RADIO

Why Glenn is SKEPTICAL about the "HACKED" Matt Gaetz investigation testimony

Who could have seen it coming?! A "hacker" has reportedly gained access to testimony from the congressional investigation into former Representative and current Trump Attorney General pick Matt Gaetz. Glenn and Stu review this shocking story and how it definitely WASN'T leaked by some Democratic staffer or lawmaker. Plus, they discuss the odds that this is eventually leaked and whether the allegations against Gaetz are even credible.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Okay. All right.

Hackers. I've got to tell you, I'm upset. But I don't think I'm as upset as the Democrats are.

STU: Oh, of course.

GLENN: They've got to be really upset.

STU: What you know they're saying? Dagnabbit. These hackers.

GLENN: Dagnabbit. They're not saying Jiminy Cricket, are they?

STU: They're saying Jiminy Cricket.

GLENN: It's that bad. It's that bad.

STU: These hackers. First, they get that Dobbs decision, and that gets leaked. And now this?

I mean, the Democrats have got to be very disappointed with that.

Now, I may have said the other day. That there was zero chance this would not be leaked.
(laughter)

That there's no chance --

GLENN: Well, it wasn't leaked though. It wasn't leaked.

STU: It's not like -- it has nothing to do with my previous statement. Because this was a hacker. A hacker who is just like, where should I go?

I want to get that Matt Gaetz report.

GLENN: I bet it's secure. I bet there's no way of me getting it for political purposes. You know what I mean?

STU: Right. And I want to be clear.

This definitely was not a congressional employee of some sort. We know it's a hacker.

GLENN: It's a hacker.

We have no idea who could have gotten into this.

STU: Right.

GLENN: I bet we've already called the cell phone companies. We can't triangulate any of that. All that is corrupted.

STU: Well, we do have a name. Do you want to know the name?

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah. I do.

STU: The information was downloaded by a person using the name Atlem Beasley (phonetic) At 1:23 p.m. on Monday.

GLENN: Not of the Beasley clan!

STU: Of the Beasley clan.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. Those Beasleys are vicious, and pernicious hackers.

STU: Uh-huh. Hackers. The Beasleys.

Now, we don't know what the name means. Obviously, I would assume not their real name. Lawyer connected to the case, sent an email to the address associated with Atlem Beasley.

Only to be informed that by an automated reply, the recipient doesn't exist. They just don't know who this person could be.

GLENN: Man!

STU: It's just so disappointing.

GLENN: You know what is really amazing, how we have all of this technology, that can track and listen and find anything. Every keystroke, reported. But we can't find this hacker.

STU: But we do know almost immediately, that it was hacked. You know, it's funny. Because someone will come in and hack, you know, some -- some cell phone providers information. Millions. Billions. Of records, go out.

Of millions of people. And we won't know about it for six months.

The next day! We have learned, all about this hack. It's almost like someone who knew about the hack, was able to immediately get that information to the New York Times.

GLENN: That's crazy.

STU: Oh, these hackers. They're getting more and more shifty by the day.

GLENN: Oh, man. Do we know where Sotomayor might have been.

Oh, I didn't.

STU: No, it's a good question. Anybody can be as guilty as the next person. Bring up Sotomayor. Equally impossibly as guilty as anyone else.

The janitor here at the Blaze may have done it, or Sonia Sotomayor.

GLENN: Sonia Sotomayor, who definitely had nothing to do with the leak of Dobbs. Nothing.

STU: No. No.

GLENN: I don't mean to imply that at all.

STU: No. No.

GLENN: She is just as upset as anybody else about that.

That leaking of the Dobbs decision.

STU: She's probably upset about this Gaetz decision too.

GLENN: She's probably like, oh, those hackers.

STU: The dagnabbit. They got us again.

GLENN: Yeah. Jim any Christmas.

STU: It's really disappointing that this continues to happen. Of course, I'm sure a hacker just knows where to go, to find this information.

Certainly, maybe someone who is involved in this ethics report. Would have the exact knowledge of where -- where this file lived.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

STU: But the hacking though.

GLENN: The hacking. Yeah.

STU: You know, it's probably more hacking than anything else.

GLENN: It's not somebody on the inside.

STU: Not somebody on the inside.

GLENN: It wouldn't be somebody like a Supreme Court justice Sotomayor that did that.

STU: No. First of all, absolutely not. On the Dobbs thing.

GLENN: As we know.

STU: I would be stunned to hear that she or someone from her office was involved in that.

GLENN: There was no one.

