings. That are being made. And the arguments that the judge is allowing to be made. It's clear, that he has allowed Bragg. And just, so the people understand, this case is indicted as a falsification of business records, that occurred in the months of February through December of 2017.

Those are the only charges in the indictment. The case is being presented to the jury, as a conspiracy from 2015 through 2017, to steal the 2016 election by violations of federal campaign finance law, which Alvin Bragg, as a state prosecutor, has no authority to enforce. And that's the way the case has been framed by the prosecutor.

Based on orders from the judge. And that is the way that they are proceeding, and judge -- and Judge Merchan is allowing the state to prove, that Michael Cohen, pled guilty to two campaign finance offenses. And that David Pecker, the AMI guy, who ran the National Enquirer. That they had a non-prosecution agreement from the Justice Department.

And then paid a fine of $180 of the Federal Election Commission.

For violating federal election law. Now, those -- it's a black letter principle of law. That one person -- let's say person A. His guilty plea is not admissible evidence against person B. Even if A says, A and B acted together.

It's absolutely improper for these -- for this evidence of what Michael Cohen and David Pecker was thinking about the federal election laws. The fact that they made deals with the government. None of that stuff should come in. The judge is letting it in.

And he's not letting Trump explain to the jury, that he, Trump, was not charged by the justice department or the FEC. And the reason is obvious.

Actually expenditures that were cognizable under the federal law.

And he's also not letting Trump call an expert witness to explain campaign lay to the jury.

So what the jury is going to hear about campaign law is going to come from Michael Cohen and David Pecker.

So it's a farce.

GLENN: How is this a fair trial?

If you can't call people -- and you can't let the -- the jury know. Truly, the other side of it?

TRENT: Yeah. Look, it's even more fundamentally unfair than that.

In the United States, under the fifth amendments of the Constitution.

You are entitled, that you will be charged with a felony.

It has to be on the basis of an indictment returned by a grand jury, that explicitly says what the charge is.

The indictment in this case, talks about false bookkeeping in 2017. A case that has been presented to the jury, is a conspiracy to violate the he federal election laws.

It's mind-boggling, that it's being permitted.

GLENN: Wow.

Andy, thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

This would definitely lose in a higher court, don't you think?

ANDY: I do. But I think it will be -- I mean, Harvey Weinstein's conviction just got reversed last week. That was three years.

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

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

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

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

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

Michelle Obama has a podcast. Who knew?

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

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

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

Cut one please.

VOICE: Wait, you guys like each other.

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

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

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

OBAMA: I know. I know.

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

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

VOICE: Okay. Don't make me cry.

PAT: Aw.

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

VOICE: And welcome to IMO.

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

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

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

VOICE: Of course, I've been listening.

PAT: What? No!

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

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

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

Gives her a little peck on the cheek.

PAT: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

GLENN: Does that --

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, maybe.

PAT: I think it was a little uncomfortable.

GLENN: It was a little uncomfortable.

It's still, maybe. Maybe.

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

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

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

PAT: He was about to vomit. Yeah.

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

He doesn't like women, what is happening?

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

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

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

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

Don't even start with me.

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

PAT: The other awkward thing about that.

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

Where she's considered reeving him.

GLENN: Yeah.

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

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

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

I don't know.

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

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

Grandma, we're getting a divorce.

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

And I said, what?

We're getting a divorce.

And she said, how dare you.

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

And I said, what?

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

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

PAT: Wow.

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

PAT: Yeah. Yeah. Uh-huh.

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

PAT: Did she know your first wife?

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

No, Trump’s tariffs ARE NOT causing inflation

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But I don't think I'm wrong.

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

That tariffs don't work.

They increase inflation.

It's going to cost us more.

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

Tell me what's going on.

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

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

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

But, anyway, go ahead.

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

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Correct.

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

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

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

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

There's very, very little movement overall.

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

Wait.

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

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

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

So where are they?

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

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

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

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

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

Because that's a real option.

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

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

That's entirely possible.

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

That's not where the inflation is coming.

Instead, it's coming from housing.

That's part of the CPI at that time.

Housing is the cause of inflation right now.

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

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

It's not building.

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

GLENN: Okay.

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

Or housing prices to buy a new house.

They are talking about rent.

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Right.

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

I mean, come on!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah. All right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Yeah. But we had one month.

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

JUSTIN: I looked it up.

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

It was 20 something years ago.

So this is incredible, really.

And if it works.

You and I talked about this before.

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

So that they can be competitive.

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

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

The plan is, go all in on artificial intelligence.

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

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

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

They don't care.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You have no hope.

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

GLENN: Yes.

Well, I tend to agree with you.

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

I war gamed this, probably in 2006.

I'm thinking, okay.

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

They won't be real on popular.

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

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

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

What can be done now.

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

But they need each other.

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

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

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

And I don't think I am.

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

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

Agree with that or disagree?

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Yeah. Right. Right.

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

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

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

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

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