RADIOOctober 17, 2024

The REAL reason Kamala Harris agreed to the Fox News interview

Vice President Kamala Harris recently sat down for an interview with Fox News host Bret Baier. At first glance, it seems like Harris was unprepared and defensive. So, why would she agree to this interview?! Glenn has a theory: There was one specific answer that Harris gave that, in her eyes, could have made the rest of this disastrous interview worth it. So, did she get what she wanted? Glenn also reviews how Harris’ campaign team cut the interview way shorter than it should have been (apparently, Fox News had originally agreed to an hour-long interview). Plus, Glenn reveals the answer he would have given Harris’ team if they had waved their arms at him to cut the conversation off.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Oh. Wow! Was that interesting.

The Fox news Kamala Harris debate is -- was bizarre.

STU: And it was not a debate.

GLENN: Yeah. Not a debate.

STU: An interview. It did at times feel like a debate. There was a lot of talking over each other.

GLENN: A lot of anger.

STU: There was a lot of filibustering going on.

GLENN: Yeah. So let me just tell you what happened with Bret Baier. He was promised an hour with Kamala. And then they called, I think yesterday. Maybe the day before. And said, it's only going to be a half an hour. And then they got a call when the half-hour is supposed to start. We will be about 15 minutes late.

Now, there's no reason. What was more important for her to do?

Okay?

Is there something else that she was doing that was like more important than the Fox news interview?

I can't think of one.

STU: I mean, if I were one of her aides, though, I would be popping the tire to make her late.

GLENN: Right. It was all planned. Oh, absolutely, it was all planned. And she was part of it.

STU: Why do you think that?

GLENN: Because they needed to throw Brett off. Now, they walked in, just at the time. Because it was supposed to be live to tape. Not live.

Live to tape. So they could not have time to reset during commercials.

STU: Yeah. And people don't always understand that terminology. But that's just basically, it's a live interview. It's just recorded and then you play the whole thing back as is. There's no edits, things like that.

GLENN: No edits. So it's live to tape. And it was recorded right before the show. So you need time to take that recording. It's not like the old days where you take the tape.

Okay? You have to ingest it into the right -- I don't even know. The right system to be able to play it back. Okay?

And that takes time, because it's rendering. So they were at the point to where, we're not going to be able to render this fast enough.

If she doesn't show up in like the next two minutes.

That's when she shows up. So they knew exactly what they were doing.

She shows up.

And now Brett is having to edit all the questions that he had.

I mean, it takes time to put an interview together.

So he has to edit. Now, which ones do I do?

Because I won't have time. He knows also, that they say, she only has 20 minutes. So now they cut an hour to a half an hour. And then down to 20 minutes, and he's flustered. Okay?

So they're trying to get him to be completely flustered. He's not. He does a great professional job.

However, this is why they did this. He has to be aggressive. Because she filibusters.

And I've done -- I've done interviews with Donald Trump before. Where you just can't get a word in edge-wise. Twenty minutes, I can ask him one to two questions, and you're just not going to get anything. If he doesn't want to give you anything, or if he's excited about one thing, he's just going to go. And you cannot shoe horn your way in.

It's why, if you listen to my interviews with Donald Trump, you always hear me go, yeah, but.

And I'm doing that, not to interrupt him. But to signal to him. We have to move on to the next thing. Okay. Pragmatism and you can do that in person, but not over the phone.

You have to make that sound, so he knows. Yeah. I have another question for you.

Well, she knew, he would have lots of follow-up questions.

So she was going to filibuster.

And she started hostile.

Immediately hostile.

Now, I'm going to show you. I'm going to jump to the whole reason why she did this.

Don't pay attention to anything else, that she said.

It's all really important, for you to know.

But she knows the media is in her back pocket.

She knows she has to shore up her own voters. Okay?

She's on the verge of losing the people, that will vote for her.

But they're starting to be like, you know what, she's just a limp noodle. There's nothing to her.

It's, oh, I've got a greatly indie car, with no engine or tires. That ain't going to win. All right?

So she had to speak, not to the Fox audience. She knows she won't get them. She doesn't care. We were all being used for her campaign.

For this one moment. Let me see here.

It is, I believe, cut 24.

VOICE: Test. He's talked about locking people up. Because they disagree with him.

This is a democracy. And in a democracy, the president of the United States in the United States of America, should be willing to be able to handle criticism without saying he would lock people up for doing it.

And this is what is at stake. Which is why you have someone like the former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff saying what Mark Milley has said about Donald Trump being a threat to the United States of --

GLENN: Got it? Got it?

She needed to shore up her own people. And her own people believed that Donald Trump is a threat.

And they needed to show, she's tough as nails.

She knows and she is not afraid of anybody.

And this is a democracy!

And a democracy, a president cannot act like that!

This is the most angry she got.

