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.

The Globalist Elites' Dystopian Plan for YOUR Future | Glenn Beck Chalkboard Breakdown

There are competing visions for the future of America which are currently in totally different directions. If the globalist elites have their way, the United States will slide into a mass surveillance technocracy where freedoms are eroded and control is fully centralized. Glenn Beck heads to the chalkboard to break down exactly what their goal is and why we need to hold the line against these ominous forces.

Watch the FULL Episode HERE: Dark Future: Uncovering the Great Reset’s TERRIFYING Next Phase

Barack & Michelle tried to END divorce rumors. It DIDN'T go well

Former president Barack Obama recently joined his wife Michelle Obama and her brother on their podcast to finally put the divorce rumors to rest … but it didn’t exactly work. Glenn Beck and Pat Gray review the awkward footage, including a kiss that could compete for “most awkward TV kiss in history.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Now, let me -- let me take you to some place. I think kind of entertaining.

Michelle Obama has a podcast. Who knew?

She does it with her brother. Who knew? It's -- you know, I mean, it's so -- it's a podcast with two brothers. Right?

And -- and it -- they wanted to address the rumors, that they're getting a divorce. And this thing seems so staged.

I want you to -- listen to this awkward exchange on the podcast.

Cut one please.

VOICE: Wait, you guys like each other.

MICHELLE: Oh, yeah. The rumor mill. It's my husband, y'all! Now, don't start.

OBAMA: It's good to be back. It was touch-and-go for a while.

VOICE: It's so nice to have you both in the same room today.

OBAMA: I know. I know.

MICHELLE: I know, because when we aren't, folks things we're divorced. There hasn't been one moment in our marriage, where I thought about quitting my man.

And we've had some really hard times. We've had a lot of fun times. A lot of adventures. And I have become a better person because of the man I'm married to.

VOICE: Okay. Don't make me cry.

PAT: Aw.

GLENN: I believed her. Now, this is just so hokey.

VOICE: And welcome to IMO.

MICHELLE: Get you all teared up. See, but this is why I can't -- see, you can take the hard stuff, but when I start talking about the sweet stuff, you're like, stop. No, I can't do it.

VOICE: I love it. I'm enjoying it.

MICHELLE: But thank you, honey, for being on our show. Thank you for making the time. We had a great --

VOICE: Of course, I've been listening.

PAT: What? No!

GLENN: They're not doing good. They're not doing good.

Okay. And then there was this at the beginning. And some people say, this was very awkward. Some people say, no. It was very nice.

When he walks in the room, he gives her a hug and a kiss. Watch.

Gives her a little peck on the cheek.

PAT: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

GLENN: Does that --

PAT: Does that look like they're totally into each other?

GLENN: Well, I give my wife a peck on the cheek, if she walks into a room.

PAT: Do you? If you haven't seen her in months and it seems like they haven't, would you kiss her on the cheek? Probably not.

GLENN: No, that's a little different. That would be a little different. But I wouldn't make our first seeing of each other on television.

PAT: Yeah, right, that's true. That's true.

GLENN: But, you know, in listening to the staff talk about this. And they were like, it was a really uncomfortable -- okay.

Well, maybe.

PAT: I think it was a little uncomfortable.

GLENN: It was a little uncomfortable.

It's still, maybe. Maybe.

But I don't think that rivals -- and I can't decide which is the worst, most uncomfortable kiss.

Let me roll you back into the time machine, to Michael Jackson and Lisa Marie Presley. Do you remember this kiss?
(applauding)

GLENN: He turns away, immediately away from the camera. Because he's like.

PAT: He was about to vomit. Yeah.

GLENN: It was so awkward. When that happened, all of us went, oh, my gosh. He has only kissed little boys. What are we doing? What is happening?

He doesn't like women, what is happening?

And then there's the other one that sticks out in my mind of -- and I'm not sure which is worse. The Lisa Marie or the Tipper in Al Gore.

VOICE: The kiss. The famous exchange during the 2000 democratic convention was to some lovely, to others icky.
(laughter)

GLENN: That's an ABC reporter. To some lovely, others icky.

And it really was. And it was -- I believe his global warming stuff more than that kiss.
(laughter)
And you know where I stand on global warming.

That was the most awkward kiss I think ever on television!

PAT: Yeah. It was pretty bad. Pretty bad.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

So when people who are, you know -- these youngsters.

These days. They look at Barack and Michelle. They're like, that was an awkward kiss.

Don't even start with me.

We knew when we were kids, what awkward kisses were like.

PAT: The other awkward thing about that.

She claims, there was not been one moment in their marriage.

Where she's considered reeving him.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: She just said a while ago. A month or a year ago, she hated his guts for ten years. She hated it.

GLENN: Yeah. But that doesn't mean you'll give up.

PAT: I guess not. I guess not. Maybe you enjoy being miserable.

I don't know.

