RADIONovember 21, 2022

SHOCK: FBI agent LEAVES over agency’s handling of Jan. 6

Former FBI agent Steve Friend joined the agency in 2014, and after moving to Daytona Beach in 2021 to investigate crimes related to children, he was suddenly reassigned to the Joint Terrorism Taskforce. Friend joins Glenn to describe the series of events that eventually led him to not only leave the FBI, but to speak out against potential abuses within the department as well. The crux of his story begins with cases concerning the January 6th, 2021 riot, and one arrest warrant that he refused to take part in...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Steve Friend grew up in Savannah, Georgia.

He followed his father's footsteps, and attended the University of Notre Dame, where he graduated with a bachelor's in accounting. He worked in accounting for two years, before deciding he wanted to be in law enforcement.

He was a sworn police officer in Savannah and Kohler, Georgia, for four years. And then he joined the FBI in 2014.

He spent his first seven years in the FBI, investigating violent crime and major offenses, occurring on Indian reservations in northeast Nebraska. This included the Omaha nation. Winnebago tribe of Nebraska. And the Santee Sioux tribe. He was also a member of the FBI Omaha S.W.A.T. team for five years. He transferred to Daytona Beach in 2021. And began investigating child exploitation, human trafficking, and child sexual abuse.

He was reassigned to the joint terrorism task in October 21.

This is where his story really begins. Welcome to the program, Steve. Steve Friend.

STEVE: That a very much, Glenn. It's an honor.

GLENN: So, Steve, tell me what happened when you were reassigned to the joint terrorism task.

STEVE: Well, when they brought me over, they had to put me on the cases that they had already in existence.

And what I soon learned, was that the vast majority of those cases were tied to the January 6 incident of the Capitol.

And just in my habit, as an investigator coming from violent crime. And an environment where there's lots of cases coming rapidly. I just sort of looked through the cases, and wanted to take action on them.

What I came to learn though, they had done everything they expected to do. And were waiting to hear back from Washington. As to further action. Or what the status of the case was going to be.

Which to me, was a major departure for the FBI rules, for investigative work.

GLENN: So wait a minute. The work had already been done by Washington.

Why were you assigned it then?

STEVE: That was my question. Just being very familiar with the case. Management practices with the FBI. I know it happened in over 200 cases in my career.

When you look at a case, it's assigned to you, it's assigned to your office.

So when we had these January 6 cases, it seemed that those cases should be open from Washington, DC.

But if the decision was made to send them out to the field, then it occasionally it will sit with the office that it was with. In my case, it was Daytona, which is in the Jackson-Mobile office. And we ran that case the way we wanted to for further operative steps. However, it was clear a lot of the prework had been done in those cases from Washington, and they were giving directives to our offices, even though, we were on paper, the assigned case agents with our office of origin. Washington was really running the show, which was not a kosher move on our part from the FBI.

GLENN: Why would they do that?

I asked, I was told, that that had been raised early on. The response from headquarters, it was to get, quote, unquote, buy-in from the fields.

There's a couple of things that I can surmise from that. One is the FBI headquarters just have a really negative opinion of the investigators. They thought, if their name is not on it, they're not going to do a good job. Which to me just kind of rang hollow of your personnel.

So then I just did a little bit of critical thinking on it. And, you know, first of all, the January 6 incident, logically, is one incident. It should be one case. But instead, the FBI is elected to open a separate case for every single subject.

So right then and there, you have one case, that's been made into 800, 900, a thousand cases. So now you've upped the total bottom line number of domestic terrorism investigations, and then by spreading those cases to the field, you intentionally are carrying a narrative, that was pushed out in 2021, 2022 about this violent domestic terrorism around the country. When in reality, all those cases, are stemming from one incident.

On January 6, 2021, in 1 location.

GLENN: Okay. So you were suspended. Because you wouldn't do it. You were suspended without pay. Your gun, your badge. Everything was taken from you. And it's because you wouldn't -- what they say, is refusing a lawful arrest warrant, which demonstrated poor judgment. And emporium accessing the FBI's employee handbook, and refusing to attend the SAB. Tell me about this.