It really came out of nowhere.

Okay?

It came out of nowhere.

This is the moment she was looking for.

It didn't matter what the question was.

That's why she kept making it about Donald Trump.

STU: Right.

GLENN: She kept going to Donald Trump. And it wouldn't fit anywhere.

It fit right here. Do it. You watch. That's the clip that will be seen by progressives.

And those on the left.

STU: So it was sort of a scripted takedown in her mind of Trump, he's bad for -- you know, hearkens back to the approach of Biden, right?

Which was standing in front of the Revenge of the Sith wall. And yelling about how bad he is with democracy.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

Because there are those who -- she cannot lose the ones who are passionate against Donald Trump.

She has to have that rage, that they have spent eight years. Twelve years on. Okay?

They've spent all this time and money, and energy. Building that up rage.

They need to kindle that rage up here in the last few weeks. Because people are like, I don't even know if I'm going to go out and vote. He's a danger to democracy.

And I have the will to stop it!

STU: Because joy does not make you vote. Right? Like that's not how that works.

GLENN: Nope. Nope. Fear. Fear. Fear and vengeance.

STU: Especially in an election like this, in which you have basically two candidates. Donald Trump and not Donald Trump.

GLENN: Exactly right.

STU: Right?

They need to come up with -- they're realizing, that's their only source of strength.

GLENN: That's why she doesn't say what she's going to do.

She says, I'm not Joe Biden and I'm not Donald Trump.

Okay. But what are you?

You can tell who the author of this whole thing is, Barack Obama.

Barack Obama. I'm hope and change. What the hell does that even mean? We're at change.

We're going to move forward. Yes, we can.

What the hell is that?

That's not a policy.

STU: That strikes me more as similar to the joy approach. Right?

Sort of this generally positive term that doesn't mean anything.

GLENN: Because he could pull it off. Because he had that speech.

Remember? Everybody watched that speech and said, oh, man. He's great.

STU: Not everybody. But, yes.

GLENN: Everybody who watched it, went, this guy could be president of the United States.

Everybody said that. And so he was exciting. He was new. He was

He embodied change. He was the first black president. Okay?

So he could pull that off. She can't pull that off. She's angry. She's mean. Her staff doesn't like her.

She's unlikable. To have

She's unlikable. So this is just about hope and change. This is about joy and not Donald Trump. Not Joe Biden.

Not Donald Trump. Full of joy, I'll stop him!

And I'm going to give you free stuff. How?

What? What does that -- what are you doing?

Somebody who cannot articulate in an interview. All she kept saying, this is very carefully worded. Every time she tries to answer a question, it is, I will follow the law.

STU: I thought the same. What a bizarre response.

GLENN: Oh, no. Crafty. Brilliant.

STU: But in reality, it's not. Of course, you will follow -- what do you mean? Were we supposed to expect you weren't going to follow the law?

GLENN: But who is going to make the laws? Congress doesn't make the laws.

STU: Anymore. Yeah.

GLENN: Yeah, the administrative state makes the laws. So she can change the law to anything she wants.

She can go.

If she changes the Supreme Court, she can change any law she wants.

I'll follow the law.

STU: Yep. And the law will bend to whatever I want.

GLENN: Exactly right.

STU: Which, of course, is so ridiculous about this.

One of the ways she did this. And she did it several times. One of them was on transgender surgery. For prisoners.

Do we have that clip?

I think we do. Yeah. We do.

Should we listen to that clip?

GLENN: Yeah. Go ahead. Every transgender inmate in the prison system would have access --

VOICE: So are you still in support of using taxpayer dollars to help prison inmates or detained illegal aliens to transition to another gender?

KAMALA: I will follow the law. And it's a law that Donald Trump actually followed. You're probably familiar with now it's a public report.

That under Donald Trump's administration, these surgeries were available to, on a medical -- necessity basis.

To people in the federal prison system.

And I think frankly they can't be ad from the Trump campaign. Is a little bit of like throwing stones when you're living in a glass house.

VOICE: The Trump aide said that he never advocated for that prison policy. And no gender transition surgery happened.

KAMALA: Well, you have to be responsible for what happened in your administration.
It's black and white.

VOICE: So would you still advocate for using taxpayer dollars for gender reassignment surgeries?

KAMALA: I will follow the law. Just like I think Donald Trump would say he did.

VOICE: You would have a say as president.

KAMALA: Like I said, he spent $20 million on those ads. Trying to create a sense of fear in the voters. Because he actually has no plans in this election, that is about focusing on the needs of the American people.

GLENN: And saying exactly what she's going to do.

You have a say in the law. She doesn't say yes.

But that's why she's saying, I will follow the law. And the law already says. But he didn't use that.

No surgeries happened.

STU: Right.

GLENN: Will you advocate for it?

