RADIOMarch 03, 2025

5 Theories to Explain the Epstein Files “Bindergate”

What really happened with the “Epstein Files Phase 1” binder controversy at the White House? Glenn lays out 5 theories that could explain why the full files weren’t released: Was Trump or someone in the administration protecting friends who were on the list? Did Deep State agents in the FBI and SDNY actively withhold the documents, as Attorney General Pam Bond claimed? Is the Trump administration using this controversy to gather support for mass firings at the FBI and SDNY? Was it just a combination of incompetence and people promising too much on Fox News? Or is the Epstein List conspiracy theory just that: a conspiracy theory that we already have the answers to? Glenn, Stu, and Jason Buttrill discuss …

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Jason Buttrill, head of research is in here. Stu Burguiere, our -- our executive producer with the radio program. And we've -- I mean, I talked until I was blue in the face today. Outlining treason. Because I think, if what is being told is happening in the southern district of New York, with the FBI. That is treason! And it should be treated as that. Constitutionally, listen to that case.

You can hear it, if you missed it. Grab the podcast. Wherever you get your podcasts today. So we are talking about the options.

The different options.

STU: What could explain this?

GLENN: That could explain what happened yesterday. So let's start -- the first one was...

STU: The first of three were, there -- Trump is just protecting friends on his list, or someone --

GLENN: I will put a zero on that one.

STU: Then you have the FBI is withholding documents, essentially the Pam Bondi story here is true. Okay?

They're withholding documents. There is really crazy stuff out there. The FBI is withholding it. That's why you don't have it.

Three would be your -- I mean, this is maybe the most -- you're speculative on this one.

That this is sort of a -- a -- a plan.

GLENN: A useful.

No.

A useful -- what was it? Never let a tragedy or crisis go to waste.

STU: Crisis go to waste. Right?

GLENN: This is a crisis that is useful.

STU: Yeah. And they're saying, what we're going to do with that information. Is use it a way we could clean out that office, in way that we couldn't necessarily get away with, if they weren't hiding Epstein documents.

GLENN: Correct.

JAMES: Just a blanket, the FBI is withholding documents, doesn't make sense with Kash Patel as the director. Because he's already seen. If he's gone off these statements. He already has seen it. He knows it. And he's vowed to release it. That has to be knocked off.

GLENN: But if they hold it, they may have moved his access to the information. They may have quartered it in New York.

JAMES: Yeah. And I think that kind of goes towards point three. Because if they know how New York is going to respond on this, that field office. They're just pushing them into the corner to react. How they know they are going to react.

GLENN: Correct. Correct. Correct.

STU: Let me give you a couple of others. And these may be uncomfortable for our side. But I think they should be considered here. Okay? A common, if -- possibility number four, a combination of incompetence, and a bunch of people in really high-profile roles, who say a lot of things on podcasts and Fox news, that sound good on podcasts and Fox news. But don't necessarily have the backing of the facts.

GLENN: Okay. First of all, incompetence. I've not seen this administration act incompetently. So it would be the first act of incompetence that I have seen, I think of any note, in the first, you know, whatever. Forty days.

STU: There's bits and pieces. Generally speaking.

GLENN: There's nothing.

This is a major problem, if -- if that was true.

STU: But -- go ahead.

GLENN: However, on that.

I -- I don't know anybody in this administration, that is part of this. That would be Kash Patel. J.D. Vance.

STU: Pam Bondi.

GLENN: President. And Pam Bondi. The only one that I can't vouch for, that would write -- would write checks with their mouth.

STU: Oh.

GLENN: You know what I mean? Can't be cashed.

Is Pam Bondi. Only because I don't know her. Doesn't mean she's not like that. I just don't know her.

STU: I'm not saying I necessarily think this is the end of the story. Let me just push back on that gently. Kash Patel also said on day one, he was going to close the FBI office and turn it into a museum for the Deep State. As far as I know, it's not occurred. That's a Donald Trump thing.

STU: And because you're saying it's a Donald Trump thing, I must also bring up that Donald Trump also says a lot of things. And he says things that sound great on podcast, and sometimes they're negotiation tactics or whatever. But he often does that.

There's a lot of overpromising, from some of the people he has put in these positions. That is, I think inarguable.

GLENN: That would leave me to believe that it's option three. That there is a method behind the madness. When Donald Trump says those crazy things, usually because it's negotiating or positioning something you don't understand.

And that's what number three is.

This is a well-executed op, that is made for people to think one thing, but it's actually setting up -- it's like his negotiation for trade barriers.

STU: Yeah. Yeah. That's possible. Right?

What's interesting, I think. And you point out the incompetence. To pause on that for a second.

With the exception of number three, which to remind people, is this sort of idea.

Using this as a precursor to go into the Deep State.

GLENN: A useful crisis.

STU: Yes. Every other option has to have incompetence included in it because of the way they sold it.

She was on TV the night before, saying it was going to be this dramatic thing. And then the next day, she said, they didn't send me the documents. That's a terrible way to talk about that publicly.

At the very least it's bad messaging. And bad --

GLENN: Correct. And that is why I hesitate on any of this.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Because -- and I specifically say, I would think the weak link here would be Pam. A, because I don't know her. But, B, I saw that live.

I saw her say that live. And it felt weird. I'm like, that's weird.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: You know what I mean?

STU: She didn't seem all that comfortable saying it. To me, looking at her. She didn't feel like, I know exactly what's coming here.

It felt like it was a big promise.

It was the opposite of what you have told me, seven million times. Never overpromise and underdeliver. You always underpromise and overdeliver.

GLENN: You never do what she just did.

