RADIOOctober 04, 2023

Pelosi’s Head of Security Likely PERJURED Himself With Jan 6 LIE | Blaze Media EXCLUSIVE

How much of the January 6th "evidence" that our justice system used to convict Americans has been a lie? Investigative reporter Steve Baker has done a year-long deep dive into the CCTV footage and REAL facts of Jan. 6 and has released his first report with Blaze Media. Baker joins Glenn to reveal the evidence that former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's head of security, U.S. Capitol Police Special Agent David Lazarus, gave false testimony about his whereabouts during a key encounter with members of the Oath Keepers. If this false testimony led to the imprisonment of Americans, what else have we been lied to about?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Steve baker has been on the program, a few times. And he is a -- an investigative reporter, that has been doing some work and it's now exposed on TheBlaze.com.

He has been working on the January 6th puzzle for a while now. And his efforts had been frustrated, over and over again, by the politics in Washington when he's just trying to find the truth.

The story that has just been released this morning.

Did Pelosi's security chief perjure himself in the Oath Keeper's trial? Has wide, wide consequences.

Welcome, Steve. How are you?

STEVE: Glenn, I am living proof, that a man can live on coffee alone.

GLENN: You started this a year ago, today.

STEVE: It was one year ago, yesterday.

October 3rd. During the oath keeper's trial. Was the first cent that there was something wrong.

Something happened in the trial. First thing that morning. When the lead prosecuting attorney, Jeffrey Nessler, assistant U.S. attorney, approached the lectern and the bench. And said to Judge Mehta, we have a problem. He said, we have a rogue attorney that is about to release some FBI 302s. These are interviews of one of the characters in this story, that we release this morning. And that if he does that, this is going to -- these are sealed documents, that are not publicly available, and we can't have that. And Judge Mehta did something, that I've never seen before.

And I don't know anyone in the media room where I was sitting in, had ever seen this before.

He actually directed the media pool, to put out a tweet, and threaten this particular attorney and let him know, that if he released those sealed documents, we would have him held in contempt of court.

And right then, I went, what are in those documents?

GLENN: So what was in those documents?

STEVE: They're still sealed. But I will tell you, the documents themselves were actually the FBI interviews of one of these Capitol police officers. And the primary problem that the government has with those documents, is that the testimony was changed. His testimony about his interaction with the Oath Keepers. Which in the first testimony, he revealed to be a positive interaction. That the Oath Keepers were lined up between him. And the more agitated protesters.

And assisted him in keeping them off of him.

And helping him de-escalate.

That was in May of '21, that interview.

In August of '21, this officer was brought back in, and the testimony was changed into an aggravated, contentious event with the Oath Keepers.

And as well as the creation of a second event, to explain the first FBI interview that never happened.

GLENN: So it is amazing to me.

Reading your story, it is so well laid out. However, what makes this different. It's not he said/she said. Or he said/he said.

It's because you had permission to go into the 14,000 hours, of videotape. You knew what you were looking for.

Right?

And in the story, you knew what time it even happened. Because the testimony was gunshots. You know, gunfire.

And so that marked it, at a certain time, when they -- they shot an innocent.

So tell me about what you found.

What the story was in the -- the testimony. And then what you found in the tape.

STEVE: Well, the story in the testimony from special agent. Now, this is Capitol Police special agent David Lazarus.

Is that when he heard the gunshots, at 243, 244, broadcasted over the radio, that shots had been fired.

That he was down in the tunnels, escorting senators from the Rayburn Building to the other Senate office buildings. And that's quite a long distance away from the House chamber, where allegedly these shots were fired. He said, at that moment, at 244, he began turning around and heading back. Well, because we knew what to look for, we immediately went there and we started working our way backwards.

And we found him in the tunnels, at that time.

The problem with it, is that when he emerged from the Senate building tunnels, and the subway system below the Capitol.