He's not advocating for that.

STU: Right. What is -- you're supposed to be the candidate of change?

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: Your answer is, I will follow the law.

What do you want the law to change to? That's what we're talking about.

The whole point of the presidential campaign. She wants to change a zillion laws. That's the whole point. What do you want the law to be?

And, by the way, that's a master class by Bret Baier there. He asked her the question. He knows where she will go with it, which is to blame Donald Trump.

He's already got her cut off at the pass. Knowing the answer. That there were no transgender surgeries. And then keeps pushing back on her. When he says, you have a say in the law.

I would have preferred they kept going.

Of course, they cut off half of the interview.

GLENN: He expressed his frustration afterwards. That I couldn't do anything.

With 20 minutes.

And you can't. With 20 minutes. And they had -- I would have made a different choice.

But I'm -- I'm -- you know, more of a renegade. He's an actual journalist. I'm not. He said, four people that were in her entourage. Four were standing off camera, behind one of the cameras, looking right at Brett. Giving him the wrap-up sign.

We have to go. It's over. Wrap it up. Wrap it up. I would have said, Ms. Vice president, you were -- you were 15 minutes late.

You've cut our interview to 20 minutes. It was supposed to be an honor. Now it's 30. And can you turn that camera around.

Will you show those White House people that are now wrapping this up? Telling me to wrap this up. Do you have something more important to do than to talk to the American people?

GLENN: All righty then.

So kind of -- kind of interesting.

What happened yesterday.

There's a lot more that we should probably get into.

Kamala, in one of the worst moments, Bret Baier brings up the murdering illegals that were let in.

Listen to this exchange. Cut 19.

VOICE: Jocelyn Nungaray. Rachel Moore. Laken Riley. They're young women who were brutally assaulted and killed by some of the men who were released at the beginning of the administration. Well before a negotiated bipartisan bill. Former president Clinton actually referred to Laken Riley Sunday, campaigning for you in Georgia. Saying, if those men had been properly vetted, Laken Riley probably wouldn't have been killed. So if -- it wouldn't have happened.

This is well before any negotiation.

This is well before Donald Trump got involved in the politics.

This is a specific policy decision by your administration to release these men into the country. So what I'm saying to you --

KAMALA: No, no, no. I think --

VOICE: Do you owe those families an apology?

KAMALA: Let me just say, first of all, those are tragic cases. There's no question about it. There's no question about it.

And I can't imagine the pain that the families of those victims have experienced.

GLENN: Now apologize. Don't think about it.

KAMALA: For a loss that shouldn't have occurred. So that is true.

It is also true, that if a border security had actually been passed, nine months ago, it would have been nine months, that we would have more border agents, at the border. More support for folks who are working around the clock, trying to hold it all together.

To ensure that no future harm would occur.

And this election in 20 days. Will determine whether we have a president of the United States, who actually cares more about fixing a problem, even if it is not to their political advantage in an election.

Because there was a solution, Brett.

GLENN: No.

KAMALA: Madam vice president, it was a policy decision, in the early part of your administration.

GLENN: So she wouldn't -- she just won't answer it.

STU: Unreal.

GLENN: By the way, notice that she's always talking about comprehensive immigration reform.

She never talks about the border.

She talks about comprehensive. Our system is broken.

Yes!

We all agree with that.

But the border policy, you broke!

That's why we're having these problems.

You guys broke the border.

We all know that.

So don't talk to me about comprehensive.

Because that's something that people have been trying to do for 50 years.

And it won't happen.

Because we're so far apart.

You want amnesty.

No! You wanted 6,000 people, still to be able to come across the border every day!

No! It's -- this is the biggest con -- I mean, lie after lie after lie.

STU: Just to watch that happen.

Where she -- he -- he specifically picks cases, that she can't use, this border policy.

Which, by the way, there is a 0 percent chance she will actually pursue, when she's president of the United States.

She's just acting. Like they all talk about how Donald Trump, all he wanted out of this. Was a taking point for the election.

That's all this is.

She's doing the exact same thing she's accusing Donald Trump of.

GLENN: Yeah. That's why they released that bill. Knowing the Republicans would never go for it.

They would never go for it.

So they had that talking point.

And she will get in. And she will say, see!

They're standing in the way again.

STU: I hope the Republicans that went along with it. I hope they realize it now.

I hope they realize they were part of it. Maybe unwillingly.

But they were.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

They want to control what you eat! — Cattle rancher's stark warning

American cattle rancher Shad Sullivan tells Glenn Beck that there is a "War on Beef" being waged by the globalist elites and that Americans need to be prepared for this to be an ongoing battle. How secure is America's food supply chain, and what does the country need to do to ensure food shortages never occur in the future?