GLENN: Yeah.

So I -- my first opportunity, really to take -- to engage in an arrest of a January 6 subject, that I had already decided. That should that come to pass, I was going to make that disclosure, to my supervisor.

So in the lead up to that, I -- I -- the week before, smoke to my immediate supervisor. Raised my concerns about improper case management practices.

And then also, just my concerns about how we were going to be arresting these subjects.

Because in my experience, and having arrested 150-plus violent criminals, never had to use a tactical team, a S.W.A.T. team to -- to bring them into custody, because I had talked to those individuals.

And we had done similar things with these January 6 subjects. So to me, seemed like honest unnecessary use of force.

Payment. I have S.W.A.T. experience to back that up. So I brought all this concern to them. They -- they passed it up the chain of command. My supervisor to the second level.

And, again, had more sitdown meetings with those -- with those guys. Voiced those concerns.

Even brought up FBI training, about abuse of power. That all agents have to go through, in the academy, where you go to the Holocaust Memorial and the MLK memorial. And you discuss, you know how those civil rights abuses, and atrocities can occur.
So raised all those concerns.

And they said, it was very clear to me, they were trying to divorce the two issues of me raising my concern, and then this said, it's separate from me, to refuse to participate.

And I contradicted that. I said my job is to defend the Constitution. I took an oath to uphold and defend it.

I think that we are violating due process. We're potentially violating some cruel and unusual punishment, just how we're bringing these guys into custody.

Even interviewing people who we never intend to prosecute is an abuse. So I have to default to my oath of office, that I think I am doing my job. They didn't agree with me. They said, that I had questionable judgment.

And was not executing a lawful warrant. That was one of the issues. When I got concerned about my future with the FBI, they multiple times told me, where do you see us, with us in the future?

In fact, my special agent in the future. Told me, I had to do some soul-searching. If I wanted to be an FBI agent. So I got an attorney. And he asked me to get him the employee handbook. And disciplinary procedures, because he just wanted to be equipped for me.

GLENN: Right. So that was the improperly accessing the employee handbook, giving it to your attorney?

STEVE: Yes. My employee's request. When I was eventually suspended. They said, what did you take? And I said, oh, that was the employee handbook. And they said, we need that back.

I said, I thought you guys could get the handbook.

GLENN: Right. Okay. Hang on just a second. When we come back, he's going to talk about the tools called Guardians.

And his concern how those tools are being used right now. To investigate US citizens.

Tools called Guardians. Oh, that sounds safe. More with Steve friend, next.
(music)

GLENN: You like saving money. The reason I ask is, you know if you hate saving money. Well, then, you're probably a Democrat.

Then you might not be a fan of upside.

If, on the other hand, you're the type of person who doesn't enjoy having to empty out your wallet. And sell a kid any, every time you buy your groceries, or to get gas. You're going to love Upside.

Upside is an amazing app, that will actually save you money on gas and groceries, and dining out. All you have to do is download it. And use the promo code Beck. You'll automatically get 25 cents or more back for every gallon on your first tank of gas. And from there, you just find appear offer for whatever you're buying on Upside. Check in on at the business. And when you pay, you will get paid. It's easy. You'll feel the results, right away in your wallet.

Download the free Upside app at upside.com/Beck. Upside.com/Beck. Get 25 cents more back for every gallon on your tank of gas. It's upside.com/Beck. Do it now. And save.
(music)

STU: Don't miss the special on BlazeTV.com/Glenn. The promo code is stand up. You'll get 30 bucks off.
(OUT AT 9:28AM)

GLENN: We're talking to a very brave FBI agent. I wish there were more of them. Where are you, local FBI agents?

Steve Friend is his name. He's an FBI whistle-blower. He objected to being part of the January 6th raids. For several reasons.

First of all, before I get to some other things. Can you tell me, you said earlier, that you thought it was cruel and inhumane treatment. I think you said. The way some of these prisoners are being handled. Can you tell me about anything, you know, about that?

