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 Bubba Effect: Is America headed for collapse?

America just crossed a constitutional red line — and Glenn Beck breaks down why this moment may be the one historians look back on as the final warning before national fracture. From Congress signaling military insubordination, to judges erasing separation-of-powers, to a cultural class obsessed with ideology instead of safeguarding the republic, the “Bubba Effect” is now in full force. Glenn explains why collapsing institutions, media silence, and public distrust are creating a perfect storm — and why citizenship, not rage, is the only path to restoring the republic. Are we witnessing the moment America snaps, or the moment Americans finally wake up?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Welcome to the Glenn Beck Program.

We're glad you're here. I want to talk to you today. Today's theme of the show is the Bubba Effect. Because it's here. And we are seeing it in full force. I will show it to you in Dearborn, Michigan. I will show it to you with Nick Fuentes. I will show it to you, with Epstein.

And I just showed it to you, a different kind of the Bubba Effect, institutional Bubba Effect. With that statement that came out, you know, telling the troops to, you know, disown, you know, the president. Or don't -- don't follow orders.

Question orders.

And you should do that. And that is something they're taught in the military. But they're taught within the system.

You know, it's not just that they made a message to the military.

They sent that message.

Imagine if the Duma would have sent that message to Putin. And we received it, and saw it. We would be like, their government is fall apart.

Their military is falling apart.

Look at this. What message is that sending to China and Russia and all their allies.

It's bad. It's very bad. There is a moment in every republic. Every empire. Every nation. The historians will look back and say, yep. That was it.

That was the biggest warning. That was the last warning.

And I think we are living in that moment right now.

When Congress told active duty military to ignore the orders of the commander-in-chief, you've got a problem.

When you can't get a federal judge impeached, because he approved something that has never been done in American history.

Granting one branch of the government, the right to secretly surveil the other without notice.

You have to -- constitutionally, you must notify you're under surveillance.

Okay?

If they're doing a mass thing. You have to notify.

Because that's a second branch!

Otherwise, you break up the branches, okay?

These are not political stories.

These are constitutional earthquakes.

And no one is talking about them! So now the question is: What now?

What has to happen, if the republic has to survive the stress of these fractures. That everybody seems to be creating or dancing on.

Let me outline it plainly here. Because all of us have a role. One, Congress. Congress, you have to discipline your own. If lawmakers can publicly encourage military resistance without consequence, then Congress has surrendered its moral authority.

You cannot police the executive branch. You can't oversee the intelligence agencies. You can't demand transparency, if you cannot police your own members.

Censure is not vengeance. It's maintenance. It's routine. It's necessary.
Constitutional maintenance. And if Congress refuses to do it, then the precedent remains. It gets worse.

And history shows us, no nation survives a politicized military. Ever!

Two, the military.

You to have restate the -- the chain of command.

Publicly and immediately. The Joint Chiefs don't need a press conference. They don't need hearings. They just need to say, the United States armed forces obey all lawful orders of the president.

That sentence, those exact words, that's the firewall between an American republic, and every failed nation in history.

The silence so far is not reassuring.

Three, the judiciary.

Especially the Supreme Court. Close the door on the book -- the Boasberg case! He opened a door that is so dangerous.

No judge, no matter how noble his intentions, has the authority to rewrite the separation of powers.

If one branch can secretly spy on another, then you have no checks and balances! You had a surveillance government. The Supreme Court must intervene. Not Trump! Not even Congress. But for the survival of coequal branches, if they don't, this is the new normal!

And you don't come back from that one, either! And now, the hardest part, the that one everybody talks about. Nobody does. The role of the cultural leaders and people like me in the media. In a functioning republic, this is supposed to be where the media steps in!

This is where the cultural leaders. The voices, left, right, center, stop obsessing over click bait. And start explaining to the people, what just happened. Why it's unprecedented, why it matters. How we as citizens need to respond. But look around. Do you see anyone in the press doing that?

Do you see anyone in Hollywood, doing that?

Do you see anyone in academia doing that? No. You don't. Because America's cultural class no longer sees its role as the guardian of the republic. Who is the guardian?

They're guardians of ideology. So what do we do?

Well, we do what Americans have always done, when institutionals fail. We step in our self. But if we don't care, that's it.