Watch Glenn's FULL Interview with Shad Sullivan HERE

Iran War & US Riots: An Urgent WARNING About the ‘Death to America’ Mob | Glenn TV | Ep 440

Is the world approaching its FINAL battle? From the anti-ICE rioters to Islamic governments like Iran, the message is the same: “Death to the West… death to America.” Glenn Beck gives an urgent warning about the radical ideologies threatening Western civilization and likens the chaos in American streets to Gotham. Asra Nomani, an expert on Islamic extremism, terrorism, and radicalization, joins Glenn to detail what she saw at a No Kings protest in Philadelphia. Nomani warns that “more blood will spill” due to the dangerous nexus between Democratic organizations, Islamic sympathizers, Marxists, communists, and socialists. “This is the tyranny that will come to your neighborhoods and streets unless we stop it.” Another issue dividing the country and President Trump’s MAGA supporters is the war between Israel and Iran. Should the U.S. help destroy Iran’s nuclear ambitions or let Israel go it alone? Iranian American journalist Nik Kowsar was arrested and threatened with death for his political cartoon critical of an Islamic cleric in 2003. He reveals the truth about the Islamic regime but tells Glenn why he believes bombs won’t bring democracy to the oppressed people of Iran.

Should Trump BOMB Iran or stay out COMPLETELY?

There's a big debate right now among the political Right over whether the United States should intervene in Israel's war with Iran. Should President Trump bomb Iran? Should he encourage regime change? Or should he completely stay out of it? Glenn Beck and The Federalist CEO and Co-founder Sean Davis discuss.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Sean, welcome to the program.

VOICE: Thank you for having me, sir.

GLENN: You bet. I'm glad to have you on.

You know, I'm not sure -- I'm not sure of anybody's position, because the smart people, like I think you are, are asking questions. And not coming out with these bold declarations. They're just asking questions.

And sometimes, their own response, at least mine is.

It's very nuanced. And I'm not recommending anything.

I'm asking questions, and I'm warning about the mistakes of the past.

I don't trust anybody.

But I also think a nuclear armed Iran is really bad. But I want Israel to take care of it.

I want to be involved in that.

It's their direct right now. Let them take care of it.

What -- where do you go from here. What questions should we be asking ourselves, Sean.

SEAN: Yeah. I love your approach to it. Because it doesn't start with a conclusion.

It's kind of trying to build with what we should be doing from the bottom-up.

Which becomes a discussion of first principles. And I think that's really important.

I think we probably all agree, that we don't want bad people. And we don't our enemies, to have weapons, they use to destroy us.

I think probably everyone agrees in that.

GLENN: Yes.

Well, can I add a caveat to that?

Not just our enemies, but especially those who are batcrap crazy.

Or believe in the return of the Mahdi, and I can hasten his return by washing the world in blood. That kind of -- that puts you in a special category for me.

But, anyway, go ahead.

SEAN: And, again, I think I might even extend it. I'm not sure I want our friends and allies to have it. In a perfect world, we would be the only country, with these massive weapons.
(laughter)

GLENN: Okay. All right. I'll go for that. Okay.

SEAN: So the problem we have is that for, let's call 80 years. You know, 75.

The nuclear toothpaste has been out of the tube.

Soviet -- India, Pakistan. North Korea.

France. Israel.

In South Africa for a time, they all had nukes. And to me, the big problem that I have a really difficult time wrapping my head around, is how do you solve the problem we created with Gadhafi in Libya?

GLENN: Yes.

SEAN: That country gave up their weapons program, voluntarily after Iraq. Kind of before Iraq become another debacle and another cautionary tale. And they gave up their weapons in the US and NATO and our allies. We returned the favor, thanks to Hillary and Obama, by overthrowing Gadhafi and killing it.

I think what that communicated to every leader on earth, good or bad, if you don't ever want to be overthrown, you have to have nuclear weapons.

And so I start with understanding that fact, what is the best, most effective way to make our enemies -- make sure our enemies don't get nuclear weapons?

And I'll tell you, I don't have a good answer. Because we've heard for 40 years, that Iran is on the verge of a nuke.

They're about to have a nuke. They're about to have a weapon. So let's assume we go through with these attacks, and we bomb now or Israel bombs it.

What that doesn't get rid of is the incentive. It temporarily gets rid of a mechanism for I guess enriching uranium. But in four years or five years, how do we deal with that? I don't think regime change is a good idea. We've seen how well that works. It turns into an unmitigated disaster.

And so I think we just have to start with the question, what is the best possible way to incentivize people that we don't like, and don't like us, to not have weapons. And I genuinely don't have a good answer to it.

GLENN: You know what, I keep thinking. Every day I do this job. And I think what Reagan said when I was a kid.

He said, there's going to come a time.

And he was talking to Social Security at the time, but I apply it now to everything. There's going to come a time, where we've made so many mistakes. There won't be a good solution to everything. Every choice will be a bad choice.