And, by the way, Glenn, these were videos that were never released to the defense attorneys in this trial.

GLENN: If we were living in normal times, the people that had been convicted, with any of the testimony, in -- revolving around these guys, they would be released. Any other time in American history, they would be released.

Because this is perjury. And somebody set this up. Somebody.

STEVE: And we're working on that trail as well.

GLENN: Good.

STEVE: But going back to Lazarus, so he emerges. And comes back into camera frames, on the Capitol TVs with absolute proof of the exact time, down to the second, of when he emerged back in the camera.

He even passes under an analogue clock in the subway, at exactly this moment.

And it's at 2:48 p.m.

When he finally reaches the other side of the tunnels from the Senate office buildings. And when that happens, the oath keeper Officer Dunn encounter is almost already over by then.

He's nowhere near it. And he still has a long way to go. And then we were able to triangulate. Because he will go out of camera frame for a while. Then he'll enter camera frame again from another camera.

And then he's down another hall. And then he enters another hallway. Then he goes up on the Senate side. Then by the time he reaches the bottom of the stairs, that lead up to the rotunda, and it's in a little area, variously called the mini rotunda or the Speaker's lobby. When he reaches the bottom of those stairs, it's now 2:56:45 p.m. and the Oath Keepers are long gone.

GLENN: Okay. So now, let me give you the exact verbiage from the testimony in the court case.

Lazarus, the guy you've just been talking about -- explained that one rioter asked, who are you? Who are you? Then according to the trial testimony, he testified. And, you know, one attempted to. I mean, I had my lanyard on, with my ID on it. And, one, they were videotaping, and one attempted to pull at my ID. And I kind of grabbed it back, and looked to make sure it was still there. And then I saw an opening.

So there's just kind of like -- I walked fast, to get into the office. And check on the staff again.

He then detailed description of what took place. What Lazarus described, as a very antagonistic in three or four times, that he passed by these Oath Keepers. Every time I interacted or came by, yes, it was very antagonistic. He said this under oath.

When he was then shown in court, a -- a video clip of four Oath Keepers, standing in front of Dunn, Lazarus was asked, are these the individuals you observed?

Yes. Yes.

At any point in these three or four interactions, in this space, at you observe any sort of anything, but antagonistic conversation?

No that's correct.

Here's the problem: They were already out of the building. At the time we know, them on camera, we have the videotape.

The Oath Keepers had been gone for almost ten minutes.

STEVE: It was not quite ten minutes. But when you're in the Capitol video room, viewing this.

We can put multiple cameras on the screen, at the same time. And then we hit one button, and it synced all those cameras to the exact time line. So we're able to watch Lazarus moving through the building in one quadrant of the screen. Then we can watch when the Oath Keepers leave. So as the Oath Keepers leave, and they're walking out through the Rotunda, about to exit through the Columbus doors on the east side.

It wasn't until that moment, that finally Lazarus reaches that area, where in great detail in the trial. And we have the trial transcripts, obviously.

In great detail, he describes what he saw. It just did not happen.

GLENN: So this was a -- an important part of the trial, right?

STEVE: It was a huge part of the trial. Because the one thing that the government was absolutely intent upon doing, was not allowing anything that could be exculpatory. Or anything that pointed the Oath Keepers in a positive light. And this wasn't the only positive interaction that Oath Keepers had with law enforcement that day.

You've interviewed Lieutenant Tarik Johnson. Lieutenant Tarik Johnson, used two Oath Keepers. Literally recruited them to help rescue another 16 officers out of a dangerous situation.

GLENN: Right. Right.

STEVE: That was never allowed in the trial.

GLENN: So and I learned something from the article. Let me see if I can find it here.

I had no idea. Oath Keepers. Seditious.

Blah, blah. Federal prosecutors claimed, while they were inside the Capitol, members of the group were involved in contentious interaction.

I don't know where it is now. But you talk about the Oath Keepers. How they've never -- they've never had to hear.