The Founders never trusted the press.

They trusted the people.

So that's where we are now.

And we all have to model what a responsible media. Or a responsible citizen should be doing.

So let me show you right now, how a responsible broadcaster responds to a constitutional breach.

My fellow Americans. This is not about Donald Trump.

This is not about Democrats. This is not about Republicans.

It's not how you vote.

This is about whether the military stays under civilian authority.

Whether our adversaries overseas are given the indication that we are ripe for the taking. This is about judges, that want to erase the separation of powers!

The separation of power is what has kept this constitutional republic going for all of these years!

Most importantly, this is about whether your children will inherit a functioning republic. And if the mainstream media won't tell you, then I will!

That right there, is the job. To preserve the republic!

So our children and grandchildren and that is what we all should be doing. That's what the press should be doing. That's what the cultural figures should be doing.

You call out the violations of Constitutional order, no matter who benefits. No matter who gets angry. No matter what tribe demands your silence. This is what leadership looks like!

This is wrong! This has never been done before. This breaks Constitutional boundaries.

And it has to be corrected immediately!

Americans, you understand the Bubba Effect is here. And it's everywhere!

You're going to see people that you're like, well, he's really wrong on that! And that's really outrageous. And I don't agree with that.

But at least he's right on this one!

And it will always be to question the system. To break it down.

So what do you do?

Well, you don't riot. You don't panic. You don't is it fair. We're headed into Thanksgiving. Give thanks for the crosses that we bear. Give thanks because our liberty, our freedom, should we decide to keep it, will be more valuable to us.

But you should call your representatives. I'm so sick of calling my representatives. But you should do it anyway.

You need to demand transparency. You need to insist on consequences! Don't normalize what is happening. Well, they're all like that! Stop it!
Stop it.

If that's what you expect, that is what you will get. But understand this: The cure for Constitutional drift is not rage. The answer is not anger. It's not division. It is citizenship!

It's also not apathy. If we sleep through this, the system will break, guaranteed.

But if you wake up, stand up, and insist on boundaries, eventually it will happen! I know you're tired.

I know you don't want to do it anymore. I know you're just desperate for an answer. Because the time is running short.

But now is not the time to act in -- in ways where we dishonor ourselves. In ways where we -- we throw in with a lot. We're like, that's really bad!

But at least they're pointing it out. You point it out! Once you start standing up, once we as a people, all you need is 20 percent! Twenty percent. Anywhere between 15 and 20 percent of the American people. If they understand the Constitution, if they understand the Bill of Rights. If they understand that God has put us in this place, at this time, and each of us have a reason to live!

We're here for a reason!

Everything snaps back into place!

It always has!

From 1800 to 1868 to 1974.

Institutions bend.

People break. But the Constitution can be restored.

But if -- and only if, you know it, you love it. You never betray it yourself, and you demand it of the people who represent us.

THIS could FINALLY land Epstein’s enablers IN JAIL

New evidence suggests that JPMorgan Chase overlooked 5,000 "yellow ticket" suspiciouos activity flags connected to Jeffrey Epstein, which resulted in #1.$ BILLION in sketchy transactions. Glenn Beck explains why this may be the scandal that finally brings some of Epstein's enablers to justice.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So where does the real story lie with the Epstein story? And I think it's the money, okay?

That's the real story. I'll tell you about the billions who have gone to terrorists from the US and Minnesota taxpayers here in a second.

And when I talk about that, what most people will do, is they'll fight over ICE.

They'll say it's Islamophobia. They'll fight over CAIR. Whatever. USAID, when that went down. Well, that's just about feeding hungry children. It's all misdirection, to get you away from the money. So let me bring this now to Epstein.

When a banker detects suspicious activity, when they see something that looks like money laundering. Human trafficking. Tax evasion. Sending money overseas to terrorists. They don't send a polite note to the supervisor, in hopes somebody reads it.

They are required by federal law, after 9/11, to file what is called a SAR. It's a Suspicious Activity Report.

A SAR.

They have to report that directly to the US Treasury Department. Through FinCEN. Financial center of crimes. Okay?