And I think we're here. I think we're here. Everything we do, you're like, I don't know. I don't know.

I don't want to do to the mistakes of the past. But I don't know how to stop this now.

You know, regime change. Let me just take that one.

Regime change. It doesn't work. I loved your post. I think it was yesterday.

Yes, our military industrial complex lied about Vietnam. Killed Kennedy. Ran a coup against Nixon, then killed another Kennedy.

Tried to get MLK Jr. to kill himself. Ran drugs through the Americas to fund shenanigans in the Middle East.

Funded Bin Laden in the Taliban. Missed 9/11, and lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Got an ambassador murdered in Benghazi.

Then turned Libya into a slave market run by terrorists. Then created ISIS. Ran the Russia collusion hoax.

Tried to overthrow Trump with the Ukrainian hoax. Weaponized a bat virus that killed millions of people and lied about it. And used the virus they made to steal an election.

Then arrest Trump, tried to bankrupt him.

Try to make him die in prison, and then when they failed, they denied him adequate security, leading him to be shot in the head.

Yeah, they did all of those things.

The drug cartels, Iraq, Bosnia, in the 1990s.

Iraq and Afghanistan in the 2000s. Still Iraq and Afghanistan in 2010.

Plus, Libya, the whole moronic Arab Spring thing. Ukraine in the 2020s.

These were all disasters that cost millions of dollars and countless lives. You're right on every single one of those things.

Every single one of those things.

So how do we make a decision now'

SEAN: Right. And that's why I think it's important to get to first principles. Which is understanding our limitations.

Understanding history. Understanding how other nations view things. One thing that's driven me nuts in the foreign policy debates that we've had in the country, for 20, 30 years.

Is that there seems to be zero desire to put ourself in the position of our adversaries and our opponents. Saying, how are we looking at things?

Some people, if you try to do that, they'll say, oh, well, you're sympathizing with them. Or you're appeasing. Well, no. This is the basic stuff for negotiation.

You're playing chess against someone. You want to understand what they're going to do next.

So you can respond to it.

And we just never do that.

And I look at this. I think there's probably two major options. For either forestalling or preventing a particular regime for getting weapons.

The first one is regime change.

In the short-term, you can tell yourself, we will overthrow these people.

And then they won't want nukes anymore. Because we will put our friends in, and then it will be food.

Well, that's been ongoing in Iran for 100 years. The Brits and the Soviets were the ones who came in and put the original Shah in. It's been a mess over there.

So personally, I throw regime change out the window. Because it opens up pandora's box of just insanity, as we've seen in the Middle East.

GLENN: Okay. Hang on a second. Hang on a second.

Wait. Wait, on that.

Is there a chance that -- you know, I never saw it.

I kept saying. We headed to war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Show me the person that will have their face on the stamp. Show me the person that will have their face on the money.

I never had somebody stand up and say, we need to be free.

And we need to fight for our own freedom. You do have those people that are really tired of this, and much more Western.

I don't want to get involved in a regime change. And I certainly don't want you to say, hey. We're going to help you pick a leader.

Is there a chance this time is different? Or is that wishful, stupid thinking?

JASON: You know, I think it's probably wishful thinking, but I don't know.

I tell you, I have a hard enough time figuring out what's going on politically in my own country. Think about all the time we spent pouring over polls in our election. Talking to our neighbors.

This is a country we were born in.

We understand its culture without even thinking about it. We're fluent in the language. We can talk to anyone we want, whenever we want. And we have a tough time, figuring out what is going on here. I don't have a clue what's happening in Iran.

I don't speak any of the three or four languages over there.

I don't understand the culture. I've never been there.

I've not been able to talk to people over there.

I don't know thousand read the news there.

The idea that I, or really any other Westerner can look at Iran and with any confidence say what the people want or don't want, I think it's crazy.

And so I think you kind of have to be humble about your ignorance. And we are largely ignorant of just about everything happening within Iraq, and its culture and its people.

GLENN: I -- I have to say, I think you're right on that.

Okay. So that's out.

What's the next thing?

SEAN: We kind of set aside regime change, probably not a great idea.

Another option is maybe economic incentives. Yeah, we know you don't want to be overthrown.

That's going to be a hard incentive to overcome. So you're going want to regime change insurance. Maybe we can bribe you out of it. All kinds of economic assurances. This and that.

The problem with Iran is they're sitting on oil, which is probably the most precious resource on earth. I don't think that works.

And so I think what we're left with is probably the Whack-a-Mole that's been going on for years. And I think the nation that's probably best sighted to deal with that Whack-A-Mole. They're the ones at risk.

Iran can't reach us here in the US. They don't have the ballistic missile capability. They're not a direct military threat to us.

They're clearly a military threat to our friends and allies in the Middle East.