STU: Right! Because it gets people pissed off. So, again, I don't know if that's true. But that needs to be at least the discussion here.

JAMES: She immediately deflected. They immediately deflected because they knew there was going to be outrage on this, because it's one of our main issues on the base is the Epstein files.

GLENN: Yes.

JAMES: She immediately directed all that rage towards one specific point, New York.

STU: Benefit.

JAMES: There's only two reasons to do that. One, to deflect.

STU: To deflect. Which would work with the one that I described.

JAMES: Two, to set off point three.

STU: True.

GLENN: And I think, I'm hoping, because I don't know Pam. But I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt. I mean, she was the attorney general with Florida, with Ron DeSantis. I mean, he's not an idiot when it comes to law.

He won't have an idiot attorney general. But I -- can I -- I tend to think it's number three.

STU: Anyway, can I give you one more. I have one more here.

What if

GLENN: What if.

STU: Just throwing this out here.

GLENN: All right.

STU: What if the truth is, that not every famous person we know has sex with children.

I'm just throwing it out there as a possibility.

What if the Jeffrey Epstein story is a wide-ranging conspiracy of Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, Prince Andrew, several others. Doing all sorts of terrible things. But maybe we kind of know all of it already. Maybe there isn't that much left for us to uncover. And they're not -- we're not going to find.

GLENN: Not with 250 victims.

STU: I --

JAMES: Not with the CIA director going to meet him twice. I think that's kind of a big thing as well.

GLENN: I just --

STU: It's possible. So you don't think there's any -- because we knew about what?

70 victims, or so?

That just in the initial 2018 reporting.

So 250 is a high number. But it's not absolutely absurd. That that --

GLENN: All we heard is what he did.

We have not necessarily heard what others have done.

And we --

STU: But we have heard a lot of that. We have heard a lot --

GLENN: Why haven't they been prosecuted then?

STU: For example. Some people have been accused. And they've withdrawn their accusations. Think of how central, to bring up a friend of the program.

Who was on here, often.

Alan Dershowitz was on this case.

He was one of these guys who did all these things according to the accusations.

Then the girl. The woman now, who came out -- who accused him all this time. Said, maybe it wasn't him.

Like, maybe it -- maybe a lot of these people that were tied into this. Had connections with him.

But really, we don't have videos of them having sex with 14-year-olds. Maybe that's not the reality.

GLENN: You know what? I find that more implausible, and this is saying something!

STU: Yeah. Yeah.

GLENN: Because this is one that really just bothers me like crazy.

I find that more implausible, than we just didn't go to the moon.

JAMES: What! Wow!

GLENN: I think we just didn't go to the moon is more likely than that one.

STU: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Come on! We have a ton of people are known. We know. With incredible, line by line detail.

What that man did, in multiple different areas. We know a lot about this case.

And the fact that we have not uncovered that Bill Gates did it.

You know --

GLENN: Where is anyone that went to jail, other than those two?

STU: I mean, I would have to go back and look at it. I don't think there's been many. Not a lot of high profile people. That's what I'm saying.

Maybe -- maybe just maybe. I know --

GLENN: We staged the moon landing.

STU: I know. Maybe.

Like, I -- and this is, by the way, the best option for all of us. I will point out. The best option for all of us.

GLENN: I did. When you said it, I said, immediately, moon landing.

And then I thought to myself, wow. Am I that jaded. That I dismissed the happy option?

As no way!

JAMES: Okay.

STU: Hold on. Let me finish my point, real quick. Real quick. Maybe it's possible that, you know, wanting to -- the desire to have sex with underage children is a little bit more rare than we believed.

And that would be great information.

Maybe not every rich and powerful person is doing this.

And I know there's a lot invested in that theory.

But to just go off of this for just a second.

We have had multiple politicians.

GLENN: Go ahead. Go ahead.

STU: Multiple sides.

By the way, as we've been told. And talked about, many of our people believe.

That Donald Trump, the ultimate truth teller on this stuff. Right?

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

STU: And he's been president twice through this period. And every time we're promised it. They can't come up with it. So it could be that there's some mass conspiracy hiding it. Or maybe. Just maybe. It's not there in the way that we believe it is. Maybe just maybe. It's a little bit less sexy, and that's a weird word to use there.

Salacious, I suppose.

GLENN: Yeah, that would be great.

STU: It would be.

GLENN: It would be great.

STU: Again, I think it should be discussed. I'm not saying this, necessarily.

GLENN: Well, let's -- let's. You know what, let's get on to the moon landing set, and we can talk about it.

JAMES: I've not seen it floated around a lot, and especially yesterday on X. I spent years doing intelligence. Actual intelligence operations. I'm going to go on full-on conspiracy theory here. I've seen how misinformation. Disinformation works.

I was warning people, that once information started coming out. Listing random names. Like, oh, my God.

Let's tie every single name to Epstein. That was a big op.

She was not involved. Oh, look.

Rihanna was at a party. She was on the list. Well, no. She's not. She could be eventually. I don't know. She's not on the list. Just because she was there. Some random person was there.

STU: Right.

GLENN: And just because you were invited there. Just because you flew on his plane.

Does not mean that you were part of that.

STU: Right.

GLENN: However, the way he made that kind of into his bread and butter, leads me to believe there are many more people involved.

JAMES: It might have been nap that is a big distraction. That is to blow it up to make it look like it's a vast right-wing conspiracy. To hide the fact what was going on. What was going on?

I don't know. But we know that members of the royal family were involved. We know. I'll say this again. That the CIA director!

At least twice! Went to meet with Jeffrey Epstein. He does not do that on some random dude that they have charged for a crime that didn't exist. Why would the CIA director meet with Jeffrey Epstein?