Well, when they checked everybody else.

STU: A magnifying glass and everything else.

GLENN: Well, they couldn't check the justices. They couldn't have done it.

They're outraged. They're outraged.

STU: I'm pretty skeptical Sotomayor was capable of actually doing this on her own.

She seems to be incapable of tying her shoes.

GLENN: Yeah. I didn't say she did it on her own.

I didn't even say she did it.

STU: To be clear, that's not what anyone is insinuating.

And in this case, there's definitely no interest.

GLENN: None.

STU: People who don't like Matt Gaetz. Democrats and some Republicans.

No chance that this was a setup, and leaked to the New York Times, specifically, within gosh, 24 hours.

GLENN: Let me ask you. Let me ask you.

Now, a convicted felon claimed that he was paying the legal fees of the accuser of Matt Gaetz. And controlling her.

Okay. A convicted felon.

Now, if you don't know, you know, what this whole report is based on, well, the report -- I mean, well, first of all, they looked into this.

They looked into this.

You know, because there's no reason, anybody at the DOJ would want Gaetz out.

Because, yes, he was effective. He was probably the biggest voice against the corruption at the DOJ.

However, this report was based on something that came years after the DOJ dropped its investigation.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: So they investigated. Heard about it. Investigated. And they were like, oh, my gosh. This could be -- oh, no. Uh-uh. There's nothing to it.

STU: Well, they didn't file charges.

They didn't necessarily say there was nothing to it. They didn't file charges.

GLENN: Well, let's look into this.

And I don't know. Because I haven't seen the leaked report.

Like that was going to tell me anything.

STU: Wait. So you're not the hacker?

There's one person who is not the hacker.

GLENN: I'm sorry. Did I -- the report comes years after the DOJ dropped its investigation into the same claims on the grounds that two central witnesses had serious credibility issues. That's why they dropped it.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: The witnesses had serious credibility issues.

Yet these are the same two central witnesses, the House ethics committee has relied on for its critical report of Gaetz, which has now been hacked.

STU: Ah, the hacking! All this hacking.

GLENN: Yeah. The two witnesses do have some credibility problems. The claims arose from Joel Greenberg, one of the most corrupt Florida politicians of all time.

Among the many things the former seminal county tax collector admitted to, as part of a wide-ranging case for which he's currently serving 11 years in prison.

Was falsely accusing a local politician. An opponent of his, Brian Beaut (phonetic) of having sex with a minor.

STU: Hmm! Interesting. The similarities there.

GLENN: Yeah, it's kind of weird, isn't it?

Greenberg also reportedly attempted to frame his attorney with pornographic images of children.

One New York Times write-up of Greenberg was headlined Like The Tiger.

Like The Tiger King got elected tax collector, according to the Washington Post.

Greenberg admitted to fabricating allegations against a school teacher, a third one, running against him.

Greenberg had sent letters to the school, falsely claiming the teacher had inappropriate sexual relationships with a student. So, I mean, you know, it's a little credibility problem.

STU: A tad. A tad. It's not left to the level of hacking. It's not that type of crime. It's not a hacking level offense. But it does sound pretty bad.

GLENN: You know, it's a good thing we don't have all of our nuclear codes online.

STU: I know. Because people would hack them.

GLENN: Almost anyone could get them. This is going to be -- you'll see, if they ever catch this guy. But they won't. I know they won't. Because they're so hard to find.

Almost as hard as finding somebody who puts a pipe bomb in front of the DNC, RNC. No specific case I'm talking about.

Just using those as an example on January 6th. No date is actually being implied here.

But let's say it was January 6th.

STU: Just one date.

GLENN: You'll never be able to find those guys. Never!

We've looked so hard! Can't find them.

I bet it will be like this with Mr. Beasley.

STU: If only we had hackers to get into the records on that pipe bomb case, then we could learn something.

GLENN: Just had hackers who knew hackers, that would hack into the hackers.

STU: Right. Yes, it's all about the hacking.

Now, this is interesting. In that, it does not appear to have been -- to have been made public at this time.

GLENN: Oh, no. Well, the internet -- the internet is not instant!

STU: No. No.

So I'm sure it won't come out, let's say, between now and the confirmation hearings.

No. It won't be leaked. Because that's not what these hackers wanted apparently.

GLENN: And it's not what these journalists.

STU: They do not.

GLENN: You have to have at least a couple of sources.

Incredible sources.

STU: It would be disappointing. Because hacking would not be journalism.

