RADIOJune 23, 2022

NYC gun laws CHALLENGED after 'GREAT' Supreme Court ruling

It’s a great day for the Constitution. Why? Because the 6-3 Supreme Court decision announced today should OVERTURN a New York City law that severely restricts concealed carry rights. Legal expert Josh Hammer joins Glenn to discuss what he says is a ‘career-defining’ majority decision by Clarence Thomas, what the ruling means for gun rights throughout America moving forward, and how this decision will ‘suck the wind’ out of the Republicans who supported the Senate’s current gun restrictions bill…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: The huge gun case up in New York, where I couldn't get a gun in New York. I had 15 active threats. I had Gavin de Becker and associates. Which were -- they were probably the best security detail in the country. In the world, really.

And they were following these threats. You know, my kids were looking at pursuer lists on our refrigerator. If these people approached. Go run. Get mom or dad.

I mean, it was really bad. And I couldn't get a gun. In New York City. Because they deemed that I didn't have enough cause. To have a gun.

That's been thrown out now. So tell me what they've done. What does this mean for New York? And the rest of the country?

JOSH: So it's a fantastic ruling. Look, I've not had the chance to pore through it. Looks like they have a Justice Thomas majority opinion, clocked in at 63 pages. You know, including concurrences and dissents, we're up to 130. One hundred 40 pages. So I have my reading cut out for me, for the rest of the day.

But based on my quick skimming of it, this is a thoroughly well-researched. I might even say, thus far, career-defining majority opinion. From Justice Clarence Thomas. I was thinking about this recently.

It's unclear to me, today, or at least before today. Whether Clarence Thomas has a career-defining majority opinion. He's written so prolifically for so long, but most of his greatest writings, especially on the hard-hitting cases. Have been in concurrence. Or more often than not, oftentimes in defense. I think in another gun case in 2008, (inaudible) versus Heller had his landmark career-defining opinion. And at least until affirmative action I predict is likely overturned next term. You can get that if you want to. At least until that day where I predict Thomas will also have the majority opinion. This is his career-defining opinion.

This is an issue that is very near and dear to Justice Thomas. He wrote an amazing concurrence in the courts, last major Second Amendment case. McDonald versus the city of Chicago case in 2010, where you had a magisterial 55 to 60-page concurrence. Just working through the history. This issue was very near and dear to him. He's a personal gun owner. He enjoys hunting. And from what I can tell, it's just a really thoroughly well-researched opinion, that reaches the clear and obvious result, that anyone with any degree of familiarity with the Second Amendment text could tell you. Which is that this is a right.

And the very act of talking about burying arms. Not just keening them. But the burying them obviously entails the ability to do so, outside the home, without oppressive restrictions. The likes of which, again, it sounds like you face in my home state. In my home state of New York. The point that Justice Kavanaugh makes in his very brief concurring opinion. He kind of drives down this point, which is, the vast majority of states, which have so-called shall issue regimes for their gun licensing permits. Which means that you have to give the applicants a permit, as long as they go through X, Y Z tests. You know, they shoot the right number of targets. The permit years ago. Those laws are all untouched. The only laws that are jeopardized by today's decision are the more problematic, quote, unquote, may issue laws. Not the shall issue laws, where they basically give the licensing authorities a ton of discretion to arbitrarily decide, where you have to show that you truly, truly -- whatever the heck that means. But, and then, the fact that --

GLENN: Yeah. It's nuts.

JOSH: Go ahead.

GLENN: So I want to ask you, doesn't this make the Senate gun bill a joke? I mean, that will have no teeth to it, after this ruling. Would it?

JOSH: Yes and no.

It's real interesting. I have tracked a lot of the commentary over the next 24 to 48 hours. Next week is a focus on this exact question, right? So in theory, they are different issues. The ruling here today is talking about concealed carry, and open carry regimes in the states. The Senate gun bill is in theory focused on other measures. It's focused on things like red flag laws. But it is a little intellectually inconsistent. Or at least at a bear bare minimum. It would be a little peculiar, right? To have the liberalize. I say that in a good way. A more liberalized concealed carry licensing regime, while at the same time, having a red flag law, in place that would just infringe upon due process rights, willy-nilly. Those two things would seem to be intentioned with one another. At a bare minimum, the timing of this opinion --

GLENN: But it's not the same.