And so I think the least worst option is probably Israel doing what it does, every five to ten years, and going and trying to degrade their ability to mechanically make the stuff.

Wait to see what happens, do it again over and over. But to me, that's a regional issue.

And, yes, there are allies. And, yes, they're our friends.

But it's far more consequential to them, than it is to us. And so I have no problem with them, doing what they need to do, to address the threats to them.

GLENN: So I'm with you, 100 percent so far.

Now, I'm very -- you know, we're the only ones with the bunker buster that can get into that.

What does that go down, 12 stories?

20 stories, underground.

Can destroy anything with a 20-story footprint, underground.

We're the only ones that have it. It has to be dropped from one of our planes.

And I'm very uncomfortable with that. Very uncomfortable. I mean, you know what, you want to buy the bunker buster? I'll sell it to you. But you got to drop it.

Once we put that on our plane, and we drop it, aren't we then part of the war?

SEAN: Right. And that -- like I said, that might be the least worse option to the extent that we have to be involved.

GLENN: Yes.

SEAN: When it comes to foreign policy. I think a lot about what Mike Tyson says.

That everybody has a plan until you get punched in the face. Once you go and drop a bomb on someone, once you engage in offensive military capabilities. Now, you may rhetorically say, well, it's preemptively defensive. It's an offensive move, whenever you bomb another country.

You are creating the conditions for all kinds of chaos. Who knows how they're going to respond?

Maybe they're rational. They understand, look, we will have to take this one on the chin.

We don't want to fight with the US.

We don't want to fight with Israel. We will have to deal with it.

And maybe they decide. Hey, we were in the middle of negotiations. We thought we were trying to get somewhere.

And if they're going to do this stuff with us, then to heck with this.

We will just unleash hell. That can happen.

Now, I don't know if it will. It's probably less likely to end up taking it.

But it's a possibility. Whenever you go and punch somebody in the face, you now have to deal with the consequences of how they will respond.

GLENN: All right. Back with more in just a second. Can you stay with me for just a few more minutes, Sean?

SEAN: Of course.

GLENN: Before we go to back to Sean, Jason, I had to look up in the break, preemptive strikes.

Is that something new?

Because I know that's -- my age, maybe.

I remember, I don't remember people saying, we have to preemptively strike, more than when it -- when the nukes started coming. And that's when everybody was like, you have to do it before you get one.

Is this a new thing? Or has this been going on forever?

JASON: I want to start out with saying, I'm so glad for Sean in having this conversation.

Because it is sorely needed right now.
It's so bad.

There's a weird irony with preemptive or preventive strikes.

Because the first modern preventive strike, looking at the Cold War era was the start of the six-day war.

When Egypt blockaded Israel, amassed 100,000 troops in Israel.

GLENN: Wow.

JASON: Did the first modern preemptive strike. If they would not have, they would not be here right now.

It's another coal in the fire really.

What is the red line --

GLENN: Sean, what is the red line?

Is there a red line?

SEAN: For us. Or for Israel?

GLENN: You know, any society. Is there a red line?

I think the answer for Israel is a lot sooner than ours.

But is there such a thing as a red line, to go first, and preemptively strike?

I'm sure there is. I'm sure there is.

It's so situational, that I would have a hard time saying right now, this is a red line, that satisfies all conditions for all nations.

GLENN: How about just for Israel?

Red line?

SEAN: For Israel, I would think it would be a delivery mechanism and the actual developed warhead. That's probably what I would look at. Can this immunization at this moment, deliver a nuclear warhead to us right now?

That's what I would say is the red line.

But, you know what, I have not had a country trying to wipe me off the earth for, you know, the last 80 years, 75 years.

GLENN: 5,000.

SEAN: Right.

But hard for me, just given my position, to know exactly what their -- I would say, it's probably close to the same thing.

An ability to attack the US people. Now, you'll hear from the Pentagon and people saying, well, they can hurt our troops in the region.

My view is, well, that's probably a good reason to not be meddling in the regions all the time. Because --

GLENN: Hmm. Hmm.

Sean, thank you so much. What a great conversation.

I really appreciate it. Thank you for being reasonable, rational. And allowing people to disagree.

And learn from our disagreements. Thank you, Sean. Appreciate it.

JASON: You're very gracious. Thank you, sir.

GLENN: You bet. The CEO of the Federalist.

Sean Davis.

Will Trump HIT Iran with a “bunker buster” bomb?

Will President Trump get America involved in Israel’s war with Iran by helping drop a “bunker buster” bomb on Iran’s main nuclear facility? Would that cross a red line? Glenn Beck asks House Foreign Affairs Committee member, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, who explains why she believes such debates are pointless right now. Plus, Rep. Luna addresses a 1980s CIA "playbook" that exposes a strategy to "set off riots and destabilize governments."

