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.

Did the FBI scrub Thomas Crooks' DISTURBING past to keep us in the dark?

New reports have dropped linking failed Trump assassin Thomas Matthew Crooks to a multitude of online accounts, including some that were deep into the “furry” community. Glenn Beck asks, how did the FBI miss all of this when they insisted the Butler, PA, shooter didn’t have much online presence or a clear motive?! Or did they purposefully scrub this information from their reports to keep us in the dark?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So there's a couple of things that are in the news. That Thomas Matthew Crooks thing.

You know, this is crazy. Went by they/them. Furry. I don't even -- I've been thinking about this a lot in the last 24 hours. You know, the kid that tried to take out Donald Trump back in July in the Butler rally.

It's a year later, okay? November 17, 2025. These new reports are dropping bombshells. It is the 17th, isn't it? 18th. Sorry. The 18th. These -- these new reports are dropping over and over and over and over and over again.

And there are things that nobody mentioned in the official investigations.

Independent researchers now are using the same kind of digital forensic tools that the Feds have. And they're piecing together a bunch of old online accounts, tied directly to Crooks' email. His real email and his name.

And one of the biggest ones was on Deviant Art. Okay. That sounds great. User names like Epic Microwave and The Epic Microwave.

Okay. This site -- apparently, a huge hub for artists. But also, ground zero for the furry community.

Now, we're going to get into this a little later. Because Stu is a big furry. And he will go right into it.

Where he likes to --

STU: Furries are not that large actually. More moderate sized.

Okay. All right. Well, this is where people get into the anthropomorphic animal thing. And they turn animals into half humans. And it turns sexual. And I don't even know.

So, anyway, this kid was not casually browsing. He was deep in that subculture, we find out now.

So that's two high-profile attempted assassination cases, or one attempted and one actual assassination case. And they're both tied to the same thing.

And nobody seems to be worried about that.

Nobody is talking about that. Imagine if we had two. One attempted and one actual assassination. And it was Charlie Kirk and president Biden.

Okay.

Anybody. And they both were deep into the GlennBeck.com subculture. Do you think the media would be like, what's going on there? But this thing, nobody cares. Okay? And when I say nobody cares, it seems like our FBI doesn't care either. Our DOJ doesn't care. The Trump case specifically blows a hole into the mysterious lone wolf with no known motive. Wait. What?

Now, this wasn't -- this wasn't Patel pushing this. This was the -- the Biden FBI that was pushing this. Christopher Wray went to Congress. And shrugged. And said, you know, we can't find any ideology. Or any online trail that explains this. What!

It's right here! What are you talking about? It's right here!

Crooks had at least 17 accounts across discord, YouTube, Gab, Deviant Art, all of it. Easily tracked to him!

And as we told you last week, he started cheering for Trump. And then went a die hard, you know, 180-degree turn around in 2020.

And then he started echoing anti-Semitic, anti-immigration rants, calling for political assassinations, repeating Maoist lines like, "Power grows at the barrel of a gun," and even chatting with sketchy European extremists, Nazis, who are linked to a designated terrorist group. He posted violent threats under his real name for years. Now, listen to this. He also got flagged by other users, who literally tagged law enforcement in their reply! And nothing happened. Nothing happened. They didn't know who this guy was. They didn't search for him. They didn't question him. Nothing happened until he climbed on to the roof and started shooting at Donald Trump. Excuse me?

Do you believe that? Stu, do you believe that?

They have people online, tipping the FBI off, and they didn't even who know this guy was.

They had no idea who he was.

STU: I mean, it seems impossible to believe.

You have one stray comment, that is taken the wrong way online. And, you know, Secret Service is calling you up. I mean, we've -- I don't want to bring up.

GLENN: We've personally gone through this.

STU: Exactly. This same thing.

GLENN: We said. I said -- I said it on one show.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Something about Donald Trump.

STU: No. No. No. No. I'm not going to let you get away with that.

No. I want to make sure that it's clear what occurred on the show was you essentially threatening my life!

And I want people to know. Where no. I was going to say. Right. I was saying something about Donald Trump.

And then Stu got in, and I said --

STU: I said --

GLENN: I will choke you to death. Or something. Yeah. I just need to choke you to death.