JOSH: It really kind of sucks the wind out of John Cornyn and the other 13-Senate Republicans' momentum. That's for sure.

GLENN: So how will this affect other states? New York, by the way, has just come out. And I'm going to talk about this in a minute. New York has already come out. And said, it's not going to change anything. We're not going to abide by this. Which is ironic, because that's what the Second Amendment is for. To stop an out-of-control, lawless government, doing what they want. And not abiding by the Constitution. I just want to point that out.

JOSH: Well, that's wild. I have not seen that. But that's just wild stuff, that they said that bluntly here. Hook, the entire idea behind the incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Which in itself is a legally debatable matter, I should say. But they have held. The court has held that the overwhelming majority of enumerated rights, in developed rights, including the Second Amendment. By the way. That's the McDonald versus Chicago case in 2010. The court has held that these rights are incorporated against the states. Which, you know, to escape the legalese for a minute, means that a state cannot infringe on these rights. The federal government already cannot. But a state cannot as well. So this case is right out of New York State. If New York State wants to go flip two middle fingers at the court, when they themselves are a party to the lawsuit. Look, parties to the lawsuit aren't balanced.

GLENN: Well, let me -- let me read impala what governor Kathy Hochul said. She said, it's outrageous that in a moment of national reckoning on gun violence. The Supreme Court has recklessly struck down a New York law that limits those that can carry concealed weapons. By the way, I don't know if she knows this. But Buffalo is in New York.

So her law didn't do anything. In response to this ruling, we are reviewing our options, including calling a special session of the legislature. Just as we swiftly passed nation leading gun reform legislation. We will continue to do everything we can in our power, to keep New Yorkers safe from gun violence. So she didn't say, we're not going to do it. She said, we're just not going to find a way around it.

JOSH: Right. I mean, that statement is about what I would expect from a left-wing hack like the governor of New York State. We'll see what they try to do. I mean, they'll try to pass some law. Meaning, they will try to issue something administrative. Inevitably both find themselves, in court again.

And, you know, with the occurring composition of the court. If that ultimately makes its way up to the Supreme Court itself, you have to like the odds of the side of gun rights. The reality is, if I have the number correctly, I think it's 43 of the current states in the country. If I recall the number from the Kavanaugh concurring opinion today. Forty-three of the states are either, quote, unquote, shall issue states. Or just straight up constitutional county states. They simply do not need a license to exercise a right to give them their arms outside the home. So we should note that this opinion did not actually apply to the vast majority of states. We're only talking here about the blue states such as New York State. And look, I mean, cynically speaking. Someone born in New York, and fled many years ago. If it is oppressive laws like this. That incentivizes more people, to flee blue state tyranny or red state freedom. Far be it from me to criticize people to do so. The statement that you read, Glenn, I would expect them to say something along those lines.

GLENN: All right. We're going to -- if you don't mind holding for just a minute. I will do a commercial and come back. And I just want to ask you, if you looked at any of the others. Is there any that you think is a really good sign, on where things are headed. Just some of the other decisions, that came out today from the Supreme Court. Back with Josh Hammer in a minute.

JEFFY: American Financing. NMLS 182334. Www.NMLSconsumeraccess.org.

GLENN: So listen, right now, it is so imperative, that we are very frugal with our money. We are moving closer and closer to the brink of a recession. I know you listen to the president.

He's -- he's honestly, batcrap crazy on this. I mean, you know. And, honestly, if you voted for the guy, even you know it. We're not -- there's no recession. We're in a transition -- we're in a transitional period. Yeah. So was the Great Depression. I don't even know what a transitional period means.

But we're headed for a recession. The major banks came out yesterday, and said it. The fed said it. And the fed also said, by the way, this is not a Putin gas tax. Just taking them apart. But yet, he's living in a delusional world. I want you to make sure that you are prepared with your financing to do the best that you can to save every penny. American Financing can help you do this. By paying off high-interest debt. To shortening the loan terms. You can access cash from your equity. There's so many possibilities right now. And many of them will save you hundreds, not $1,000 a month. Just by calling American Financing. And seeing your options. You will feel better. Call American Financing now. At 800-906-2440. 800-906-2440. Or AmericanFinancing.net. Ten-second station ID.
(music)
So my producers are freaking out. Because they want to make sure that I clarify something here. That I just said.