GLENN: No. I have to tell you the truth.

My grandmother when I got a divorce, just busted me up forever. I call her up, and I said, on my first marriage.

Grandma, we're getting a divorce.

And my sweet little 80-year-old grandmother, who never said a bad thing in her life said, excuse me?

And I said, what?

We're getting a divorce.

And she said, how dare you.

I said, what's happening. And she said, I really thought you would be the one that would understand. Out of everybody in this family, I thought you would understand.

And I said, what?

And she said, this just -- this just crushed me when she said it.

Do you think your grandfather and I liked each other all these years? I was like, well, yeah.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: Kind of. And she said, we loved each other. But we didn't always like each other. And there were times that we were so mad at each other.

PAT: Yeah. Yeah. Uh-huh.

STU: But we knew one thing: Marriage lasts until death!

PAT: Did she know your first wife?

GLENN: Okay. All right. That's just not necessary.

No, Trump’s tariffs ARE NOT causing inflation

The media is insisting that President Trump's tariffs caused a rise in inflation for June. But Our Republic president Justin Haskins joins Glenn to debunk this theory and present another for where inflation is really coming from.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Justin Haskins is here. He is the president of Our Republic. And the editor-in-chief of stoppingsocialism.com.

He is also the coauthor with me at the Great Reset, Dark Future, and Propaganda War.

So, in other words, I'm saying, he doesn't have a lot of credibility. But he is here to report -- I don't even think you're -- you're -- you were wrong on this, too, with the tariffs. Right?

JUSTIN: Well, at some point, I was wrong about everything.

GLENN: Yeah, right. We are all on the road to being right.

But this is coming as a shock. You called yesterday, and you said, Glenn, I think the tariff thing -- I think the president might be right.

And this is something I told him, if I'm wrong. I will admit that I'm wrong.

But I don't think I'm wrong.

Because this goes against everything the economists have said, forever.

That tariffs don't work.

They increase inflation.

It's going to cost us more.

All of these things. You have been study this now for a while, to come up with the right answer, no matter where it fell.

Tell me what's going on.

JUSTIN: Okay. So the most recent inflation data that came out from the government, shows that in June, prices went up 2.7 percent. In May, they went up 2.4 percent. That's compared to a year prior. And most people are saying, well, this is proof that the tariffs are causing inflation.

GLENN: Wait. That inflation is -- the target is -- the target is two -- I'm sorry.

We're not. I mean, when I was saying, it was going to cause inflation. I thought we could be up to 5 percent.

But, anyway, go ahead.

JUSTIN: So the really incredible thing though. The more you look at the numbers. The more obvious it is, that this does not prove inflation at all.

For starters, these numbers are lower, than what the numbers were in December and January.

Before Trump was president. And before we had any talk of tariffs at all.

So that is a big red flag right at the very beginning. When you dive even deeper into the numbers, what you see is there's all kinds of parts of the Consumer Price Index that tracks specific industries, or kinds of goods and services. That should be showing inflation, if inflation is being caused by tariffs, but isn't.

So, for example, clothing and apparel. Ninety-seven percent, basically.

About 97 percent according to one report, of clothing and apparel comes overseas, imported into the United States.

GLENN: Correct.

JUSTIN: So prices for apparel and clothing should be going up. And they're not going up, according to the data, they're actually going down, compared to what they were a year ago. Same thing is true with new vehicles.

Obviously, there were huge tariffs put on foreign vehicles, not on domestic vehicles. So it's a little bit more mixed.

But new vehicle price are his staying basically flat. They haven't gone up at all. Even though, there's a 25 percent tariff on imported cars and car parts. And then we just look at the overall import prices. You just -- sort of the index. Which the government tracks.

What we're seeing is that prices are basically staying the same, from what they were a year ago.

There's very, very little movement overall.

GLENN: Okay. So wait. Wait. Wait. Wait.

Wait.

Let me just -- let me just make something career.

Somebody is eating the tariffs. And it appears to be the companies that are making these things. Which is what Donald Trump said. And then, the -- you know, the economist always saying, well, they're just going to pass this on in the price.

Well, they have to. They have to get this money some place.

So where are they?

Is it possible they're just doing this right now, to get past. Because they know if they jack up their price, you know, they won't be able to sell anything. What is happening?

How is this money, being coughed up by the companies, and not passed on to the consumer.

JUSTIN: Yeah, it could be happening. I think the most likely scenario, is that they are passing it along to consumers. They're just not passing it along to American consumers.

In other words, they're raising prices elsewhere. To try to protect the competitiveness with the American market. Because the American market is the most important consumer market in the world.

And they probably don't want to piss off Donald Trump either, in jacking up prices. And then potentially having tariffs go up even more, as a punishment for doing that.

Because that's a real option.

And so I think that's what's happening right now.

Now, it's possible, that we are going to see a huge increase in inflation. In six months!

That's entirely possible.