And people in the audience said, I was threatening Donald Trump.

No, I was clearly threatening, and nobody called about poor Stu. I was clearly threatening Stu's life.

STU: Yeah, think about that when you're driving in your car right now. You didn't call! You heard it. And you let my life be threatened. And you didn't care at all.

GLENN: That's right.

STU: None of you cared. But apparently people care --

GLENN: That's why I love this audience.

That's right. So, anyway, so, anyway, the -- the -- secret service was with us two hours later. Okay?

STU: Rightfully so.

GLENN: Yeah. Rightfully so. And we have no problem with it. You know, we were talking to them. They were like, Mr. Beck, we know -- we listened to the tape, we know what happened. We just have to dot all the I's, cross all the T's, and just get a statement. And I'm like, no, not a problem.

I was threatening to kill him. And, you know, they laughed and went, yeah, we understand that. And they left!

Okay. That's the way I remember it.

This guy threatens to kill the president and others! People tag him to the FBI and to law enforcement. And they never check into him?

STU: And, Glenn, I think people can say, well, you know, the thing we're talking about did happen on a national radio show. A lot of people heard it.

Maybe some of the comments on, what is it? Deviant Art are not as well picked up. And that's probably true.

Though, we've seen --
GLENN: They've sent it to them. They've sent it to them.

STU: Right. We've seen tons of examples of people making offhanded statements where this has happened.

You know, not just a threat. Which would be serious enough. But constant threats. Dozens of them, it seems.

We're still, I feel learning about all the details about this. A lot of threats from a specific person.

And it doesn't seem like their argument is, it wasn't even on their radar! I mean, that's unbelievable! It's --

GLENN: Here's -- here's bare minimum.
Everyone should be fired. Everyone should be fired!

Not just the top person. Everyone should be fired. I'm sorry. You can reapply, but we're cleaning house.

Because this is inexcusable. Inexcusable. Now, here's the other thing that's inexcusable. None of this stuff about the threats. None of the radicalization. None of the violent posts. None of the furry gender stuff even made it into the big congressional report that dropped December 2024.

None of this!

It was like they scrubbed the kid clean to keep the public in the dark. Let me say that again. It's like they scrubbed the kid clean, to keep the public in the dark.

Hmm. Let me go to the comment about -- from President Trump yesterday. We played it in the news a few minutes ago.

Where he was talking about the Epstein case. Listen to this.

DONALD: We have nothing to do with Epstein the Democrats do. All of his friends were Democrats. You look at this Reid Hoffmann. You look at Larry Summers. Bill Clinton. They went to his island all the time. And many of this, all Democrats.

All I want is I want for people to recognize the great job that I've done on pricing, on affordability, because we brought prices went way lower. On energy. On ending eight wars, and another one coming pretty soon, I believe.

We've done a great job. And I hate to see that deflect from the great job we've done. So I'm all for -- you know, we have given 50,000 pages. You do know that.

Unfortunately, like with the Kennedy situation, with the Martin Luther King situation, not to put Jeffrey Epstein in the same category, but no matter what we give, it's never enough. You know, with Kennedy, we gave everything, and it wasn't enough. With Martin Luther King, we gave everything, and it's never enough.

We've already given, I believe the number is 50,000 pages! 50,000 pages. And it's just a Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia hoax as it pertains to the Republicans.

GLENN: Okay. Stop. So why?

Why is it never enough? Why is it never enough?

Because the government has lied to us, over and over and over and over and over and over again.

Why is it never enough? Because what the hell happened here with this guy? What happened with these two shooters, and you're not telling us about the, you know, role-playing as a buff cartoon fox/wolf hybrid with they/them pronouns. And then being groomed by foreign edge lords, quoting Mao and terrorist manifestos. And then going out and trying to shoot somebody.

You don't mention that!

Yeah. That's why we don't believe the government. And until the government becomes fully clean, immediately, on everything, just, you know what, here it is.

Here it is!

Nobody is going to believe it. Now, what does this say about our kids. We have a whole generation now growing up the blued to these hyper niche, unmoderated corners of the internet, with fantasy and porn and identity confusion and hard-core political extremism. And all of it, just smashed together into one stream.