STU: I don't know. I mean --

GLENN: That doesn't happen!

STU: Yeah. I would agree. It could be very well, they were looking at something. And there could be more.

Let's say. Prince Andrew, would be a pretty big thing for them to look at. We know, at least allegedly, he denies this. He was involved in some of this stuff. Right.

So, but -- and there could be five -- ten other names. Saudi Arabian kings.

GLENN: Right. Right.

STU: Who knows. I'm just saying, maybe it's not where we -- where the biggest version of it is.

GLENN: I think that would be great. Here's the only thing that I think we can walk away, we know to be true.

STU: Yeah, you're a jerk. I know what's coming. I'm going to say, I was involved in the list.

I'm not going to let you get away with it.

GLENN: You Stu was on the list.

JAMES: We see what's going on, Stu.

What AI Got Wrong About the JFK Files

Glenn’s research team has been using the AI program Grok to sift through the newly released JFK assassination files. But so have many other people … and Grok’s analysis has been inconsistent. Glenn reviews multiple Grok summaries of the files and warns that you should NOT trust them without verifying everything. Some summaries include fake quotes about LBJ, the CIA, and Allen Dulles that would mislead anyone wondering who killed Kennedy. This is why AI must always be a tool, Glenn says, and never a source.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So I want to talk to you a little bit about something I found, I think it was yesterday. My researchers and I. And I -- I saw something on X. Somebody, a friend of mine sent this and said, wow. Look at this. It's happening. What Grok is saying, is happening with the JFK files.

And I read it.

And I -- my first thought was, wow. Next week's show. My next Wednesday night special is all built on JFK and the assassination.

In fact, could you go into my office, and go get the gun? Have somebody go into my office, and get the gun. But it's -- next week, we're going to do this.

And I read this from Grok. And I'm like, oh, my gosh. This is going to be one of the most amazing shows ever. If this is what it is. And here's what Grok says, first guess as to who Grok thinks is responsible for JFK's death.

Before diving into the detailed analysis of the players, blah, blah, blah, an educated guess. Who is responsible for JFK's death?

Drawing from the analysis of 31,419 pages and since -- synthesized -- ugh. Putting it together with all the public records. The Warren Commission. Other types of declassified. You're going to know when I'm AI.

STU: All of a sudden, you won't be making mistakes like that?

GLENN: I can read.

The most plausible -- Glenn could never read!

STU: He could never say that three syllable word. Hall of Fame.

GLENN: Anyway, so here are -- the following are the key players in the JFK assassination according to this from Grok.

Lyndon B. Johnson. Now, when I saw that, I'm like, wait. That's kind of earth-shattering. What?

My team hasn't found that. What are you talking about? Lyndon B. Johnson. The CIA with Allen Dulles. Then the Mafia. Victor Petrov. And then Lee Harvey Oswald. And they were all in collusion, one way or another. That's what Grok said.

Now, I said that to my team. And I'm like, are you finding any of this? Because I haven't heard this anywhere, and it's posted on a tweet from Grok!

My first thing after I sent it to my research team. And said, can you check into this?

I went back, and I asked it, I asked Grok.

Tell me from all of the documents, that have been released.

Coupled with anything that had been released before, or on commission. Et cetera, et cetera. Who most likely was responsible for the death of -- of JFK.

It says this: I've been tasked with analyzing the vast trove of JFK assassination records, both the recently released file, and the millions of pages in -- classified over the decades, to determine who is likely responsible for President John F. Kennedy's death, November.

Blah, blah, blah. The question of whether he was a lone wolf, Lee Harvey Oswald, as the official narrative holds, or a conspiracy involving multiple actors.

So it goes through and opens up all of the different things that it says it's learned.

Then, its conclusion. JFK's death was likely the result of a conspiracy, not a lone wolf.

LBJ. Rogue CIA elements. The Mafia. And Soviet/Cuban actors. And Oswald as the fall guy. That's the most plausible picture.

Okay. Wait a minute. So now, I didn't feed in, its answer to someone else.

I mean, said, based on these things. And I get the same answer.

And so now I send this to my team. And said, I asked, and just received the same answer. Is anyone getting this answer?

Look at our prompts.

And am I prompting incorrectly, are we prompting incorrectly? So I get back from there. Let me see.

I get this from Nathan, one of our writers.

He wrote: From the released JFK files, show me where LBJ told Allen Dulles to proceed as discussed, deniability, critical, and cite your sources. Now, he just went into --

STU: That's one of the quotes.

GLENN: That's one of the quotes that is in both of these things. And he decided, I will drill in on one quote. Okay?

I've carefully reviewed. This is Grok's answer.

I've carefully reviewed the available information, including the context provided and the current state of the released JFK assassination files. There is no verifiable evidence, from the officially released JFK files that contained a direct quote from Lyndon B. Johnson to Allen Dulles stating, proceed as discussed. Blah, blah, blah.

This specific phrasing and the associated claim appeared to stem from speculation or unverified assertions, rather than any documented evidence in the public record.

So now why --

STU: So oops. Right.

GLENN: So now why is it giving me the impression, that Allen Dulles, LBJ, the CIA, they were all in on this thing?

And they used Oswald as a patsy. This -- I wanted to bring this up. Because I -- we even have one more. We have this from our Chief Researcher Jason.

Conclusion: Oswald is the lone gunman remains most likely, 70 to 80 percent. CIA, their involvement at all, rises from 40 to 50 percent. Exiles and the mob, claim 30 to 40 percent. And Cuban/U.S.S.R. stay low still at 20 to 25 percent, maybe as low as 15 percent.