STEVE: I can only speak what I've read about how folks are being held in jail, actually been taken into custody. My general concern was that the process being punishment for people who actually were never -- we never intended or were not able to charge. So just sitting down in front of them, stresses them out. Like to hire an attorney. The one individual that had participated in, with an interview.

He had lost his job. And was retaining an attorney.

And it was for walked in the Capitol. After the information at the police.

So what was the point of us going through that process?

GLENN: Right. You know it's amazing to me. You said, at one point, you -- you said that the process is the punishment.

And when you think of that, that is terrifying. Because that means, that even if they can't charge you, or you're not really guilty of anything, they're going to make this so horrible on you, that you just stay away from everything. You teach. You teach people a lesson. Stay away. Don't even get close to any of this.

STEVE: That's exactly right.

Even what happened to Michael flint, essentially how he became bankrupt, in order not to defend. Ultimately pled guilty to avoid his son being roped into it. That is the process, being the punishment.

GLENN: And the FBI designated the grassy area, outside the US Capitol as a restricted cell, after January 6th. And did they apply retroactively, to be able to look and say, well, you were in that restricted zone, on January 6th?

STEVE: That's my understanding, that they wanted to really send a message, gather more people up. And so they decided that the lawn on the Capitol, outside those four laws, will be deemed restricted. Because at some point, there would be some barricades. But just anecdotally, I heard individuals who were there on the 5th. They said, they felt their case about on the 6th, the morning of. They saw people were moving them.

So there's a little bit of action being involved with that.

GLENN: Tell me about guardians. The tools that they used to investigate. Called guardians.

STEVE: So guardian is a software system. I actually think of it as the 911 system in the FBI. You call 911, just cat in a tree, through the neighborhood. You can do that to the FBI. National center, those folks there, deal with probably 3,000 calls a day, or electronic communications. They kind of pull through it and disseminate them to appeal for proper investigative action.

So when it came to January 6th, there was a huge uptick in the amount of guardians that came into the FBI, and it was from all over the country. It could from a disgruntled neighbor, who didn't like his buddy, across the street, having a MAGA flag. It could be family member ratting out a family member. My uncle was where. He told me he was there.

So people that were trying to be helpful to the FBI, in pursuing this investigation. A lot of them just went to the FBI website, looked at pictures. And was saying, you know this unknown subject, looks like somebody went to high school with.

And those chips would come in. They would be pushed out to wherever the appropriate geographic location. So for me, I got one that was really the first interaction I had. They -- an anonymous tip from Rhode Island. That said, this individual was involved with the police officers, of the January 6 riot. They had done a lookup on this guy.

His phone that -- the GPS did not ping at the capital. The facial recognition, with his social media accounts, did not come with a positive match. But I was still the last to go. In an attempt to do an interview.

So it's not illegal for me to knock on anybody's door, and say, hey. I'm FBI. Do you want to talk to me?

It was just a concern.

Because even if he admitted to being at the Capitol.

There was no complaint. It would be very difficult to charge the case.

So still -- at that point, said, all right. I'll go knock on his door. Went to the place, about an hour, hour and a half. Knocked on the door.

Met a gentleman there, that I am with the FBI. We're looking at January 6th. Were you at the Capitol that day? And he looked at me and he said, no. That was the day of my son's funeral.

So I just made him relive that for experience, and give my business card. And was on my merry way. So that was my first Guardian that I had, on January 6th.

GLENN: Are you seeing an escalation of political targeting, at the FBI?

How concerned about all the things, that we're seeing with the face act now, the FBI coming in, in the middle of the night, and arresting 78-year-old people.

The idea that if you disagree, at the school board. You're somehow or another, a terrorist.

STEVE: Yeah. Definitely, there's a political element. I think there's two dueling things. There's politics, and there's ambition.

Sometimes, there's one, sometimes it's the other. And sometimes, there are some true leaders, definitely a special agent in charge.

(inaudible) of the political left, made no secret about that.

She sent out emails about the Dobbs decision, being -- the -- the Supreme Court taking away women's rights.

And the sort of gay pride flag, displayed up in her office in Jacksonville. Then you have my assistant special agent in charge, who I believe, is probably more ambitious.