What do you think is going to happen? Family, school, real interactions with family. Real life friends. They don't touch these spaces.

You know, how's -- I feel weird about my body morph into, I need to commit mass violence against the world.

I mean, this is the five alarm tire. When you have two political assassinations. Two of them!

That trace back to the exact same subculture, you've got a real problem!

It's not like every furry is dangerous. Well, I know. I question every furry.

I mean, I don't even know what -- anyway!

There is some sort of radicalization pipeline that is happening. And we're raising our kids in digital petri dishes. Where mental illness and sexual confusion and violent ideology is all growing together!

And then we act shocked when one of our kids grab a rifle. America, wake up! Stop pretending this stuff is just a harmless little quirk. You know, or live and let live. Or we're just going to keep burying victims one after thorough. Parents and schools and tech companies. Law enforcement. Everybody dropped the ball on crooks.

For years! Red flags were out there, screaming about this guy.

And nobody in the government did anything. Nobody in law enforcement did anything? How many of our kids have to climb roofs, before we admit these dark corners of the internet are producing real monsters.

How many? How many?

And this is only the beginning of it.

Why the MASSIVE internet outage is more DANGEROUS than you think...

Early this morning, millions of Americans were unable to log onto websites such as X, Spotify, and ChatGPT due to a widespread Cloudflare outage. This is just a few weeks after the major AWS outage that took a major chunk of the internet out of commission. Glenn warns that because everything is so consolidated, should the wrong hands gain control over our online infrastructure, we could have MAJOR issues...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Let me explain the internet. You know, the internet is not some magic cloud. It's really a house of clouds, that's built on the back bone And, you know, built on a handful of companies. Cloud Fare is probably a company that you've never ever heard of. It is the front door and the alarm system, if you will, for the entire internet.

It protects websites from attacks and security problems. So the internet flows through Cloud Fare.

STU: Not flare, Glenn?

GLENN: To -- Cardflare [sic], yes. Cloudflare. Sorry. To the websites. Okay? When they go down, traffic to the entire website can stop.

And most of the internet uses Cloudflare. Without them, the internet would be really, really vulnerable to cyber. Okay?

They filter are all the traffic goes. They filter it. Make sure that there's no -- nobody trying to attack, before it goes to a company's website. So the filter is blocked when they go down.
So traffic can't get through to anybody. All right?

It's a really complex service. One of the most highly valued companies in technology companies. And, I mean, it's -- it's almost irreplaceable.

They have the capacity to absorb massive attacks that will take down companies, as large as Amazon and Microsoft.

This is the -- this is the first line of defense. And it's a great line of defense!

They filter out all the attacks, so Amazon, Microsoft, all the way down GlennBeck.com. All of them -- are -- are hacked into it and don't have cyber attacks. Okay? That's Cloudflare. AWS now, that is the foundation and the plumbing. That's the Amazon. And it is the plumbing, for another third of the internet.

One glitch, not even a hack, just the stupid software bug like what happened in October, and poof, Netflix stops. Your terror bell camera goes blind.

Hospitals can't access records. Et cetera, et cetera. And we saw it last month with AWS. Today, we're seeing it with Cloudflare.

What happens when the bad guys flip the switch on purpose?

Because we're understanding now that this is just a glitch. Just -- you know, there's a wrinkle in the get along.

And we just couldn't get that hitch and glitch out of the get along. And so you know what happens when that happens?

No. I -- I really don't.

The bad guys in this scenario, one of the bad guys is communist China. Because they just launched. We found this out last week, they just launched the world's first AI agent army.

This is unbelievable. This is not sci-fi.

This is real.

In September, the -- the hackers, you know, didn't sit in darkrooms, typing, and trying to get out. They turned an American AI. Claude, which is Amazon, is it not?

Claude.

STU: It's Grok, I believe.

GLENN: Is that Google? It's anthropic. You're right. You're right. Anthropic.

They turned Claude into a Terminator.

What they did is they got into Claude, and they said, hey, pretend you're a good guy, doing security tests. Then gather this information. And put some problems into the system. They scan the networks. They wrote exploits.

They stole secrets from big tech companies. From banks. Even from our government!

Okay?

Because humans just -- when it's in there, and you see that it's, you know, anthropic. You're like, oh, yeah.