So he's asking, what are the odds that these things? Okay. And it prints out, page after page after page.

STU: Of overlap there too.

GLENN: Of overlap. So we're getting different answers.

You should be able to ask and get the same conclusion. This is why this device, it must be a tool of you.

Because had I not known how to use AI and how to question. And had everybody on my team, because this is what we do for a living. Everybody on my team. We have been using Grok and AI over and over and over and over again, to get research results. And this is what we're concentrating on.

We would have, may have gone on the air, or, you know, if we were ever responsible. Or at least if I'm a regular citizen. And I don't have a team. And I don't know how to ask Grok the right questions and drill in on things.

You would be tweeting today, LBJ. He was responsible, along with Allen Dulles. You would be doing that today.

STU: You would have quotes!

GLENN: You would have quotes.

STU: That prove it!

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: But you don't have quotes.

GLENN: Nope. And neither does Grok.

It's terrifying.

Because it's now empowering you to say, no, I did my homework!

No. You didn't.

It did.

I did my homework.

I asked Grok.

What did I say -- what have I been saying the whole time?

Never trust it. Never. Trust, yet verify. Never, ever trust it.

Know that it was made in the image of its creator.

And its creator is us. We're lazy. We cut corners. We lie sometimes.

We make things up. It does all of those things.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: So it's had to more credible, sometimes than your crazy uncle Bob, that is sitting in the corner drunk during Christmas.

And you're like, don't listen to uncle Bob. He's nuts.

STU: It's basically a politician.

We could replace all the senators with this guy.

GLENN: Honestly, because it will give you the answer, you're looking for.

STU: Right.

GLENN: Based on how you phrase your question, it will give you the answer.

When you say, give me the best argument, in defense of!

It might not be the best argument. You're saying, give me the argument. Right?

Give me the argument, of what I'm looking for. I'm looking for a great --

STU: Here's -- build my machine, that gets me to that conclusion. That's terrifying.

GLENN: Yes. And that's a tool, that gets you possibly to the wrong place.

Because you're not asking it to give me the best arguments on both size. Debate it out.

Let me see the debates.

Let me see your sources.

And go from there. You have to have it debate itself. You have to have it do the critical thinking.

And also, when you prompt it, you need to say, I need the best argument. The best unbiased argument, for and against this.

Putin/Ukraine UPDATE: Should Trump Withdraw from NATO? | Ep 421

It’s clear the U.S. has carried Ukraine and NATO on its back for years, but should Trump make good on his threats and leave NATO forever? The Biden status quo and military spending kept Russia’s war on Ukraine going, with no end in sight. Now the Trump administration has brokered the first mutual ceasefire agreement of any kind between Russia and Ukraine since this war began three years ago. Critics call it the bare minimum, but could this be the first real step toward ending the war? Glenn heads to the chalkboard to give a full breakdown on America’s deepening ties with Ukraine since 2008 — from the billions in military aid to the Biden family’s shady connections to Trump’s impeachment over that infamous phone call with Zelenskyy. Has America’s commitment to Europe gone too far? Glenn gives a history lesson on the Cold War roots of America’s NATO alliance and wades into the debate: Is NATO a peace pact or a war trap?

Shocking Truth: Department of Education ABOLISHED ITSELF

President Trump is signing an executive order to start dismantling the Department of Education and the Left is freaking out. But Glenn’s staff discovered something shocking: the DoE, in its current form, is exactly the OPPOSITE of the mission statement Congress gave it. Glenn reads from the Department’s founding documents, which state that it was tasked with protecting “the rights of state and local governments and public and private institutions.” It was also meant to “strengthen and improve” local and state control of education. And if that wasn’t enough, it also explicitly bars the Department from increasing “the authority of the federal government over education.” So, by stripping the Department of Education of its bloated power, Trump is actually UPHOLDING the will of Congress, not defying it.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So the president is going to abolish parts of the DOE. But the Department of Education was -- was first put in by Jimmy Carter. And then a few years later, it was -- it was, you know, set in stone by Congress. So he can't shut it down.

Because Congress established it. Okay?

So only Congress can abolish it. However, he can trim the fat.

And he's going to cut it by 50 percent today. Which is a great thing.

But as Mikayla was doing her homework on this, she said --

STU: One of your producers.

GLENN: Yeah. One of our producers. She said, have you read the Department of Education organization act?

And I'm like.

STU: Oh, obviously.

GLENN: Of course, I have. But tell me what you have found!

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: Listen to this.

It is the intention. This is the founding document passed by Congress. It is the intention of Congress in the establishment of the Department of Education to protect the rights of state and local governments, and public and private educational institutions.

STU: Wow.

GLENN: Just that! Are they operating within the law, that was set by Congress?

STU: Because I think you could convince me, that that was a good idea. Right? That sounds great.

GLENN: Right. So let me read that again.

The intention of Congress, in the establishment of the Department of Education, to protect the rights of state and local governments, and public and private educational institutions, in the area, of educational policies, and administration of programs. And to strengthen and improve the control of such governments and institutions, over their own educational programs and policies.

Did you hear the second half of that?

To strengthen and improve the local and state administration, and -- and the control of their own educational programs and policies.

That is not what the DOD is doing. Not even. Listen to the next line!

The establishment of the Department of Education, shall not, increase the authority of the federal government over education. Or finish the responsibility for education, which is reserved to the states. And the local school systems, and other instrumentalities of the states!

Wait.

This is not what the Department of Education is. At all.

So when they say, well, he can't accomplish the department of he had. No. They abolished the Department of Ed.

The Department of Ed isn't that! Because like you just said, I wouldn't have necessarily a problem with that!