Saw this as being a huge case of the FBI. Bigger than 9/11. And if you get your name on something with January 6th, and you can claim, you had supervising responsibilities of some way. The largest and most important case of the agency, that's going to be a pretty good ticket for you to promote with the media and the organization.

And I think just recently, with this face act. I've had a little experience with that. Being on human trafficking investigations. I reached out to some of the crisis centers, after the Jackson Dobbs case. Just because I was worried they would have some threats come in.

And I also figured, they might also see some human trafficking victims that could be a good resource for me.

Did that. Got a little helmet sticker from the bosses. But then was also told, I really need to prioritize looking into abortion clinics, because they were really going to be the ones that would be at risk.

GLENN: Really?

STEVE: And I responded, I think the only time the team that wins does that, is like when the Lakers win the title, they burn the city. But otherwise, I don't think that the -- the pro-life side is going to burn down places that are going to be shut down.

GLENN: Right. Right.

STEVE: That's just my critical thinking.

GLENN: And last question, and I know I asked you this before.

But why are we seeing more FBI agents coming out?

We always thought that these guys were the best of the best. Conservatives have always given them a pass. Which I don't think we should have. But now they're showing themselves, to be I think less than honorable. If they're seeing things themselves, and are not standing up against it.

STEVE: I'm hardened by this, myself.

You know I told you, the other night. You know I really thought that I was going to have the Captain America end game moment, where I saw the battle. And even in my most dire situation, I would get that on your lap moment. And there would be my brother and sister in arms, standing there. And they just aren't.

I'm done talking about the good men and women at the FBI. I know that's the politically correct thing that all our leaders like to say to make sure the donations keep coming in. But I'm no longer doing that.

I think that, it's a really sweet gig to be an FBI agent. I lived it for eight years. Great job.

They're the most interesting person, maybe with the exception of radio show hosts. Everybody wants to answer questions, the big case.

And you can really get by on your career, being grossly overpaid and underworked, and focuses kind of -- play that same narrative. Where they say, I'm just trying to pay the bills and put food on the table. I'll keep my head down, and look at a few years to retirement.

But, you know, I swore an oath. And, you know, like I voiced to my bosses. I guess you guys found the one, that actually took their oath seriously. And I believed in it.

I -- that's why I wanted to do the job.

So this was a job. So I did the job. And it never occurred to me, that that was not -- that that was an option to not do that.

Unfortunately, I guess the other 14,000 agents, who -- who wore the gun and badge, don't share my sentiments.

GLENN: Well, we have all kinds of oversight if the Republicans gain the House.

It looks like they're going to at this point. And I know you're in touch with people on Capitol Hill.

And I hope we see more of you.

And I hope all of this comes to light. And we do clean up, this organization.

Or shut it down. If it won't be cleaned up. Then shut it down.

Steve, thank you so much.

STEVE: You bet, Glenn.

GLENN: Steve Friend. Former FBI agent. He has had quite a transformation. You'll see him, as he talks about some of the cases he has in front of you tomorrow.

It is a really, very important show. Because we don't know our Constitution.

You know, Mike Lee's son came with his wife. And Mike.

And we went out to dinner afterwards. And his son is actually -- I think he's clerking for the Supreme Court now.

And he said, you know when I -- I heard my dad was coming to this, I wanted to believe. He said, but so many places are just going to get you all riled up.

And then leave it there. And he said, I was so glad to see, the panel, and what you guys were doing. Because what we tried to do, is show you, what can happen to you.

And it is on the increase. We've never had to think about being an enemy of the state.

We never have been.

We believe in the Constitution.

How can we possibly be the enemy of the -- of the government. And the -- and the Constitution.

When we are calling for the use of the Constitution.

And you never have thought of yourself as a rebel. But now you are. Just for standing up.

You'll hear the story of a guy who lost his children, because he would not go along with call his son, who does not want to be called a girl. A girl.

It can happen to you. And we're going to give you the do's and don'ts. And what you need to do to prepare for these things.

It's an introductory, really, on the Constitution. And how you should behave.