Once a SAR is filed. The bank isn't even allowed to tell you that they filed it. They just hit send. It's locked. The Treasury is notified. Now, this system like I said, was built after 9/11.

Built after decades of financial corruption.

A system design that no single banker. No single executive. No single billionaire can make illicit money and then have it just disappear offshore.

This is -- this is activated. If you draw $10,000 out, of your account. You are moving $10,000. You get a SAR report. And it goes directly to the Treasury. And when the bank flags something suspicious, it's called -- the SAR is called a yellow ticket. And it's not a suggestion. It's not a memo. It is a federal alert. That triggers monitoring by the Treasury, the FBI, Homeland Security. Depending on what the flags indicate. Now, that you understand that, let me talk to you about Jeffrey Epstein.

Between 2002 and 2016, JPMorgan Chase filed seven SARS. Seven yellow tickets on Epstein. Seven! Over 14 years. Those reports flagged a grand total of $4.3 million in sketchy activity.

Okay. It's all -- you know, it's a decade replace plus, $4 million.

You can make all kinds of excuses for that. Right? But after Epstein died, when the government finally unsealed the sex trafficking details, details that they had held on to for years. JP Morgan Chase suddenly panicked. Because the floodgates suddenly opened. In 2019, two SARS were flagged. Two SARS were sent to the Treasury.

They flagged over 5,000 suspicious wire transfers. We're not talking $4 million.

This is 1.3 billion dollars. Five thousand suspicious activity transfers, and transactions, of 1.3 billion dollars.

Now, let me just say this clearly, so nobody really misses the gravity of this. You do not accidentally forget to report 5,000 suspicious wires.

You don't like, where did we put that $1.3 billion.

Okay. You don't misplace a billion dollars in wires, to foreign banks and Shell companies, connected to then a convicted sex offender under federal investigation. It doesn't happen. It doesn't happen.

It doesn't happen, because a Jr banker made a mistake.

It doesn't happen because the compliance officer was sleepy. It doesn't happen because somebody's inbox was full.

To not report that level of suspicious activities directly to the Treasury, first of all, is against all federal law.

And at a minimum, multiple officers, multiple departments. Multiple signoffs, choosing not to look.

$1.3 billion. 5,000 suspicious activities. Hmm.

Why?

Why did nobody report that?

Well, now, according to internal emails, JP Morgan Chase held off the filing of the SARS. Now, let me ask you this: If you had one suspicious -- if you withdrew $10,000 from your bank, are you really clear that your bank would do what the federal government directs. And I have to report this.

And it's going to go to the Treasury. Are you clear that they would do that on you?

Because the answer is, yes, they would. Federal law requires it!

But the bank decided, well, we want to continue to work with Epstein. He's valuable. He's connected. He's a referral engine to some of the richest people in the world.

He had sensitivities according to the bank. Wire transfers to Russian banks. Wire transfers to Shell corporations. Wire transfers from a guy who is engaged in sex trafficking.

Links to top political figures. Relationships with two US presidents. Both of whom Epstein at various times claimed to be very, very close with.

Let me explain: Something that most people don't know. Banks file SARS, suspicious activity reports, to the Treasury, for far less than this.

$10,000. They flag it. A business wires to an unusual location. They flag it!

It's sent to the Treasury. A client sends repetitive round number transfers to an unknown entity. They flag it!

It goes to the Treasury. A wire connected to anything resembling terror or human trafficking or exploitation. They flag it right now.

Banks don't wait for a 5,000 -- for 5,000 suspicious transactions. They don't wait. They file over one!

So how did Epstein get through 5,000 suspicious activity reports without triggering any alarms.

Not because the alarms were broken. Because they weren't. It's because somebody turned them off.

I would like to know who turned those off.
I would like to know, why they were turned off? I would like to know, if it was just the leadership of the bank. I would like to know, that every single one of those bank officers. All the way to the top, go to prison!

Not some slap on the wrist. Not some, well, you're well-connected. So we're going to let this other guy pay for it.

I want all of them in prison. You broke federal law!

Something we all -- all of us have to abide by.

We -- we have had our Treasury. We've had our government snoop into our lives. Watch everything we do. And we're not connected to human trafficking. We're not selling children. We're not convicted felons.

We're not transferring 1.3 billion dollars after we've been convicted.