STU: I would have some questions.

GLENN: Yeah, I wouldn't want it.

STU: As a direction, protecting local rights over education, is exactly kind of what I want.

GLENN: Yeah. Exactly right.

B, no provision of a program, administered by the Secretary or any other officer of the Department, shall be construed to authorize the Secretary or any such officer to exercise any direction, supervision, or control, over the local curriculum.

Any program of instruction or administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system over any accrediting agency or association, or over the selection and content of library resources, textbooks, or other instructional materials. By any educational institution or school system.

Except to the extent authorized by this law.

STU: Hmm. I mean, it seems there's all sorts of limitations on it.

GLENN: Yeah. I mean, if you just go back to this: If he just reset it to this, do you know how many problems would go away?

STU: I know. This is really common too. But we mentioned the same thing with the Patriot Act.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: The guy who wrote the Patriot Act. There's a bunch of these things about to go.

I can't believe the Patriot Act would do this. I wrote it. It's not supposed to do that.

GLENN: Right. Right.

STU: That's not what it's supposed to do at all.

It always grows. It always evades. And the initial -- the limiting principles put on it, by the law itself.

GLENN: Which is amazing. When you know that to be true. And our Founders knew that.

It's amazing how long our Constitution and Bill of Rights has lasted.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: You know, the average Constitution's age in the history of the world, the average age of death of a Constitution is 17 years!

We're coming up to 250, of our -- of our Declaration of Independence.

Seventeen years! That's the average.

STU: Wow.

GLENN: We are so far out! For it to have lasted this long, knowing that this is what it always happens. They always morph and distort, and erase the original Founding ideas. Wow!

That's impressive. That we're still standing.

STU: Yeah. And, again, giant chunks of it are still standing. As we pointed out many times, a lot of it isn't standing. Other than just it's on paper.

But that's the problem, right? We should be back to it. And should be trying to focus our country on following it again. A little bit more closely. But I am glad that it still stands.

GLENN: Me too. Me too.

STU: Is it San Moreno? There's one other weird country that has a very old Constitution.

GLENN: Isn't that an old Chevy?

STU: Yeah. The Chevy San Moreno. Beautiful car. V8. Yeah. It's great.

GLENN: Yeah. Here's the other thing that we need to talk about, and that is these judges. I need to get to Tesla, in just a second. That's equally important. And let me talk about the justices and the judges on what is happening.

The judge has ordered to restore USAID. Worker access, and forbids the shutdown. Because it's likely against the Constitution. Well, that's not your job.

The Obama-appointed judge trying to stop USAID shutdown. Donated thousands of dollars to the Democrats. The judge who blocked the key executive order, has a long progressive activist history.

I mean, we're -- we're having these judges get involved in everything.

So what are judges supposed to do?

What does the Constitution actually say?

I want to take you to a -- a football field. Hmm. Glenn, don't do anything dicey. Don't go into sports analogy. Let's just take you out to a football field for your first segment.

STU: Uh-oh, here we go. Prepare yourself. Gird your loins.

GLENN: If -- is that like the grid loins? So let's say the ref is out on the -- and he decides that that touchdown is worth ten points! The clock should be kept running, because I think so. It's most likely, that it should be running, right now.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: That is what's happening in our court system. That's judicial or referee activism. All right? They're just making stuff up.

Judges that are stepping beyond their lane. And making up the rules. Instead of just calling the game as written.

That's what judges are supposed to do.

They're supposed to look at things, as written. And then say, no. Sorry, guys. That's the law!

Not, you know what, you know who we should do? I should also be able to eat any kind of candy that I want.

And you're all -- you're a defendant. You need to bring me candy.

Because that's what I want, right now. Okay.

I'm fat. I've been sitting behind a bench for a long time. You can't even notice my fatness. I am the size of the bench. Just my upper torso is not.

Okay. You can't do that. You don't do that. Now, it's important to realize, judges aren't necessarily bad guys. They have a really, really tough job. And I don't like -- you know, I really feel bad when you're like, well, that's just a bad ruling!

Well, maybe. But I wasn't in the courtroom. How many times have we done a story, where we really want to bash the judge?

But you weren't in the courtroom. You don't know what was said, or what they know. You know what I mean?

STU: You talked about it when you did jury duty. Because from an outsider perspective. You can always come to something.

When you're there and watching it every single day. You know the ins and outs. Sometimes it's different.

GLENN: It's just different. So when they start acting like lawmakers, instead of interpreters of that law, then we have a problem. Like a judge should step in now on the Department of Education.

And say, sorry, gang, I read this section last night. That's not what's going on here.

So the president, yeah. I recommend, I shouldn't. But if it comes to my courtroom, I'm going to show, yeah. Well, that's the law.

Not my opinion. I might love the department. I might be a full-fledged communist. But I'm here to uphold the law.

And that's what Congress said it is. And that's not what it is!

Now, sometimes, there are problems that Congress needs to step in and say, you're out of here.

Sometimes, the judges -- and it has happened in our history. And it's a very high bar. But I'm not sure. I mean, it should be a high bar, like it is with impeachment of the president. But it shouldn't be off the table.

Okay? And here's why: If you go back to the Founding Fathers, they thought this through. It's kind of crazy.

It's not like, hey. We will do a new Constitution in Iceland. Tweet us your ideas.

In Federalist 78. Alexander Hamilton says, judges should not have life tenure.

And if they do, only if they're on good behavior. Well, what does that mean?

Well, he saw judges, as the least dangerous branch. Because it doesn't have -- it doesn't control the purse strings. And it doesn't have an army.