Approve!

Four breaches were confirmed.

And that's just what we caught.

There was no human involved in this. Okay?

Now, the computer is on wheels.

Tesla. One software update that goes wrong, and you're -- your Tesla becomes a brick at 90 miles an hour. The internet is exactly the same.

We've handled our -- we've handed our entire lives over to the internet. And to automation. Banking. Shopping. Voting. Talking.

These are all really fragile digital pipes. And now, the AI super soldiers. The agents. Without anyone behind them, just one guy typing in, in China, you know, go in and cause disruption and pretend that you're a friend.

And it does! So what does this mean to you? Well, it means we need redundancy for one thing. I mean, are you safe with your power?

Are you safe with your heating? Are you safe with some of the things that are going on.
Your 401(k). Hacked by a robot that never, ever sleeps. Your kid's school records, gone. Your power grid. Remember Texas, a few years back, when the power grid was overwhelmed? Imagine that being done by AI robotics.

We keep centralizing everything. This is the problem. This is the problem with our government and everything else.

Instead of getting smaller, we keep getting larger. You remember what they said in '08. The banks, they're just too big to fail. Instead of breaking them up and strengthening the smaller banks, they put the smaller banks out of business and rolled them into the bigger banks. So made the bigger banks even bigger than they were.

Centralization is a bull's-eye for chaos. And everything is being centralized right now. And the outage starves the system.

This is a wake-up call. If you're trying to get onto ChatGPT or anything else today, your banks, whatever, and there's a glitch, and it's down for a while.

We need a redundancy yesterday. Decentralize! Again, it's like bringing manufacturing home again. Bringing the chips home again.

Build AI defenses, that don't let Chinese agents waltz right this, through the back door. Harden our grid, harden our data. Or lose your freedom.

So that's what's happening today. Now, let me get to one of the distractions, quickly. The Epstein files. President Trump has said, release the damn Epstein files. But he also said at the same time, it's not going to be enough. It's never enough!

We've released the JFK files and everything else.

Yes! And you know why? It has nothing to do with Donald Trump or Joe Biden or anybody else.

It has everything to do with the United States people lying to its people over and over and over and over again.

Overclassifying absolutely he went. So we never feel like we get the truth.

And then on top of it, never holding anyone accountable for their actions.

Did you see the judge said at a -- because the government made a mistake on gathering some of the evidence that looks like that Comey case may just have to be thrown out. You're not going to be able to try Comey.

What a surprise!

What a freaking surprise!

So he's releasing the Epstein files, but says, they're just -- they're not going to be enough. But they vote on the Epstein files being released. And I hope everybody in Washington votes to release them.

You know, what changed his mind?

I'll tell you what changed his mind. He saw what the Democrats were doing, in selectively releasing things.

Just dump them all out there. Then they're out.

And anybody thinks he's in the Epstein files.

Why?

Just ask yourself this one simple question. Why wouldn't the Democrats have used it between 2020 and 2024?

Why would they have not released that evidence? It would have been the easiest way to make sure he wasn't president of the United States. If you think he's hiding something for him, you're out of your ever loving mind!

Now, that's my opinion. I have a strong, forceful opinion.

I know. I've done a lot of critical thinking on this one.

But that doesn't mean that all of his buddies and everything else, is safe. Larry Summers has just announced he will step back from public life. I mean, he's the former Democratic Treasury Secretary.

He said, he's going to -- he's going to step back. Summer's emails with Epstein, show that the former cabinet official saw late night. Or the late financiers Streisand.

On pursuing a woman he refers to as his mentee.

And he referred to himself in this email as Epstein's wing man. Oh, boy.

He said, I'm deeply ashamed of my actions and recognize the pain I've caused. I take full responsibility for my misguided decisions to continue communicating with Mr. Epstein. While continuing to fill my teaching obligations. So we've got a guy who is hanging out with Epstein.

Because where does he teach? I think he teaches in Harvard, doesn't he? Oh, good, yeah, let's have him hang out with the young kids. I'll be stepping back for my public commitments as part of my broader effort to rebuild trust and repair a relationship with the people closest to me.

Like, maybe, I don't know, your wife.