SARS are not -- these suspicious activity reports, they are not decided by a single teller. They have to pass -- they pass through compliance teams. Risk divisions. Bank lawyers. Federal liaison officers. This isn't one bad apple. It's an entire system. And Senator Wyden, no conservative firebrand, I might point out, is now openly saying what everybody knows privately. JP Morgan Chase should face criminal investigations, and it should go all the way to the top!

And it should not be civil. It should be criminal. Because if you or I did this, if we had sent just a handful suspicious wires, the bank would freeze your account, notify the Treasury, before you could blink!

But Jeffrey Epstein, a billion dollars worth of exceptions. Hmm. Hmm.

Wow. That seems much more important than a stupid birthday card!

Let me ask you this, the question the DOJ doesn't want to touch.

How many people does it take inside a bank to make 5,000 suspicious transactions just vanish for 17 years? Is it five people? Is it ten? Is it a department head, a board member?

Five thousand. 1.3 billion dollars. Was Epstein. Did it happen because Epstein was useful to the powerful?

So nobody wanted to know. Did this happen because others were involved?

Does it really matter what their excuse was?

Here's the terrifying question. If a bank can look the other way on $1.3 billion for a sex trafficker. What else have the banks learned to ignore?

Hmm.

I'm beginning to think the banks are a real problem. Hmm.

There's a new idea.

This story isn't just about Epstein.

This is about the machinery that allowed him to operate. All of the middleman. All of the financial networks. All of the institutions, that treated him like an asset, instead of a criminal.

And I do believe he was an asset. Intelligence asset.

I do believe he was probably an asset to our intelligence. Although, you I hear both sides.

No, no, no. That's not true. Oh, yes. It's definitely true.

I don't know what the truth is. I don't think it's unreasonable to say, he was an asset for a foreign government. Maybe Israel.

Maybe somebody else. I don't know.

But also an asset for us.

That helps all the. Apparently.

We do all kinds of horrible things. Why not?

Senator Wyden says, he wants to follow the money.

Well, good!

For the first time in a long time, maybe the money is finally pointing us somewhere. And it's not just here.

And, by the way, if anybody still believes this ends with one dead man in jail. I don't think you're paying attention!

Because this is where it really leads.

Are Antidepressants (SSRI's) Worsening America's Mental Health Crisis?

A former FDA psychiatrist reveals what Big Pharma never told the public: the “chemical imbalance” story behind antidepressants was never proven — and SSRIs don’t fix a biological defect, they numb the brain. Glenn Beck and Dr. Josef Witt-Doerring break down how America became the most drugged nation in the world and how millions are being overprescribed medications that can cause paradoxical agitation, emotional blunting, and even suicidal behavior. With 15% of Americans — including millions of children — on SSRIs, are we facing a public health crisis hiding in plain sight?

Cracker Barrel's internal crisis EXPOSED

Cracker Barrel’s massive public meltdown didn’t happen by accident. Behind the scenes, the company was bleeding institutional knowledge, taking disastrous advice from DEI strategists, and making decisions that alienated the very customers who built the brand. A major board shake-up, the quiet removal of DEI frameworks, and the sudden resignation of a key DEI-linked board member reveal how deep the problems ran — and how desperate the company was to course-correct. This breakdown uncovers what really went wrong, how Cracker Barrel was influenced internally, and why the Glenn Beck interview triggered major internal moves that the public was never supposed to see.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So, Stu, you can just questions about the special tonight.

STU: Yeah, for sure. I'm interested in this.

It's a big -- you know, a big special. You're back and forth with it. With them there. Was kind of fascinating. Right?

You have a situation where they -- they do seem to be sort of avoiding the question there on DEI. Is that how you read it? Oh, we lost connection with Glenn. Is that what's about to go?

Well, that's how I read it at least. You know, you listen to that clip of them going back and forth and it does appear to be them just sort of avoiding the question. We should get back to Glenn. Because I know he has this breaking news on this happen. Should we go to another clip on the Cracker Barrel thing, while we're waiting for Glenn to reconnect? Because it sort of sets the stage. You know, it was interesting to see their approach here, which is to try to explain themselves and try to work themselves through what is one of the biggest PR disasters probably in our lifetimes.