Thirty-five thousand due's paying members, had more than a decade's worth of spotless record, providing disaster relief and security during riots and other large events.

They have never once been accused or charged with a crime. In thousands of operations.

I had no idea.

STEVE: One of the things that the government could not do in that trial. They could not counter that little piece of information. And, of course, it didn't matter in front of a DC jury.

The DC jury, it was fait accompli, for day one and in terms of what the outcome of that trial was going to be.

But one of the things that the defense did successfully present is the fact that in years and years and years of disaster relief operations, security details, and all kinds of -- other times when they actually went and were recruited and hired by minority businesses, like in Ferguson.

Like in Louisville, Kentucky. And those rights. Where they were recruited by minority businesses. To come help us to protect our businesses.

The defense was rather able to show some of those videos.

But the one thing that the government could not prove. That at any time, since 2009, when the Oath Keepers were founded, that there had ever been a single time where an Oath Keeper had committed violence in any of those operations, or ever had committed a crime. Or any charges had ever been filed.

GLENN: And when you think of the Oath Keepers.

You think, oh, they're just really bad.

Isn't that remarkable? How that has been portrayed and carried by the press?

Okay. So there's obviously some sort of conspiracy here.

Because these guys, they don't -- they're both saying the same story.

But it seems to switch, where one is saying, no. I saw them at the top of the stairs.

And the other guy is saying, no. I saw them at the top of the stairs.

They couldn't even get their story right.

STEVE: Yeah. It's inexplicable, that the editor of Harry Dunn's forthcoming book did not check the trial transcripts. Because when Lazarus -- special agent. Nancy Pelosi's head of security. Tells his version of events. He says, when he runs to the top of the stairs, that he sees this large, imposing figure.

Because Dunn is six-seven. Three hundred pounds, plus all the gear he had on. And he sees this large opposing -- imposing figure in a contentious -- yeah. Moment with these Oath Keepers that were giving him the business. All right?

And that's his testimony. In Dunn's book, he explains, that when he ran to the top of that stairs and reached that stairwell landing at the top, that Lazarus was already there.

And he was being confronted by protesters.

GLENN: Okay. So the questions that we need to ask, and what this actually means. I'm afraid. Stu was talking about it this morning. That at any other time. Any other time, in American history, this case would be thrown out now.

They would -- they would file a charge. Got to throw this case out.

And it would be done. And people would care.

I'm not sure people care. I mean, that's where our justice system is.

It only moves because somebody says something. Somebody -- the American people just won't take it.

I wonder what the -- I wonder what the real fallout of this will be. And you probably have a good idea.

GLENN: Okay. What is next in this?

And I know you talked to people in Congress. But is this going to move anything in DC?

STEVE: I can tell you, that not only working with weaponization committee investigators on this story, as well as the high-ranking staffers, I can't get into specific on the record details.

That there will be talks about hearings. And we know what hearings result in. Far too often.

GLENN: Yeah.

STEVE: But there has to be something next.

Because, Glenn, this is -- this is literally an existential threat to our republic. What is taking place, in our courts right now. In DC.

GLENN: This is our government not getting it wrong.

This is our government setting American citizens up. Withholding evidence, that is exculpatory.

Sentencing them to long sentences.

And apparently, several people are involved in this.

This is -- this is as bad as it gets.

STEVE: Even in one of the specific Oath Keeper's cases, during his sentencing hearing. This is the Oath Keeper, Ken Harrelson, who you can see in video, holding the crowd back from Officer Dunn. He literally has his hands extended, and he's holding them back. As they were agitating and trying to get it done.

And there's four Oath Keepers lined up, with their backs turned to Dunn. He's at the top of the stairwell, holding an M4 rifle. And these guys are holding them back.

And -- and his case, particularly, Judge Mehta and his sentencing hearing, actually said these words.