And there is one shocking thing, that I think conservatives have never even thought of before.

That is overwhelming advice, from the experts. That's tomorrow night. Only on Blaze TV.

Go to BlazeTV.com/Glenn.

Use the promo code Stand Up.

And save. Our biggest savings ever.

$30 on your one year of subscription. So it's 70 bucks now for a year.

Believe me, you will get more than 70 dollars' worth of value, out of that. With all of the shows, that we have.

And the specials that we have, coming up.

It's so important now, more than ever, that we stay in touch with each other. And have a direct line of communication.

Being a Blaze family member is one way to do that. BlazeTV.com/Glenn. Use the promo code Stand Up.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

Max Lucado & Glenn Beck: Finding unity in faith

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

Watch Glenn Beck's FULL Interview with Max Lucado HERE

Bill O'Reilly predicts THIS will be Charlie Kirk's legacy

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

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

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

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

BILL: Family okay? All of that?

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

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

GLENN: It is.

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

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

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

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

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

Ultra dangerous.

And a few hours later, Charlie Kirk is assassinated.

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

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

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

People create around their own lives.

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

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

He decided that he wanted to do that.

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

GLENN: Yes, he was.

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

That's what Charlie Kirk did.

And he lost his life.

By doing it!

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

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

But it really isn't.

And this is the ongoing story.

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

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

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

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

GLENN: He is.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And then you have the big Jesus revolution after that.

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

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

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

And you're never going to get them back.

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

Let's run it down.

The corporate media is finished.

In America. It's over.

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

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

And the hate is the key word.

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

I will do it GE today. With major Garrett.

GLENN: Wow.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me ask you about --

BILL: When am I wrong?

When am I wrong?

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Yeah, okay.

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

BILL: Yeah.

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

So --

GLENN: You think that they could.

BILL: 60 Minutes used to be the gold standard.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

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

GLENN: I don't either.

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

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

They never, ever watched network television.

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

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

They don't watch --

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

GLENN: Yeah. Right.

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

Same voices, with huge followings.

Huge!

All right?

We couldn't get on there.

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

GLENN: I know.

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

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

BILL: Yes, it was his defiance.

GLENN: Yes.

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

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

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

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

GLENN: Why?

BILL: Because Putin would use nuclear weapon.

He wouldn't. He's a psychopath.

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

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

GLENN: I'll be there. What time?

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The difference between debate and celebrating death

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

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

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

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

Is every -- is every speech controversy the same?

The answer to that is clearly no.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No! They're not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now, compare that to France in 1793.

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

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

Washington -- no. It wasn't.

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

They wanted blood. They wanted heads to roll.

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

Then they turned around on that one pretty quickly.

Think of Rome.

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

The mob started cheering assassinations.

They rejoiced that enemies were slaughtered.

They were being fed to the lions.

And the republic fell into empire.

And liberty was lost!

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

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

Yes! Yes, it is.

Because that is speech this pursuit of truth.

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

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

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

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

Or that woman.

I know, that's not an enlightening mind.

Somebody who delights in political murder.

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

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

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

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

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

And I believe we still have a moral compass.

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

Neither one of them should go to jail.

Neither should be silenced by the state.

But does trust survive both?

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

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

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

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

Yes.

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

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

Except here. I think it is easy.

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

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

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

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

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

You know, our Founders gave us liberty.

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

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

Liberty without virtue is suicide!

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

Which do you want to defend?

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

Which one?

Could passengers have SAVED Iryna Zarutska?

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Yeah, they are.

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

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

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

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

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

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

But she might do it anyway.

GLENN: How pathetic, but how true.

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

GLENN: Uh-huh.

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

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

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

Unfortunately.

But would I want her to step in?

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

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

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

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

Hmm. No.

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

Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Yeah. And tried to give her CPR.

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

Do you know off the top of your head?

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

STU: Yeah.

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

STU: Right.

GLENN: In reality.

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

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

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

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

Maybe I'm -- I hope --

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

STU: Yeah. I mean --

JASON: They did not respond.

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

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Yeah. Well --

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

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

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

In that situation.