And let's go to this next clip.

VOICE: If we came out of COVID, A, trying to hire 50,000 people, we have a lot of our employees, original -- we did -- we lost a lot of very long tenured employees. A lot of them, a little bit older, and scared to come back into the -- into the environment.

And so --

GLENN: That's a lot of institutional knowledge.

VOICE: Oh, it hurt. I mean, it really hurt.

And in '22, as we started opening back up, we had the new menu that we had. So we lost a lot of people. We put a ton of training into that new menu.

Now we're coming back to open up, guests, any way we can get them. We had patio dining. We were testing a rock garden.

They were going to sit out in the landscape. And I always say that co-ed even made Cracker Barrel start drinking alcohol.

Because that's how -- it was out of COVID, that it was like, how are we figuring out how to drive top line sales and try to get a guest in.

GLENN: Okay. So that is a good example of you don't know any of the story. You think Cracker Barrel has never served alcohol before. Why are you shoving alcohol? That's a cultural. So it's easy to think, you're selling people alcohol now. What other values are you --

VOICE: And it's fair.

GLENN: That one, is at least understandable. Now that I understand the story.

VOICE: Yeah. Exactly. And so as we got into '23, I came out of my office administration role, and came into operations.

And I was leading field operations. And the best way for me to describe it, we were throwing Velcro balls at a wall to see what would stick.

STU: And it's understandable. You know, it's easy to kind of look at the Cracker Barrel situation and get lost at how badly it went.

A lot of these decisions come down to the information they had at the time. Right?

And they're looking at the time as a place that maybe people aren't coming into as much as they would like.

They are trying to -- maybe it's fading a little bit. Maybe some people find it's stale.

They think the situation at Cracker Barrel is not one that they're not necessarily trying to get involved with on a week to week basis, like they used to.

Maybe they had those warm feelings of the past. But they're not going in it anymore. Well, we'll freshen it up. We will do all these new things.

This will be great! And you realize, sometimes, when you're in that moment, you hit a -- you hate a vein. Right?

You're trying to do something positive for the company. And you hit a vein, and everything starts bleeding all over the place.

Let me give you another piece of this interview. Glenn Beck, up in the headquarters of -- of Cracker Barrel.

And somehow, I will give Glenn credit. Not eating throughout the interview.

I kind of thought, when they put food in front of him. He would just be shoveling it down his gullet the entire time.

You wouldn't be able to hear him. It would be like talking with his mouth full.

He got through it, without taking as many bites. Here is Glenn with the CEO of Cracker Barrel.

GLENN: Let's just get this out.

VOICE: Okay.

GLENN: What happened to the choices that were made?

I said on day one of this. I remember when they rolled out new Coke. And I thought, that was the dumbest marketing move, the dumbest thing I've ever seen.

We're taking the original formula and ditching it. And let's start over with a brand that people love.

The day this broke, I said on the air, new Coke!

That's what this is. And it was -- no offense. Stupid!

Just stupid from start to finish.

Can you walk me through how that happened?

VOICE: Yeah. Sure.

Look, our guests have every right to be upset.

GLENN: Yeah. You want to watch this. And I -- you know, what I really want to you watch for is a moment where I said to her, are you surprised you haven't been fired yet.

That spoke volumes. Her answer, and I hope it is captured on camera.

But that answer was the first non, you know, when you're a CEO. You know, I've -- Stu, do you remember when we used to have to do really important interviews.

And our PR people would be like, drill, drill, drill.

No, don't say that. Don't say that. And we would be like, yeah. Whatever.

And when you are in charge of a Fortune 500 company. And you're in the trouble that they're in, you do -- you know, you follow the people that you have hired to make sure crisis management. You don't make any more mistakes.

And so everybody was very, very careful.

They were very honest. But, you know, like that DEI thing.

She didn't really answer the question.

Of course, we want everybody to be welcomed. Yeah. I know. But that's not answering the question.

When I asked her, are you surprised you still have a job, and you haven't been fired yet. Her answer spoke volumes.

Now, the other thing that you need to know, that while she didn't answer me on the DEI thing. And I -- I -- you know, I can't tell you exactly how this happened.