Mr. Harrelson, I do not believe you're the man that the government has made you out to be. If I could speak to Mehta right now -- Judge Mehta, I would tell them, now we know that he is not the man who the government made him out to be. And you need to send him home.

GLENN: Have you talked to their attorneys yet? The Oath Keepers?

STEVE: I talk to them every day.

GLENN: And now that this is out and you're able to prove this, are they going to move?

STEVE: Obviously, they're in transition from their trial representation to their different legal teams. That will be representing them in appeal.

GLENN: Right.

STEVE: But these guys are -- are --

GLENN: Hot.

STEVE: They're hot. And, of course, they -- they -- they all know how this was set up. And this is where the next part of this story is going. Is that, look, we know -- we know that there was the equivalent of a star chamber set up, like, how will we get these guys?

And we see the process and the pattern of events of how they led to that, as well as here. Absolute proof of the creation and manipulation of testimony. And of something that never happened. And presented in that trial.

GLENN: This story, is a year's worth of a man's life.

You must read it by Steve Baker. Did Pelosi's Security Chief perjure himself in the Oath Keeper's trial. It's only part one of a series, that Steve is working on.

And you'll find it from Blaze Media, at TheBlaze.com.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

Max Lucado & Glenn Beck: Finding unity in faith

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

Watch Glenn Beck's FULL Interview with Max Lucado HERE

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

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

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

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

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

BILL: Family okay? All of that?

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

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

GLENN: It is.

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

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

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

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

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

Ultra dangerous.

And a few hours later, Charlie Kirk is assassinated.

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

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

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

People create around their own lives.

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

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

He decided that he wanted to do that.

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

GLENN: Yes, he was.

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

That's what Charlie Kirk did.

And he lost his life.

By doing it!

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

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

But it really isn't.

And this is the ongoing story.

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

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

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

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

GLENN: He is.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And then you have the big Jesus revolution after that.

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

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

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

And you're never going to get them back.

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

Let's run it down.

The corporate media is finished.

In America. It's over.

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

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

And the hate is the key word.

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

I will do it GE today. With major Garrett.

GLENN: Wow.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me ask you about --

BILL: When am I wrong?

When am I wrong?

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Yeah, okay.

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

BILL: Yeah.

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

So --

GLENN: You think that they could.

BILL: 60 Minutes used to be the gold standard.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

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

GLENN: I don't either.

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

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

They never, ever watched network television.

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

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

They don't watch --

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

GLENN: Yeah. Right.

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

Same voices, with huge followings.

Huge!

All right?

We couldn't get on there.

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

GLENN: I know.

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

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

BILL: Yes, it was his defiance.

GLENN: Yes.

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

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

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

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

GLENN: Why?

BILL: Because Putin would use nuclear weapon.

He wouldn't. He's a psychopath.

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

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

GLENN: I'll be there. What time?

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The difference between debate and celebrating death

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

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

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

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

Is every -- is every speech controversy the same?

The answer to that is clearly no.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No! They're not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now, compare that to France in 1793.

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

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

Washington -- no. It wasn't.

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

They wanted blood. They wanted heads to roll.

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

Then they turned around on that one pretty quickly.

Think of Rome.

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

The mob started cheering assassinations.

They rejoiced that enemies were slaughtered.

They were being fed to the lions.

And the republic fell into empire.

And liberty was lost!

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

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

Yes! Yes, it is.

Because that is speech this pursuit of truth.

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

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

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

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

Or that woman.

I know, that's not an enlightening mind.

Somebody who delights in political murder.

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

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

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

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

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

And I believe we still have a moral compass.

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

Neither one of them should go to jail.

Neither should be silenced by the state.

But does trust survive both?

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

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

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

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

Yes.

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

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

Except here. I think it is easy.

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

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

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

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

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

You know, our Founders gave us liberty.

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

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

Liberty without virtue is suicide!

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

Which do you want to defend?

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

Which one?