In fact, they were so skeptical of hacking. They made sure not to report on that Russian disinformation effort on that Hunter Biden laptop.

They wanted to make sure that they couldn't know.

GLENN: Exactly right. There could very well be a political motive behind that.

STU: It could be.

GLENN: Right. We're not going to take that --

STU: We know if these are Russian hackers. It could be. I would say, probably is. I would say, definitely is.

GLENN: Well, I would say definitely not. They're not Russian --

STU: They're not Russian hackers this time?

GLENN: They're not Russian --

STU: This is more of a whistle-blower. Would you say this is more of a whistle-blower feel.

GLENN: I do. This is probably a whistle-blower.

I Russian hacker would be wrong. But a whistle-blower might really be the person that you really need to protect.

As long as he's blowing the whistle on Matt Gaetz. We have to protect him.

Blowing the whistle on, let's say, the hacker that might be under the desk Sotomayor's, you know, office, I'm just saying.

I'm just pick any desk. I shouldn't have said her.

Pick any desk, okay?

Somebody that has a pretty good chance of hacking. Or just releasing information. At other times. Be the Sotomayor.

But just releasing things.

You know, let's say, they're under that desk. That's a whistle-blower that needs to be protected.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: You know, need to protect them.

STU: These whistle-blowers. Not like hackers. They need to be protected. This will be interesting, Glenn.

GLENN: Will it? I wonder how it will end.

STU: I wonder if this will come out. And it's not out yet.

But I feel like there's a possibility these hackers might be so dastardly, that they just might release this to a journalist that has to report on it, because it's now in the public eye.

GLENN: That's good. Well, it will be --

STU: Only choice.

GLENN: It will only be after talking to several inside -- insiders, that have knowledge of the case.

STU: Well, you know --

GLENN: They'll verify.

STU: That's -- it's important to get the whistle-blower's claims out there, Glenn.

That's why, they're always very consistent on this type of information.

GLENN: Do you know -- I'm reading from the New York Times. That even the DOJ was unwilling to exploit the unsubstantiated claims.

STU: Hmm. Yeah.

GLENN: I mean, apart from leaking them to the press.

STU: Of course. Because really, if you don't file charges against someone for having sex with a 17-year-old.

In a state, where the age of consent is 18.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: Would it be essentially almost the same thing, if you just released the accusation?

GLENN: Well, it would be justice.

STU: Pretty close.

GLENN: It would be justice. Yeah. It would be justice.

STU: I mean, I don't know what happened with this story.

You know, look, there are --

GLENN: What do you mean?

STU: Well, I'm saying, about the Gaetz. The actual truth on the Gaetz thing.

I don't know. He was definitely involved with some shady people. I mean, he was friends with the guy they were talking about.

The unreliable witness. He was with him. Friends with him.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

STU: And he does seem to be completely unreliable as a witness.

GLENN: Well, if I might just say. Show me your friends.

I'll show you your future. Should have picked better friends. It's always a good idea. Always a good idea.

STU: It's always a good idea to pick better friends. And like Gaetz' explanation of this is basically like, well, they have all these Venmo transactions going to these -- we'll call them women. And he says, this is just -- they're exploiting my generosity to some ex-girlfriends. That was his -- his justification for this.

GLENN: So here's the problem. Here's the problem. The DOJ, which we know would love to destroy him.

Okay. And the Democrats, who would love to destroy him. Didn't have enough to bring any charges. Okay?

STU: So that's a lot. That's a lot of information.

GLENN: That's an awful lot.

Now, that doesn't mean he's innocent. It just means, that the people who want to destroy him. And have destroyed people on absolute lies, decided, this one was a little too weak to even charge him.

STU: At least with criminal charges.

GLENN: Yes. So you don't release things, from a hacker. You destroy people, on innuendo, or rumors.

You think somebody broke the law, good!

Then use the law to try them!

STU: And that's pretty much the entire line. Right?

GLENN: Period.

STU: If he had girlfriends who were on the younger side, but still legal. It might go to his judgment. But it wouldn't be a criminal offense.

And so, you know, mark Wayne Mullen. Who is now a senator had an interview where he was saying that everyone has seen Matt Gaetz. And he has shown all the footage of his naked girlfriends.

On the House floor. And he's disgusting. And he uses ED medications, chopped into red bowls or something. I mean, the interview is bizarre.

Just the reason I bring that up is, he just said he's voting to confirm Gaetz. So like I don't know what to believe. I really don't.

GLENN: Well, he's probably Hitler. Or Mussolini.