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Representative Anna Paulina Luna is joining us now.

Congresswoman from the great state of Florida. You guys are kicking it, down in Florida.

I mean, you really -- you're making Texas look bad, quite honestly. But thanks for coming on.

ANNA: Thanks, Glenn. I would like to say, we're leading the nation not just in politics, but also the White House. So happy to be here.

GLENN: Yeah. All right. I have to ask you a little bit, about are we going to war? What's happening? Is this negotiation? What does your gut tell you on this?

ANNA: My gut is telling me, that we're not intervening. And based on the president's statement, he is still rightfully so, urging everyone to negotiate. Right now, he's definitely been very open about this.

But I don't want to -- what I will tell you, in the last 24 to 48 hours, I have seen so much disinformation circulating on the internet. Well, a lot of it not coming from security that is in the states, so I will tell everyone. That don't jump to conclusions, don't read into anything, that senator Lindsey Graham is saying or any other members of Congress, that are speculating, that there will be direct intervention. In fact, the White House just yesterday via Alex Sipher on X posted that the military is not intervening. We're simply defending our own. And so what I will tell Americans is first and foremost, President Trump has not changed his position on foreign policies. If he wanted to strike, he would have done it by now. So everyone needs to pray for him. Pray for our country. Pray for the millions in both Iran and Israel right now, and let the process play out.

GLENN: Can you tell me, do you think it's a red line to send over a bomber with one bomb?

Is that -- does that drag us into war?

Or is that just helping?

ANNA: I would say, as of right now, we need to not speculate, but continue to back the White House's position.

Because I think if I were to speculate on where the red line is, I don't think it helps.

I do think that our allies and adversaries are looking to see the members of Congress are doing. I will back the White House's position currently. Which is defending our service members and not intervening --

GLENN: It is. I'm so glad to hear you say that. That is exactly what I just said on the air. Just about three minutes ago.

ANNA: Oh, really?

GLENN: I said, yeah. The world is watching. You don't think the mullahs aren't watching everything that is said on X. You know, we must used to have these conversations where it was global. We're now in a global atmosphere.

And they're watching all of us.

And we can't eat ourselves up. Or they will -- if he's telling the truth.

I think a good negotiator, never bluffs. And he has to back it up.

You know, 60 days. You don't want to see what happens on day 61.

He wasn't bluffing.

And if they think, that we are eating ourselves, alive, they're more likely to go, no.

You know what, go ahead. Go ahead.

It's a really bad thing.

ANNA: What I will say, it's definitely a litmus test for our country right now. You're seeing a lot of people, jumping to conclusions. What I will tell you, there's only a very select few that fully understand what's happening in the situation room.

That's the president, his team, and it's left up there to you. What I will tell you, don't read in, don't speculate. And also too don't jump to conclusions.

Again, in the last 48 hours, I went online. I put out information, because I saw so much information circulating. Something that was said by Kash Patel. His CCP has engaged in basically election engineering. We just saw that in the 2020 election cycle.

They just got busted. This also comes on the tail end of these riots that are absolutely being hunted by the CCP. Neville Singham getting lots of money from them.

And it doesn't stop there.

We saw there was an -- so what I would say is that, you know, I'm partially inclined to think some of these accounts that are attacking the president, are foreign policy positions right now.

Are coming from China. Everything that we're seeing. Three times, that they've done things.

So we have to stick together. It's not, Democrat versus Republican right now. It's America, and fighting for Western civilization.

And so we need to make sure that we're very responsible about our commentary right now.

GLENN: Very good. Very good.

Can we talk a little bit about the -- let's start with Neville Singham.

The guy is -- he is an operative for the CCP. And he is pouring tons of money. And no one in the mainstream media, wants to talk about it.

They just -- oh, that's ridiculous. No, it's not.

Can you give us some information on --

ANNA: Yeah. Of course. So it's not ridiculous. In fact, there's a lot of money -- money at least back to Neville Singham. And I actually look at credit where it's due. So I was on X. And came across this account called Data Republican, and she actually pulled the money trail right to Singham. He also lives part time in Shanghai, China, and he's not registered as a foreign agent.

And so I was able to talk to Comer, and every single member of oversight after seeing the evidence that was presented, actually sent a letter, signed off on it, not just to Neville Singham, but also, to AG Bondi to also request an investigation.

And so what I will tell you is that this should have been done during BLM in Congress back then.

It was not. This needs to be replicated moving forward with everybody else who is engaging, who is not a registered foreign agent in this country.

Also, funding riots like this. In some instances have been acts of terrorism.

And so right now, it's not just a playbook for Neville Singham. We're also -- this is also up to Comer. Because Comer has subpoena authority. Whether or not he will send his subpoena to George Soros, which I've urged him to do.