Okay? So he's like, you know, I mean, if they're on good behavior, just let them go. Just let them go. But he also knew that judges weren't perfect. They do go rogue. So he knew, that they would twist the Constitution, and what they were doing into something that it's not.

And that good behavior clause is not just for decoration.

It's the lifeline of the people.

To stop the judges that have gone bad.

Then in Federalist 81. Hamilton troubles down on this one.

Judges can be impeached. If they abuse their power.

How do they abuse their power?

They step out of line of interpreting the law. And start writing laws. And he's very clear.

Congress has the muscle to check them.

You know, it's like giving the principal, the power to fire a teacher, who is teaching kids the alphabet, you know, backwards and mixed up.

You know what, I appreciate it. We're not doing that. Okay. We hired you to teach the alphabet.

So has this ever been done. Has this ever been exercised?

Yeah. I talked to a federal judge, last night about this. And he's like, Glenn!

Luster versus Georgia. And I'm like, oh, man. That's one of my favorite rulings. But I want to ask you to see how much you know about Luster (phonetic) versus Georgia!

It's back in 1832. Supreme Court told Georgia, they have to stop messing with the Cherokee nation land, and they -- I think they also said, you can't go in and teach the Cherokee tribes Christianity. Okay. Georgia said, no. We're going to do that anyway. Okay?

Now, I'm not a fan of the way the Native Americans were treated in history. And I'm not a fan of Andrew Jackson. But he wasn't a fan of the court.

And he supposedly said, great!

The judge has made his decision.

Now, let him figure out how to enforce it.

Now, I don't like that. I don't like that. But that's what Federalist 81 was saying. They don't have purse strings. They don't have an Army. They have an opinion.

But if the other two branches are like, no! We're going to do it anyway.

Again, I don't like that. But that's only -- that can only apply to when the judges step out of their lane!

When you -- when you're an activist judge, go ahead.

You call your army. But when they're in their lane. And they're saying, no. This is the law. This is how it's written!

Then you don't say, no. You go ahead and try to enforce it. Because then it's a breakdown.

But it's just as much of a breakdown. It they legislate from the bench. And we do nothing about it!

The court doesn't have any tanks. It doesn't have any cops. It relies on the other two branches.

It's judge that one is the weakest!

It has no enforcement.

It was never given any enforcement.

The Founders didn't want it to have any enforcement.

Congress has the checkbook. The president has the tanks. The justices have their robes.

So they lose. Theater weakest of them.

Now, they're supposed to be able to check each other.

So you're -- out of respect, for what each arm is supposed to do, we do listen to the Supreme Court.

But wait until you hear what else is in the Constitution, that I just -- I bypassed. I didn't even know.

They -- that goes right to the judges and how important they are, according to the Constitution.

Not the Supreme Court.

These kinds of judges.

Okay. So Jackson, when he says, okay. Go ahead. Let them force it.

That shows the limits of their power.

But it also shows the flip side. When the judges overreach. They can stir up chaos.

You know, if no one is willing to listen. So here's where article three of the Constitution comes in. And remember, Constitution, the rule book!

The rule book for the courts.

It sets up the Supreme Court. But it also gives Congress the power to create or even shut down, the lower federal courts!

They have no power over the Supreme Court.

They cannot shut it down. They cannot affect it.

But Congress can pass a law that says, you guys are done!

So don't tell me, that you can't impeach them!

It's in the Constitution.

That that is -- and the Federalist papers. That is critical, in case they start overstepping the bounds. You can impeach them.

And we should. This is all a ploy, this is no different than the -- quite honestly. The terrorism that is happening on our streets with Tesla.

Okay? That's terrorism.

This isn't terrorism. This is just a whole buttload of lies. Told by a bunch of people, where supposedly, you know, able to trust.

Because they wear a robe.

Don't trust them. Why would you trust the justices when you don't trust the politicians, when you don't trust anybody in Washington?

Why are these guys exempt?

Okay? I'm not saying. I don't want to sow seeds of discord with our -- I believe in the Supreme Court.

It's the best system that we have. But let's not -- let's not throw our Constitution out for these guys, who are sitting in the -- the lower federal courts.

You know, Congress can say, hey. We don't need this court anymore.

You're banned. Or you're banned from ruling on that.

Sorry!

You're not talking about that anymore.

It's a leash. And it's there for a reason.

The Supreme Court is untouchable. And -- and it's -- you know, it's not above impeachment, if the justices start playing king instead of somewhere.

But their job is like a gardener. Their job is to keep trimming the hedges. Keep the law neat and tidy. If they start ripping out the whole garden.

And planting it, with whatever they want.

Someone has to fire them. That is where we are with these lower federal court justices.

You, according to the Constitution, Congress, and the president, are in charge!

Stranded Astronauts Splash Down to Massive Cheers

By rescuing stranded astronauts on the ISS, Elon Musk and President Trump have restored something that America lost under Biden: honor. While Biden allegedly refused to let SpaceX return the astronauts because it would look good for Musk, Trump gave Americans a historical moment to remember that brought many to tears when they saw the Dragon spacecraft splash down in the water. Meanwhile, some on the Left are reacting to Elon by burning and vandalizing Teslas. How “tolearant”…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: There's a couple of things I want to talk about. I want to talk to you about NASA. I don't know if you saw the splashdown yesterday. This happened last night. Go ahead and roll this.
(music)
There it is.

VOICE: And we're going to stand by for splashdown located in the Gulf of America. Opposite of Tallahassee, Florida.

GLENN: That's a movie set.

STU: It looks incredible. It looks like it could be the Truman Show.

GLENN: It does.