STU: Or Mussolini.

GLENN: But we're going to make friends with him. We're going to make friends with him. We'll make friends with him. I'll tell you that right now.

RADIO

The Glenn Beck Program Honors Charlie Kirk

Join Glenn as he goes live to honor the memory of Charlie Kirk. A time of prayer, grieving, and remembrance for a husband, father, and patriot.

RADIO

Glenn joins Megyn Kelly live to discuss Charlie Kirk shooting

Covering the breaking news of Charlie Kirk at shot at Turning Point USA event.

RADIO

Please pray for my friend Charlie.

Please pray for Charlie Kirk.

Please pray for our Republic.

RADIO

Gen Z's surprising support for Trump and socialist policies revealed in new poll

A shocking number of young Americans support BOTH President Trump and democratic socialism, a new poll has found, and they're willing to make major changes to the American system to get what they feel they deserve. Justin Haskins, who conducted the poll with Rasmussen, joins Glenn Beck to break down the unexpected findings…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Justin Haskins. He's the president of our republic. StoppingSocialism.com. He's editor-in-chief. And also the coauthor of several books, with me. Welcome to the program, Justin.

How are you?

JUSTIN: I'm doing well, Glenn. How are you?

STU: Well, I was well, until you contacted me on vacation, and sent me this disturbing poll.

I am in bed at night.

And I'm reading this. I'm like, oh, dear.

What? My wife is like, I told you to not check this email. I'm like, I didn't know Justin was going to write to me.

Justin, tell me, first of all, before we get into it, how secure is the sample size on this poll?

JUSTIN: It's a very good sample size. 1200 people nationally.

Only 18 to 39-year-olds. And we did that deliberately, so that we could get a sample size large enough so we could pull out valid responses, just from younger people.

So the whole purpose of this poll was to find out what younger people, 18 to 39 think, voters only. And people who say that they're likely to vote. So we're not talking about just people out in the public. We're not talking about registered voters.

We're talking about people who are registered to vote. And say they're likely to vote.

GLENN: So let's go over some of the things that you have already released to the press.

And that is, in the survey, 18 to 39-year-olds, likely voters.

The Trump approval rating is a lot higher than you thought it would be. Right?

JUSTIN: Yeah. Yeah. Forty-eight percent positive approval rating of Donald Trump, which for young people, is very high.

So that's -- that's the good news.

That's the only good news we're going to talk about.

GLENN: We might have to come back to that first question several times.

Do you believe the United States is a fundamentally good, evil, or morally mixed country?

JUSTIN: Yep. This one is not too bad.

It's not great. But fundamentally good was 28 percent.

Which is low. But mixed was 50 percent.

And fundamentally evil was 17 percent.

And I think mixed at 50 percent is not an unreasonable, crazy response.

I -- I can see why all sorts of people might choose that.

So I don't think there's anything terrible here. It depends on what you mean by mixed. Fundamentally good at 28 percent. It's a little low. Fundamentally evil at 17 percent, it's a little disturbing. But it's not -- it's not insane. The insane stuff comes a little bit later.

GLENN: Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Major industries talk about the crazy stuff coming later, here it is.

Major industries like health care, energy, and big tech should be nationalized and give more control and equity to the people.

JUSTIN: Yeah. This was -- this was -- this one floored me. If I look at strongly agree. Somewhat agree for that statement you just read. It's over 70 percent of young people, including -- including the vast majority of Republicans. Young Republicans. And people who identify as conservatives.

It was pretty similar, in fact, how young people responded compared to liberals and independents.

And Democrats.

They all pretty much agreed that, yes. The government. The federal government should be nationalizing whole industries to make things more equitable for people.

GLENN: As the guy who is the chief -- editor-in-chief of stopping socialism. What's the problem with nationalizing energy, and health care?

JUSTIN: Well --

GLENN: What happens, typically.

JUSTIN: Well, usually, there's blood in the streets, when you do too much of that.

You know, socialism, communism have been spectacularly horrible, throughout the course of human history. Across every society, culture, religion.

It doesn't matter when or what kind of technological advancements you have. The more you collect vies a society. The more authoritarian that society gets. The less you have individual freedom. And the worst the economy usually is for regular people. So it's been a catastrophe across-the-board. Everyone listening to this audience, probably knows that.

And so the idea that you would have three-quarters of young voters. So remember, these people will be the primary voters in ten to 20 years.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

JUSTIN: Saying, yeah. We should be nationalizing whole industries. Whole industries, is so disturbing.