Could passengers have SAVED Iryna Zarutska?

Surveillance footage of the murder of Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska in Charlotte, NC, reveals that the other passengers on the train took a long time to help her. Glenn, Stu, and Jason debate whether they were right or wrong to do so.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: You know, I'm -- I'm torn on how I feel about the people on the train.

Because my first instinct is, they did nothing! They did nothing! Then my -- well, sit down and, you know -- you know, you're going to be judged. So be careful on judging others.

What would I have done? What would I want my wife to do in that situation?

STU: Yeah. Are those two different questions, by the way.

GLENN: Yeah, they are.

STU: I think they go far apart from each other. What would I want myself to do. I mean, it's tough to put yourself in a situation. It's very easy to watch a video on the internet and talk about your heroism. Everybody can do that very easily on Twitter. And everybody is.

You know, when you're in a vehicle that doesn't have an exit with a guy who just murdered somebody in front of you, and has a dripping blood off of a knife that's standing 10 feet away from you, 15 feet away from you.

There's probably a different standard there, that we should all kind of consider. And maybe give a little grace to what I saw at least was a woman, sitting across the -- the -- the aisle.

I think there is a difference there. But when you talk about that question. Those two questions are definitive.

You know, I know what I would want myself to do. I would hope I would act in a way that didn't completely embarrass myself afterward.

But I also think, when I'm thinking of my wife. My advice to my wife would not be to jump into the middle of that situation at all costs. She might do that anyway. She actually is a heck of a lot stronger than I am.

But she might do it anyway.

GLENN: How pathetic, but how true.

STU: Yes. But that would not be my advice to her.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: Now, maybe once the guy has certainly -- is out of the area. And you don't think the moment you step into that situation. He will turn around and kill you too. Then, of course, obviously. Anything you can do to step in.

Not that there was much anyone on the train could do.

I mean, I don't think there was an outcome change, no matter what anyone on that train did.

Unfortunately.

But would I want her to step in?

Of course. If she felt she was safe, yes.

Think about, you said, your wife. Think about your daughter. Your daughter is on that train, just watching someone else getting murdered like that. Would you advise your daughter to jump into a situation like that?

That girl sitting across the aisle was somebody's daughter. I don't know, man.

JASON: I would. You know, as a dad, would I advise.

Hmm. No.

As a human being, would I hope that my daughter or my wife or that I would get up and at least comfort that woman while she's dying on the floor of a train?

Yeah.

I would hope that my daughter, my son, that I would -- and, you know, I have more confidence in my son or daughter or my wife doing something courageous more than I would.

But, you know, I think I have a more realistic picture of myself than anybody else.

And I'm not sure that -- I'm not sure what I would do in that situation. I know what I would hope I would do. But I also know what I fear I would do. But I would have hoped that I would have gotten up and at least tried to help her. You know, help her up off the floor. At least be there with her, as she's seeing her life, you know, spill out in under a minute.

And that's it other thing we have to keep in mind. This all happened so rapidly.

A minute is -- will seem like a very long period of time in that situation. But it's a very short period of time in real life.

STU: Yeah. You watch the video, Glenn. You know, I don't need the video to -- to change my -- my position on this.

But at his seem like there was a -- someone who did get there, eventually, to help, right? I saw someone seemingly trying to put pressure on her neck.

GLENN: Yeah. And tried to give her CPR.

STU: You know, no hope at that point. How long of a time period would you say that was?

Do you know off the top of your head?

GLENN: I don't know. I don't know. I know that we watched the video that I saw. I haven't seen past 30 seconds after she --

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: -- is down. And, you know, for 30 seconds nothing is happening. You know, that is -- that is not a very long period of time.

STU: Right.

GLENN: In reality.

STU: And especially, I saw the pace he was walking. He certainly can't be -- you know, he may have left the actual train car by 30 seconds to a minute. But he wasn't that far away. Like he was still in visual.