Even though, Neville Singham is a Marxist and Soros is a globalist, but their end objective is, again, to dismantle the United States.

And so we're basically being hit from both sides right now.

GLENN: I am so -- it is so refreshing.

I mean, I've been talking about this stuff for 20 years.

It's so refreshing. Finally, to have some people step up, and present this in a credible way, in Congress.

And to the -- attorney general et cetera, et cetera.

You know, you had the playbook from 1983. From the CIA.

And this is -- you know, I think it was two or three years ago.

No. It was in 2019 or 2020.

I did a special on the -- you know, the Colour Revolutions.

And how there was the CIA playbook that was out.

And it looks exactly like what is happening here in the United States. I said -- I said, at the time, here's what's coming. And it's all here.

It -- where are you taking this?

And is there anybody, that, you know, can -- can stop this?

Because this -- we are -- we're using CIA tactics on ourself.

ANNA: Well, I would say, the CCP is using this against us.

Right now, just first and foremost.

Yes. We can stop it.

We have to go after the money stream. And I actually also found out via the data Republican.

That $270 million in the USAID fund, was issued to George Soros' NGOs prior to Biden getting out of office.

President Trump can stop that, sending a letter via executive order because Congress is moving very slow.

That's I think a separate conversation.

But we can stop the money streams. And if we don't do anything, though. If we don't do the investigations.

If we don't say, you cannot do this in our country, you're also, by the way, guilty of violating foreign agent registration, the Foreign Registration app, the FAR app. It's just going to continue happening.

So we have to do the due diligence on this.

And if not, every single member of oversight signed off on that.

And to Chairman Comer's credit, he will be playing ball with Singham. So it's going to happen.
It's just, When will it happen?

So the time line, it's possibly indicated on Friday. We're waiting for a response.

He's going to be called to testify.

We are looking at all transaction records.
That's the first thing. The second thing, I want to give some people hope. I actually know Director Radcliffe over at the CIA.

And the CIA back then, remember, there's both good and bad people at the intelligence agencies.

And to their credit, the people that he has appointed, actually are a people like you and I.

And so they are doing their best to weed out this corruption at the agencies. And so what's really been brilliant in all of this.

Kash Patel is also following up on these money trails, to see what outside foreign influences are engaging in this Colour Revolution here in the United States, and he's dropping that information now. So in previous administrations, this might not have happened.

But in this one, they're stopping it, and it's because of social media and kudos to Elon Musk, that we were able to get the information in time, in regards to the No Kings protest, who is funding that.
In regards to potential insider packets that were going to frame conservatives. Frame Republicans.

We are seeing this all unfold in real time. I will tell you, Hispanic Americans, specifically, are not used as pawns. So when you have basically BLM 2.0 happening right now at these ICE riots, and you realize that these are actually largely ANTIFA that are going to be questioned. They're why they're not Hispanic. They're not immigrant.

They have no ties to the communities, and they're simply interning, you know, Mexican flags or BLM flags. That doesn't bode well in the community.

Remember, Hispanic Americans are largely voted for in favor for President trump.

So there is hope. But you can't sit on your hands. You have to get active, you have to get engaged, and you have to be telling people that.

GLENN: You know, for years, I've been angry at the billionaires on the right. That have just not stepped up to the plate.

I really, I suspected with the tides foundation and then with Biden and you all of these green new deals, and everything going on. That money was being funneled off the top.

And then as soon as we appointed DOGE. I said, oh, my gosh. The money is coming from us.

Then he started to find him. That is so critically important. Are we going to stop that funding?

ANNA: Well, yes. And so that's what we've been doing with some of these rescission packages at the White House, that has authorized. We have to move quickly. And we have to be more aggressive with it.

I will tell you, remember, I think just in general, sometimes people can be lazy.

And so what I've been telling people, is you have no idea, the level of personal sacrifice, that Elon really took on.

From taking on DOGE. Especially going after USAID. Which is just like a pot of just corrupt nonsense.

He actually just released, as we were about to call in. He released drug testing results. He had himself drug testing. Because they were saying, he was doing all this crazy stuff.

And he wasn't. Right? They've attacked companies. They literally used his personal family matters in the press. And then they tried to drag a wedge between him and the president.

So what I will tell you is, it's not just him. It's any member of Congress of the Senate. You saw what happened with the president. They tried to assassinate him twice.

Okay?

So if you take this on, the American people need to back these people up.

Because it's not like we're taking it on, because we, you know, want to have our personal lives and our family members put on the line here.

It's because it's the right thing to do. And if we don't do it, who will?

You have to really make sure, everyone sitting together. Remember, look out for the disinformation campaign.

And keep supporting people who do the right went.

Because we need more of them.

GLENN: Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna.

Congresswoman, thank you.

JEFFY: Thanks Glenn.

GLENN: You bet. We'll talk again.