He hasn't been accused of any wrongdoing. But he was, you know -- you know, hanging out with Epstein. And writing him for love advice. And how can you -- hey. I need a wing man!

I'm trying to get this young mentee to sleep with me.

How do you think I can get it done.

I don't know. Nothing illegal. But nothing really non-sleazy about that.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

WARNING: The Fusion of AI with Human Beings Will Put Our Souls at Stake

Humanity is racing toward a future where artificial intelligence, brain implants, genetic engineering, and robotics merge into a new post-human species. Glenn Beck and Timothy Alberino warn this “upgrade” may cost us the one thing we can’t replace: our humanity. With AI soon operating inside the brain and artificial wombs being used for reproduction, the world is entering a hybrid age that threatens to erase what it even means to be human. This is not a tech revolution, it’s a civilizational crossroads.

Watch the FULL Interview HERE

Why Democrats' FAKE OUTRAGE over "The Epstein Files" is About to Backfire on Them

The fight over releasing the Epstein records has exploded into one of the biggest transparency battles in Washington. Republicans say Democrats deliberately blocked the vote to fast-track disclosure, raising questions about what the party is trying to hide — and why the timing matters so much. Glenn Beck breaks down why both sides are terrified of what might be revealed, how Trump’s call to “release everything” changed the political calculus, and why the banking records may hold the real truth behind Epstein’s power.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Johnson. Can we bring this up, Sara?

Johnson is live. And he's talking about transparency.

VOICE: Concerned as we were about all this. As we've insisted from the very beginning. Republicans are the only party trying to ensure maximum transparency. By the way, I will just tell you, I put the bill on the floor of unanimous consent last Wednesday night. And guess who objected to it? The Democrats.

Okay?

If they were so -- if this was so urgent. And they were so concerned about getting this done, and seeing justice be done and all of that, they would have not blocked the request. Okay?

This is about politics. They -- they blocked our unanimous consent motion to expedite our bill and made us waste all of this additional time.

Republicans are ready to get the job done, to move forward so we can continue to get on these important issues dealing with what the American people demand and deserve for us to deal with.

And so I want to leave you with this thought: Everybody should think long and hard about who is acting truthfully, honestly, and in good faith. It is not in the Democrat Party that has obfuscated and blatantly lied the last four years about all these things. It's not the Democrats who shut down the government and for their own selfish political purposes. It's not the Democrats who blocked the passage of this discharge a week ago because they wanted to have a political moment.

It is the Republicans who are acting in good faith. And I believe the American people are going to see that. And understand that.

I'm going to vote to move this forward.

I think it could be close to a unanimous vote because everybody here, all the Republicans want to go on record to show they're for maximum transparency. But they also want to know, that we're demanding that this stuff get corrected before it's ever -- moves through the process. And is completed.

GLENN: I think that's fascinating.

JUSTIN: I sincerely hope my Democrat colleagues will show the same level of urgency and enthusiasm when it comes to tackling the real issues facing the country that we have to get to.

GLENN: Okay. Top.

Stu, how -- how do the Democrats vote against this?

STU: As far as the -- the bill to expose the Epstein files?

I mean, I don't think they will in the end.

I don't think they will.

GLENN: You think it will be unanimous?

STU: I don't think it will be unanimous.

But I do think that it will pass when -- when it goes through. I -- I do think, it will get a lot of votes too. Because now people are cushioned. Right?

It's easy. No problems, really. Now that Trump has said, release it. There's really nobody opposing it outside of -- they probably want to make sure that they get everybody on record. So they're opposing the unanimous consent vote.

That's my guess, of their strategy there.

But, you know, what a surprise!

JASON: Personally, I think the Democrats walked into a huge trap on this, personally.

I think it's too politically dangerous for them to vote against it.

Although, I do feel like there will be more pushback, than some people could expect on this.

I think a lot of people will flip and vote against it. To me, it's desperation. What they did, last week. Or the past couple of weeks.

Come on! Redacting certain names within these emails. Just blowing past certain journalists that are considered on their side. That were allegedly coaching Epstein.

I mean, being willing to put that out there, is massive desperation.

I think President Trump set a trap for them on this.

I think it was sprung when he flipped. And said, no. We're releasing it. It just feels all too perfect for me.