He could still turn around and look and see what's going on at that point. So certainly still a threat is my point. He has not, like, left the area. This is not that type of situation.

You know, I -- look, as you point out, I think if I could be super duper sexist for a moment here, sort of my dividing line might just be men and women.

You know, I don't know if it's that a -- you're not supposed to say that, I suppose these days. But, like, there is a difference there. If I'm a man, you know, I would be -- I would want my son to jump in on that, I suppose. I don't know if he could do anything about it. But you would expect at least a grown man to be able to go in there and do something about it. A woman, you know, I don't know.

Maybe I'm -- I hope --

GLENN: Here's the thing I -- here's the thing that I -- that causes me to say, no. You should have jumped in.

And that is, you know, you've already killed one person on the train. So you've proven that you're a killer. And anybody who would have screamed and got up and was with her, she's dying. She's dying. Get him. Get him.

Then the whole train is responsible for stopping that guy. You know. And if you don't stop him, after he's killed one person, if you're not all as members of that train, if you're not stopping him, you know, the person at the side of that girl would be the least likely to be killed. It would be the ones that are standing you up and trying to stop him from getting back to your daughter or your wife or you.

JASON: There was a -- speaking of men and women and their roles in this. There was a video circling social media yesterday. In Sweden. There was a group of officials up on a stage. And one of the main. I think it was health official woman collapses on stage. Completely passes out.

All the men kind of look away. Or I don't know if they're looking away. Or pretending that they didn't know what was going on. There was another woman standing directly behind the woman passed out.

Immediately springs into action. Jumps on top. Grabs her pant leg. Grabs her shoulder. Spins her over and starts providing care.

What did she have that the other guys did not? Or women?

She was a sheepdog. There is a -- this is my issue. And I completely agree with Stu. I completely agree with you. There's some people that do not respond this way. My issue is the proportion of sheepdogs versus people that don't really know how to act. That is diminishing in western society. And American society.

We see it all the time in these critical actions. I mean, circumstances.

There are men and women, and it's actually a meme. That fantasize about hoards of people coming to attack their home and family. And they sit there and say, I've got it. You guys go. I'm staying behind, while I smoke my cigarette and wait for the hoards to come, because I will sacrifice myself. There are men and women that fantasize of block my highway. Go ahead. Block my highway. I'm going to do something about it. They fantasize about someone holding up -- not a liquor store. A convenience store or something. Because they will step in and do something. My issue now is that proportion of sheepdogs in society is disappearing. Just on statistical fact, there should be one within that train car, and there were none.

STU: Yeah. I mean --

JASON: They did not respond.

STU: We see what happens when they do, with Daniel Penny. Our society tries to vilify them and crush their existence. Now, there weren't that many people on that train. Right?

At least on that car. At least it's limited. I only saw three or four people there, there may have been more. I agree with you, though. Like, you see what happens when we actually do have a really recent example of someone doing exactly what Jason wants and what I would want a guy to do. Especially a marine to step up and stop this from happening. And the man was dragged by our legal system to a position where he nearly had to spend the rest of his life in prison.

I mean, I -- it's insanity. Thankfully, they came to their senses on that one.

GLENN: Well, the difference between that one and this one though is that the guy was threatening. This one, he killed somebody.

STU: Yeah. Right. Well, but -- I think -- but it's the opposite way. The debate with Penny, was should he have recognize that had this person might have just been crazy and not done anything?

Maybe. He hadn't actually acted yet. He was just saying things.

GLENN: Yeah. Well --

STU: He didn't wind up stabbing someone. This is a situation where these people have already seen what this man will do to you, even when you don't do anything to try to stop him. So if this woman, who is, again, looks to be an average American woman.

Across the aisle. Steps in and tries to do something. This guy could easily turn around and just make another pile of dead bodies next to the one that already exists.

And, you know, whether that is an optimal solution for our society, I don't know that that's helpful.

In that situation.