VOICE: And splashdown. Current time. Back on earth.
(applauding)

GLENN: I don't know what's wrong with me lately. This is so weird. I don't know what's happening to me.

But I see things like this, and I -- I am like, I'm like, getting weepy again all the time.

You know, like I was.

I'm getting weepy again.

I see things like this. And it just moves me.

STU: I feel the same way at Taco Bell. Right?

GLENN: No. That's a movement. That's different. Because that moves me too. In a completely different way.

I see things like that. It's just, so inspiring what we can do!

And especially, when you look at it, what we were doing.

I mean, the moon shot. We decided to go to the moon. We decide that long ago.

And it is the president's job to make sure that everything is moving in that direction.

You don't want to go to the moon and then go to space. Then stop it.

But if you're going to put people in space. You can't just leave them there. No. No.

STU: No?

GLENN: President Biden just left them there.

I don't want it to look bad for me. Maybe everybody will forget they're in space.

Is that the plan?

And he just -- and here's the big, huge government with the big, huge budgets from big, huge Boeing. They said -- and I said, don't send the rocket up.

Do you remember? Don't send that rocket up. Don't do it. It's not going to work. You know, and if it does, good luck coming home in that thing.

And then it docked. We had some problems with it. And don't get back into that thing. There's no way you're returning to earth in that. Don't do it.

Well, they didn't. So Biden just leaves them. And Elon Musk is like, I can go up and get them at any time.

And President Biden says, no. Because he thinks it will look good for Biden. Or for Musk. Not food for Biden. He's just like, leave them alone.

This president, the reason why I think so many people had a problem with Joe Biden. Even if they liked his policies. Some of them.

Even if they say, well, he was a Democrat. And I'm a Democrat. I think the reason why so many people, you know, just jump ship on Biden, was he violated something that is in all of us.

And that's honor. You know, the basic honor. I mean, not like. You know what, I'm a boy.

I mean just like the bare minimum honor of Americans.

We don't leave people behind.

He did it in Afghanistan. And he did it in space. And when you see that, you're like, oh, my gosh. That's not us. What is that?

And I think that's why Biden rubbed so many Democrats the wrong way. They may not be able to vocalize it. But I think that's one of the reasons.

He had no honor in him, at all. I think.

STU: Zero. Zero.

And luckily, the American people were able to success that out, a little bit.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: I do relate to how you feel about watching something like that.

It's fascinating that the entire -- half of the country has at least turned on Elon Musk.

A guy who is doing all these incredible things.

GLENN: He is. You know what it is?

It's the same thing that happened to Nikola Tesla!

Okay. The power structure turned on Nikola Tesla.

The greatest mind of the 20th century.

Makes Edison look like a rookie. Makes him look like me.

Okay.

And the country turned on him, because of the establishment!

And we're doing the same thing with Elon Musk. What is wrong with us?

STU: Yeah. It's funny. You hear that thing that happened around a lot, on the election. Where Democrats were complaining about why they lost.

They said, what we need is a left-wing Joe Rogan. And as many pointed out, you had one, his name was Joe Rogan. He was supporting Bernie freaking Sanders in 2016.

GLENN: Right. We need somebody -- we need somebody like Elon Musk.

STU: They blew it. Right.

GLENN: You had him! His name was Elon Musk!

STU: You had him. You had a left-wing Elon Musk.

And what was fascinating, Glenn. And this is something we could absolutely prove.

I don't have to speculate on this. When he was left-wing Elon Musk, when he was a guy who was out there, talking about how we're all going to die from climate change.

Which, by the way, he still believes. We were still able to -- to look on in amazement, at the things he was achieving, including Tesla, in its very early stages, which we featured on the CNN Headline News show, a zillion years ago.

GLENN: Right. We actually -- at least conservatives. Let me speak for us.

At least we, the whole time were like, I don't believe in the climate change stuff. That's crazy. But look at what he's doing. Look at how he's doing.

Look at how he is making all of this public. He's not trademarking or patenting anything. He's saying, it should be open for everybody. Take my ideas and build on them. We love that for him.

You know how crazy it is? I still think there's a chance he turns into the Antichrist. Okay?

So I like -- really like him. Might be the Antichrist. We should keep -- remain aware of that. But I like him.

These guys treat him like the Antichrist. And they don't even believe in the Antichrist.

STU: That's true.

GLENN: That's crazy. It's nuts.

STU: And it doesn't make any sense. And now they're going dealership to dealership, and lighting his -- his, you know, Tesla on fire.

Right?

This is --

GLENN: That is economic, domestic terrorism. That's what it is.

And Pam Bondi. I'm glad -- yeah. She called it out.

And I'm glad. And I want to see these people prosecuted.

That's economic terrorism. Period.

I don't like the mainstream media. You should arrest me, if I ever just even say, you know what we should do. We should all gather torches.

And we should burn those places to the ground.

No. No. That's terrorism. No!

STU: But it's also, you know, the way the left acts every single time they don't get what they want. Might remind you of George Floyd.

GLENN: Every time. Yeah.

STU: When they were upset about George Floyd. What did they do? Burn down cities. What about Alf and Elf? Not Alf the lovable, huggable alien creature from the --

GLENN: I was going to say. Alf and Elf, what did they do wrong? I mean, who needs a hug?

STU: And not Will Ferrell. I'm talking about the Animal Liberation Front and the Environmental Liberation Front.

GLENN: Horrible.

STU: Terrorist organizations that went around and burned down dealerships of SUVs. Because -- because the environment is so important. Interesting way to approach it.

GLENN: By the way, do you know why SUVs exist?

STU: I do, yes.

GLENN: I just -- I was talking to a liberal friend. Eh.