And I don't think that conservatives are -- understand how deeply rooted some of these ideas are with younger people.

GLENN: No. No.

And I will tell you, I think some conservatives are walking a very dangerous line. And, you know, coming up with a little mix of everything.

And -- and I think we have to be very careful on -- on what is being said. And who are WHO our friends and allies are.

By the way, that number again is 39 percent strongly agree.

37 percent somewhat agree.

Somewhat disagree, 12 percent. Strongly disagree, 5 percent.

That is disastrous. Now, try this one on. These are the ones that have been -- we have new ones.

These are just a few of the ones that were released late last week. The next presidential election is in 2028. Would you like to see a democratic socialist candidate win the 2028 presidential election?

JUSTIN: Yep, 53 percent said yes.

Fifty-three percent of all voters said yes. And the most shocking thing, was that 35 percent of those who we poll, who said they voted for Donald Trump, in 2024, said that that they want to see a socialist win in 2028. And so about a third of Republicans, 35 percent of Trump voters, 43 percent of people who call themselves conservatives, so even on the right, among younger people. There is a large group that want a socialist president, in 2028.

GLENN: And the reason -- the reason is, it -- it tied into the next few questions. Okay.

So here's question five. Among the following options, which best describes your biggest reason, you would like to see a democratic socialist candidate. Thirty-one percent said housing costs are too high. Twelve percent, taxes are too low for corporations. Eleven percent, taxes are too low for wealthy have I seen.

Eight percent want single payer health care systems. Seventeen say the economy unfairly benefits older, wealthier Americans.

Fifteen percent say the economy unfairly benefits larger corporations. 5 percent, some other reason.

And 2 percent, unsure. Now, let's get into the new polls that were breaking today.

Question six.

How would you describe your current financial situation?

JUSTIN: Yeah. Only 24 percent said that they're doing well. Thirty-four -- 38 percent said getting by. Struggling 29 percent. Seven percent said in crisis. So if you add up just getting by, struggling, and in crisis, that's 74 percent said that they're just barely getting by, at best.

And I think that explains a lot of the other negative responses we've seen so far.

GLENN: That's not good.

JUSTIN: In this poll. And the ones that are going to come pretty soon here.

GLENN: Seven. Which best describes your personal life situation?

You are thriving, you're doing well with a few ups and downs. You feel stuck and uncertain. You feel lonely, disconnected, or emotionally drained. You're in a crisis and feel most negative about your personal life.

JUSTIN: Yeah. Yeah. About a third said that they feel stuck or uncertain. Lonely. Or that they're in a crisis.

That's a third of young people. Say that.

I mean, that's -- that's not great. Only 19 percent said thriving.

46 percent said, they have ups and downs. Which I think is not. Too shocking.

But the idea that there's a third of American voters out there, who feel like, they can't buy a home. And they feel like they are lonely. And that they're in crisis. And that life is not just going well at all for them.

Again, I think that's -- that's driving a lot of the support for socialism. When you have 53 percent of these people saying, yeah. I want a socialist president in 2028.

GLENN: So socialism is not the answer. It is the symptom. It is the symptom of what people are feeling right now.

And they -- they don't know any other -- they don't -- nobody is presenting them with anything other than, you know, Republican/Democrat bullcrap. And socialists are coming at it from a completely nigh angle. Or so the youth think it's the oldest and most failed system of all time.

But they're seeing this as a solution that is different than what the party -- the Republican/Democrats are offering. Even though the Democrats are offering the socialism thing.

Number eight, do you think the American economy is unfair to young people?

Sixty-two percent say yes.

JUSTIN: Yeah, and 27 percent said no.
And I think that this really gets at the heart of what the issue is here.

When you look at the reasons. When you look at the detailed things of the poll.

What -- to try to find out if there's an association between some kind of demographic or response question about people's lives and their support for socialism, to see if there's a correlation there between something that is happening. And whether someone is a socialist or not.

One of the top correlations, connections, is, if people think the economy is unfair.

And if they're having trouble buying a home. Or they don't think they can buy a home. Or that's one of their reasons for supporting socialism.

So, in other words, there's this fairness issue. And it's not even about inequality.

It's not about, well, they have too much -- well, if they feel like the -- to use a Trump term. Rigged.

And throughout the data. That's what we see over and over and over again. Is lots of people say, the economy is rigged. For older people. For wealthier people, for corporations. It's rigged. And if they say, yeah. I think it's rigged, you know, then they're more likely to say, yeah. I want a socialist.