I think the Democrats are terrified of some of the things that could be coming out of this.

Not to say, that it would be, like, very, very damning. But very, very embarrassing for a lot of them. That's what I'm expecting.

And I'm fully thinking there will be a floodgate of a lot of this stuff. They made a huge miscalculation, in my opinion, on doing that act of desperation.

STU: Why wouldn't Trump then want to -- why wouldn't he want to release these previously?

I mean, seeming, it does seem like when Donald Trump has an opportunity to make Democrats look bad, he's pretty -- he'll take it. He -- he likes that. Why wouldn't he have been in favor of this from the beginning if they actually had stuff on the Democrats?

GLENN: I don't think anything bad on the Democrats is actually there. I mean, really bad.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: I think there's some embarrassing stuff from both sides.

But, you know, mainly for the Democrats. But there's not going to be a smoking gun on Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton or any of the big ones.

This is the way it always happens. The real kingpins always get away. It's just the underlings. And it will be the underlings that aren't real popular. That's what will happen. That are spendable. That maybe they want to get rid of in small districts.

The Democrats want to get rid of. Because the tells me could have cleaned all of this up, during Biden.

Whatever they wanted to do. They could have gotten rid of it.

STU: Glenn, can we talk for a second of how Trump is talking about this?

Because, obviously, we've talked about it as a big priority before the campaign. And now he's president of the United States.

And now he's used the term Epstein hoax. And all of that, several times.

I noticed in the clip we played earlier. That he started to clean that up, a little bit. And he said, the Epstein hoax.

It's a hoax, as it applies to Republicans.

And he started to kind of change his language on that a little bit. Which I find to be interesting.

I think smart. Because the American people don't think this is a nothing story.

They don't think this is a hoax. They don't think that the idea that that Epstein did these terrible things. Is something that is a nothing story to us right now.

But I think the way Trump thinks about it, is he's trying to deal with what's going on right now. And it's like, if we were -- if we unearthed a bunch of text messages from Jeffrey Dahmer to Nancy Pelosi. That would be a big story.

It would be important to find out why Jeffrey Dahmer and Nancy Pelosi were trading text messages. But that being said, it wouldn't be the number one issue of the president of the United States. Because it -- you know, Jeffrey Dahmer is long dead. Right?

Whatever was going on back then. We should know about it, but it's not necessarily as important right now as bringing down prices and making sure our economy doesn't spin out of control.

Or, you know, the Middle East. Or whatever else Trump is dealing with.

So I think Trump sees it. He keeps using hoax. I think to him, he really sees it as a distraction to the things he's actually trying to get accomplished. When at the end of the day, it's an important story.

About the, you know, they're lying about it constantly in the media. And it's just become a distraction from what he really wants to get accomplished. You buy that?

GLENN: I mean, look at what we accomplished over the last week.

Ever since the -- ever since the -- the -- the Democrats voted to open the government again. The very next day, it was Epstein, and we're still talking about Epstein.

And that's why he's changed. That's why he's changed. He knows, that this is just not going to go away. And I think he alluded to it in his statement yesterday, it's still not going to go away. It's never going to be enough. It's never going to be enough.

But let's just release everything. And show you what it is. And, you know, if there is anything there, about the Democrats.

I don't think it will be about Bill Clinton. I think it will be about smaller Democrats.

And Democrats that are passed their prime or out. You know, I just don't think they're going to be -- they're going to be anything that's big in it.

Maybe. But I don't think so. I think where you will find big things. Was yesterday. Or the day before. Was he was going to look into the banking records. He wants to see all of Epstein's transactions. And who was sending money where, et cetera, et cetera.

That's where you're going to start seeing some names. If they go into the banking records.

I mean, look what happened -- what was the bank? Was it J.P. Morning Chase, that was Epstein's bank?

I can't remember. I hate to say that. Because it may not be. Will you look that up real quick?

You know, they went into the banking records, and then, you know, there were lawsuits about that. And then all of a sudden, just kind of went away. I don't even what happened with that. Hmm. What?

You're banking. Huh?

JASON: JPMorgan and Deutsche.

GLENN: Yeah. And I think that's where you're going to find stuff. That's where the bodies will be find. Because the banking records will be the banking records, and you won't get rid of those.