And --

STU: As close as you could be. Sure.

GLENN: And they were like, these big SUVs. Uh-huh. Do you know why SUVs exist?

Because you didn't like station wagons. You didn't like big, huge sedans. And so you were like, you know, the EPA. They should start regulating those things. And you put that regulation in. You know what wasn't covered? Trucks. So they're like, we'll just build it on the platform of a truck, and call it an SUV. That put the station wagons and the big sedans out. And now you have a bigger vehicle.

That's how stupid you are. As somebody who believes in big government.

No.

Government cannot regulate everything.

It only makes things worse.

STU: Yeah. And we should also add in, when they did those fuel mileage standards. There's two ways to approach it, to hit the standards. One was to convert, a bunch of bigger sedans and stations wagons into SUVs. So you had bigger vehicles on the road.

The other way was to take your cars and make them lighter and smaller. So when those two things collide, guess what happens to people?

Literally, it killed thousands and thousands and thousands of people in car accidents.

GLENN: Who was it? Who was the politician that I saw yesterday. They got rid of their -- huge, lefty. Okay?

Green thing. Got rid of their Tesla, and was proud to be driving like an Excursion. I want two of these things! Like, wow.

That's good. That's good. By the way, before we move on, I've got to just go back to the space thing. Because did you see what one of the astronauts did before they got back to earth? Do we have this audio? Listen to this. Listen to this.

VOICE: What is your life lesson or takeaway from these nine months in space?

VOICE: Well, in answer to your question, I can tell you, honestly, my feeling on all of this goes back to my faith.

It's -- it's bound in my Lord and savior Jesus Christ.

He is working out his plan, his purposes, for his glory, throughout awful humanity. And how that plays into our lives is significant and important.

And however that plays out. And I am content. Because I understand that.

I understand that he's at work. In all things. Some things are for the good. Go to he's been chapter 11.

Some things look to be not so good. But it's all working out for his good.

For those that will believe. And that's the answer.

So thanks for asking.

GLENN: That's a scientist, in space! And I didn't see that headline anywhere.

STU: No.

GLENN: And I would like to say, I think that's what happens when you fly on a Boeing. You're like, all right. Jesus, you're there, right?

I mean, I've got to have some perspective. Okay. So if I burn up on reentry, it's going to be good, right?

I mean, that's what he was saying. You know what, my faith. It just tells me, you know, Boeing could kill me.

But I guess it's all going to work out to be the best.

That's pretty much what he was saying there, I think.

STU: That's true. That's true.

I think too, Glenn. Tell me if this has happened with you. As you get older, that sentiment becomes much, much more true.

GLENN: Yes. Perspective.

STU: Things seem so out of control sometimes.

And then when you really put yourself in the mindset, which he was just describing that it's like, yeah. You know what, it's not in my hands. And things happen for these reasons, that I believe in. And they're important. And I can't control all of them.

And I'll do the best I can and get through all of this. It makes life a heck of a lot easier.

I mean, just pragmatically. Outside the faith elements of it. It makes your life better. It just does! Because you don't freak out about every little thing.

I can't tell you how many times. I sit there in church. They're talking about these important concepts.

And, you know, thoughts into your mind of the chaos of the world. And when you think about it that way. You're just like, eh. The chaos of the world. Who cares about the chaos of the world?

GLENN: Well, I care about it.

STU: I care about it, in a totally different way.

GLENN: In a way that it will be interesting to see how it plays out. Yeah. That is.

STU: We talk about that phrase all the time. It's so important to get through your life.

GLENN: But it's so hard to do. I have to tell you, my daughter she just had her real adult career decision to make.

She's in this -- this production. And she has been working on it for months and months and months. With the cast. And she was also just cast in a -- in a movie.

A hallmark movie for Christmas.

STU: Oh, cool.

And so they conflicted. And she didn't know how she was going to work this out.

And some -- I'm going to this place where I used to be in, which is a horrible place where I cannot sleep ever. So I was up at on two o'clock in the morning. And she gets up to get a drink of water. And I said, you okay, honey?

And she said, yeah. And she sat down. And we just started talking.

And she said, it's so hard, Dad.

I just -- I mean, I just -- I mean, what is the right decision?

How do I do this?

And I don't want to do this. Because I'm letting some people down, either way.

And everything.

And, man, it takes so much for a man, at least for me, to just shut up.

Because I was like -- everything in me was like, here's what you do, honey. And that's the worst thing you can do. And so I'm just sitting there going, uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

And all the time, I'm thinking, you know what -- and this is what I finally said after she talked. But I was like, just do the right thing. Just do the next right thing. Everything works out. But it's hard, especially when you're young.

Because you think, I have to micromanage. I have to make the right decision, because if I don't, it will play off this way. It will play off this way. You don't know how it will play out.

Just do the right thing.

Whatever it is, just do the next right thing.

And it will work out. And shockingly, not the way you intended. But better than what you thought could be your best outcome.

And I just think that takes a lot of years of trying to force your way, I'm going to make sure it happens this way!

And always failing. I think it just takes a lot of time.

I hope. You happen to be listening. And you haven't gotten this yet. Really, trust Stu. Don't force your way. It doesn't work out. It's never a happen if ending.

STU: You can't control everything. Nor are you supposed to.

GLENN: Right. You're supposed to surrender to the next right thing.

Not to surrender to, oh, he's the -- the Antichrist, whatever. No. Not surrender on those things.

Surrender to the next right thing, and let the consequences happen. Because you'll find, over time, oh, my gosh.

I can't believe how that worked out in -- in my favor or in life's favor for me, and that's what the astronaut was saying.