Historically, the reason why the Second Amendment exists, is not for hunting.

Not a sport. I want to go shoot Clay pigeons. Okay. That's not what it was about. Otherwise, you might be able to find, like bowling in the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

It's not about a sport. It's about protecting yourself. And protecting your community against an out-of-control rogue government. That's what it's about. So I just find it ironic. That if they're like, we're not going to obey Biden's rule. That's what the Second Amendment. That's what the Founders were talking about. As somebody that just decided --

STU: As you just read that statement. That's not exactly what's happening. You're not exactly calling for a Civil War against Albany. Are you? I want to make sure here.

GLENN: Oh, my God. No. No.

STU: Because you were talking about this was the motivation at the time. You have to follow these traditions and these rules. But this is a much, much different case here, as we're talking about it now. As a statement from a --

GLENN: Anyway, I'm just talking about how ironic it is, that that's what the Founders, you know, said, that that's really important.

Because if they're -- as George Washington said. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.

And, you know, part of that, is being able to question them. To speak out. To have a free press, to assemble. And also, to own a gun.

Anyway, josh, anything else that -- that you see, that came out today, that you think is -- is good news in a -- in a far-reaching way?

JOSH: Well, first of all, let me chime in briefly on the conversation that you and Stu were just having. I obviously could not agree with you guys more on the philosophical underpinning of the Second Amendment. Glenn, I know that you all. You will uniquely appreciate this. Just because I know how much you care about this issue. You know, I'm Jewish obviously.

I keep it on my desk at all times. A rock that a rabbi gave to me years ago, that he smuggled out of the crematorium at Auschwitz. And I keep next to that rock.

A rock that I myself took from Treblinka. And then across my room, I have my -- you know, my game of defense AR, with lots of ammunition.

And mags and all that. And to me, I refer to that, as to my friends. As my Warsaw ghetto gun. So no one understands the philosophical underpinning of the Second Amendment more than I do. So I just want to echo your sentiments on that.

GLENN: Okay.

And, you know, the Germans gave -- the Germans gave all of the information of where their guns were, to the Weimar Republic. You give it in gun faith. Because the Weimar Republic said, oh, we'll never use this. Well, then the Nazis came in, and guess who took all the information. And knew where all the guns were. That's why you just don't do these things. But, anyway, go ahead.

JOSH: Exactly. Shifting a little bit, as far as the other cases that came across today. There's an Eighth Amendment case about an execution that I have not had a chance to review yet. A state in Georgia called Nancy Ward. Long story short. All sorts of activist litigation for many years now, where the ACLU, groups like that, will sue -- and they have the effect of the incrementally outlawing or seeking to outlaw various forms of execution, which you have to look harder and harder to find the right cocktail. A very pernicious people passed it with the obvious, not so subtle end goal of trying to re-abolish the death penalty in America.

It looks like the wrong side won today. But I -- a glimmer of hope, though, I see that Justice Barrett actually filed a dissenting opinion in that case. Even though Kavanaugh defected, it's good to see that Justice Barrett is on the right side of this Eighth Amendment issue.

Another case that I've not fully had the chance to break down. It's out of the fourth circuit. It's a case in North Carolina. They basically -- it's a case called Berger versus North Carolina state conference of the NAACP. The court rules, and it's notable. Because it's an 8-1 ruling. An 8-1 ruling. They ruled that Republican state lawmakers in North Carolina are able to intervene to defend their state's voter ID law. That the NAACP challenged. So the procedural posture there, it's not a substantive claim. It's more a procedural claim. The reason why I want to bring it to your listeners. I think it's worth discussing a little bit. Is because it's an 8-1 opinion. The only person who dissented here is preemptively speaking, Sotomayor. And that's a real read into the U.S. Court of Appeals for the fourth circuit. The lower court that heard this. When you, again, reverse won by the court. When Sotomayor sort of disagreed. And it really paints a stark picture as to how much the Obama presidency, changed the Fourth Circuit amongst the other circuits. We do really have a long road ahead of us, to get the lower court in order unfortunately. This case did come out the right way.

GLENN: Josh. Josh, thank you so much. This is Josh Hammer. He'll be joining us tomorrow. More rulings are coming out tomorrow.

And we're coming close to really big ones.

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