And I also think the same group has a relatively high approval rating of Donald Trump.

It's because the reason that a lot of young people like Trump in the poll, is that he's not part of the establishment.

And I think -- I don't think they -- I think a lot of young people who voted for Trump and who liked Trump, they didn't do it, because they liked free market, pro-liberty policies. And that's not a good thing.

But I don't think that's why they did it. I think a lot of them voted for Trump and supported him, because he's not the establishment. And that's what they don't like. They want to blow the establishment up.

JUSTIN: So my -- Justin, my sample size is my two young adults. My two children.

And they're like, talking to me, and saying, Dad. I will never be able to own a home, looking at the prices, looking at interest rates. They're like, I can't even afford to pay rent at an apartment. And they don't know what to do.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

JASON: And so they're looking at -- on, like, TikTok. And they're like, who is this Mamdani guy? This sounds interesting. They bring this to me. They grew up listening to me indoctrinating them their entire lives. They're looking at other voices like on TikTok. Are we just not being loud enough?

GLENN: No. We're not -- we're not connecting with them. We're not -- I feel like they don't feel they're being heard.

And we are speaking to them in red, white and be blue.

And that means nothing. The Statue of Liberty means nothing to them. Ellis Island means nothing to them. The flag means nothing to them.

It's all partisan politics.

They're all symbols of really, the two parties.

You know, and an America, they don't relate to at all.

I think that's -- that's our biggest problem, and not being able to break through. To your point, question nine. How confident are you that you will own a home at some point, in the next ten years?

29 percent say, they already own a home. Which I found interesting. That's -- I think a pretty high number for somebody who is 18 to 34 years old.

JUSTIN: Thirty-nine.

GLENN: Thirty-nine.

JUSTIN: Yeah.

GLENN: There's a lot of 18 to 30. That I didn't own home when I was, you know, 30. Just got a home when I was 30. But go ahead. Go ahead with the rest of that poll.

JUSTIN: Yeah. So then 21 percent said discouraged, but somewhat hopeful. 12 percent said, not confident. 10 percent said, you are convinced you will never own a home. 3 percent not sure.

So if you add up the negative responses, it's around 43 percent that gave that response.

GLENN: Right. But, again, 29 percent, you already own a home. And 25 percent you are confident you will own a home, is still good. It just -- these -- these other numbers, have, you know, discouraged, but hopefully you will own a home. Who is discouraging that? And how is that being discouraged?

You know, only 12 -- let's see 12. Twenty-two. 25 percent are not sure they will ever own a home. That's too high of a number.

But I -- I don't think that's completely dismal. Now, a completely dismal answer, to the question, would you support a law that would confiscate America's excess wealth?

Including things like second homes. Luxury cars, and private boats, in order to help young people buy a home for the first time?

Are you for or against that? We'll give you that number here in just a second.

GLENN: There are some disturbing results, that get very disturbing, going from here on.

We've got two of these today, and then more tomorrow.

We'll spend more time with you tomorrow, Justin.

But would you support a law that would confiscate American's excess wealth, including things like second home, luxury cars, and private boats in order to help young people buy a home for the first time? Get the results.

JUSTIN: Yeah, 25 percent strongly support that, 30 percent somewhat support it, 55 percent in total for support. Only 38 percent strongly or somewhat oppose, with just 20 percent saying strongly oppose. So the vast majority now is -- is supporting this Communistic policy to confiscate people's wealth in order to help people. Younger people buy homes, which is in line with that question, we talked about earlier. Where it said, you know, three-quarters of these respondents wanted to nationalize whole industries to make things fairer. So it's all about -- it's all about this sense of unfairness that exists.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

JUSTIN: And they feel like. Young people feel like the system is rigged. They feel like neither party is on their side, and they want to blow the whole thing up, by just taking wealth away from people, nationalizing whole industries, and redistributing it all.

And guess what, that's basically the democratic socialist platform. So it's not a surprise that that's -- that's becoming increasingly more popular with these young people.

And I don't think that free market, pro-liberty people are dealing with -- with this.

GLENN: No.

JUSTIN: In a real way.

In fact, I think a lot of us have believed recently that the wind is at our backs, and we're actually winning more and more young people over.
And that isn't what's happening according to the poll results.

GLENN: It explains why the Democrats have not moved their position off of the socialism stuff.

Doesn't it?

We keep saying, why? It's not working with anybody.

It is working. It is working with people under 39.

18 to 39-year-olds are hearing this message, and are embracing this message.