I just know that they knew, that they didn't answer the question.

And somebody has been in touch with my people. And said, hey. You might want to watch the board meeting that is happening.

We can't tell you that anything is going to be happening. But the DEI thing may be solved. At the board meeting. That happened this morning. And they were going to release something at 11:15 today.

We didn't know exactly what it was.

We had -- we had an indication that it might be about DEI.

And what they've done, at first.

Remember, in August. You know, they just deleted the Pride pages. And the DEI pages.

And they just got rid of it all, at Cracker Barrel. That is just hiding who you are. The real problem was, they had a guy who was on the board of directors. Named Gilbert Davila.

And he's just resigned from the board, today!

Okay? They had a meeting with the board, and shareholders and everything else. And they voted on all of these people. And they did not renew him. And so he is -- he has resigned.

Now, his job -- he was a member of the standing board committee.

And his job was to assess the social and political risk to the company's business.

Well, who is he?

Well, he's also the CEO of a company called DMI Consulting.

That's a DEI strategy firm, that's been in business since 2010.

So he's one of the guys. He was the guy who, his job as the CEO -- as the CEO of DMI, is to promote, you know, DEI.

To make sure everybody is living up to the DEI standards. So Robby Starbuck, who is a friend of the program and, you know, great conservatives, who has been responsible for -- you know, getting a lot of these people out of these companies, or at least drawing attention on what these companies are really standing for.

He's been asking trial. What does he do to deserve this seat on the board?

Well, that's it. He owned a DEI consulting and strategy firm. That was pushing DEI and DEI advertising. So what's happened here is I think while she couldn't answer that question at the time, because the board hadn't acted, I think it's -- I think it's not not coincidental that the day the interview with her drops. With us.

Which they've known for a couple of weeks. This is when this interview would drop.

They -- they announced that morning, that seat has been eliminated. DEI is gone from Cracker Barrel. So I think that's really, really good news if you're a fan of Cracker Barrel.

And the things that I saw at Cracker Barrel, I'm -- I'm going to tell you some stuff tomorrow.

I just have to make sure that it's exactly accurate. Because I don't want to cause more problems.

For us!

And I want to make sure that I get it exactly right. But there were some things that I learned in the show prep.

And, you know, studying up for this interview.

That no one was prepared to talk to me on camera about. And always says to me, oh, well, there's something there.

And so we have done even more homework on it. And tomorrow, I will tell you about something that you might have heard about. This guy who owns, what is it?

Steak and Shake?

STU: Yeah. He's a big activist shareholder, isn't he?

Kind of against some of the leadership there at Cracker Barrel. I think I read about that.

GLENN: Correct. Yes. Yes.

And he has an interesting history.

And I want to -- I want to take you through some of that tomorrow.

I think by tomorrow, you're going to understand, what you saw with the DEI vote on the board today. Get that gone. That's gone.

The interview that you'll see tonight with Julie. The CEO. She's not who you think she is.

It doesn't mean she didn't make huge mistakes. She says she makes huge mistakes. But she's not who you think she is.

You may not agree with her or whatever. But it's important you know who she is. And what she said.

And the key tonight is that question: Are you surprised that you haven't been fired yet.

And really, what happened after she answers the question. And she's very uncomfortable. Answers the question.

And then she immediately switches topics. And I'm like, wait. Wait. Wait.

Stop. Stop. Go back. Why are you switching topics here?

Because it was an amazing moment. Is she immediately changes the subject. After she answers. And then she comes back, and she he says a few things. You'll see.

And then I bring it back to her again. And she switches topics again. And I'm like, why are you doing that?

Why are you doing that?

And she said a very interesting answer on all of that.

That is one of the most honest things I think I've ever seen a fortune five company or CEO ever say.

It was really uncomfortable. But really, really honest.

I think once you see this. And then I tell you tomorrow about the -- the board member, on the things that I can verify. I'm not sure what we can verify yet.

But the things that I've heard. And the things I think I can verify tomorrow. You will see that -- that I think they made stupid moves. They have really bad advice from DEI people.

And they were set up.

To some degree.

They were set up.

The company was. Not individuals. The company was set up.

I think it will -- I think you will have every question you needed to know about Cracker Barrel and what happened answered.