We don't know what's going to happen. But as of right now, all the data is suggesting that recent inflation is not coming from consumer goods being imported, or anything like that.

That's not where the inflation is coming.

Instead, it's coming from housing.

That's part of the CPI at that time.

Housing is the cause of inflation right now.

GLENN: Wait. Wait. It's not housing, is it?

Because the things to make houses is not going through the roof. Pardon the pun. Right?

It's not building.

JUSTIN: No. No. The way the CPI calculates housing is really stupid. They look basically primarily at rent. That's the primary way, they determine housing prices.

GLENN: Okay.

JUSTIN: That so on they're not talking about housing costs to build a new house.

Or housing prices to buy a new house.

They are talking about rent.

And then they try to use rent data, as a way of calculating how much you would have to pay if you owned a house, but you had to rent the same kind of house.

And that's how they come up with this category.

GLENN: Can I ask you a question: Is everybody in Washington, are they all retarded?
(laughter)
Because I don't. What the hell. Who is coming up with that formula?

JUSTIN: Look. I mean, sort of underlying this whole conversation, as you -- as you and I know, Glenn.

And Pat too. The CPI is a joke to begin with.

GLENN: Right.

JUSTIN: So there's all kinds of problems with this system, to begin with.

I mean, come on!

GLENN: Okay. So because I promised the president, if I was wrong, and I had the data that I was wrong, I would tell him.

Do I have to -- out of all the days to do this.

Do I have to call him today, to do that?

Are we still -- are we still looking at this, going, well, maybe?

JUSTIN: I think there's -- I think there is a really solid argument that you don't need to make the phone call.

GLENN: Oh, thank God. Today is not the day to call Donald Trump. Today is not the day.

Yeah. All right.

JUSTIN: And the reason why is, we need -- we probably do need more data over a longer period of time, to see if corporations are doing something.

In order to try to push these cuts off into the future, for some reason. Maybe in the hopes that the tariffs go down. Or maybe -- you know, it's all sorts of ways, they could play with it, to try to avoid paying those costs today.

It's possible, that's what's going on.

But as of right now, that's not at all, what is happening. As far as I can tell from the data.

GLENN: But isn't the other side of this, because everybody else said, oh. It's not going to pay for anything.

Didn't we last month have the first surplus since, I don't know. Abraham Lincoln.

JUSTIN: Yes. Yes. We did. I don't know how long that surplus will last us.

GLENN: Yeah. But we had one month.

I don't think I've ever heard that before in my lifetime. Hey, United States had a surplus.

JUSTIN: I looked it up.

I think it was like 20 something years ago, was the last time that happened. If I remembered right.

It was 20 something years ago.

So this is incredible, really.

And if it works.

You and I talked about this before.

I actually think there is an argument to be made. That this whole strategy could work, if American manufacturers can dramatically bring down their costs. To produce goods and services.

So that they can be competitive.

And I think that advancements in artificial intelligence. In automation. Is going to open up the door to that being a reality.

And if you listen to the Trump administration talk. People like Howard Lutnick, Secretary of Commerce. They have said, this is the plan.

The plan is, go all in on artificial intelligence.

Automation. That's going to make us competitive with manufacturers overseas. China is already doing that.

They're already automating their factories. They lead the world in automation.

GLENN: Yeah, but they can take half their population, put them up in a plane, and then crash it into the side of the mountain.

They don't care.

What happens to the people that now don't have a job here? How do they afford the clothes that are now much, much cheaper?

JUSTIN: Well, I think the answer to that is, there's going to be significantly more wealth. Trillions of dollars that we send overseas, every year, now in the American economy. And that's going to go into other things. It's not as though -- when this technology comes along, it is not as though people lose their jobs, and that's it. People sit on their couch forever.

The real danger here is not that new markets will not arrive in that situation. And jobs with it. The problem is: I think there's a real opportunity here. And I think this is going to be the fight of the next election, potentially. Presidential election. And going forward.

Next, ten, 20 years. This is going to be a huge issue. Democrats are going to have the opportunity, when the AI revolution goes into full force. They will have the opportunity like they've never had before.

To say, you know what, we'll take care of you. Don't worry about it.

We're just going to take all of the corporate money and all of the rich people's money.

And we will print trillions of dollars more. And you can sit on your couch forever. And we will just pay you. Because this whole system is rigged, and it's unfair, and you don't have a job anymore because of AI. And there's nothing you can do. You can't compete with AI. AI is smarter than you.

You have no hope.

I think that's coming, and it is going to be really hard for free market people to fight back against that.

GLENN: Yes.

Well, I tend to agree with you.

Because the -- you know, I thought about this.

I war gamed this, probably in 2006.

I'm thinking, okay.

If -- if the tech is going to grow and grow and grow. And they will start being -- they will be responsible for taking the jobs.

They won't be real on popular.

So they will need some people that will allow them to stay in business, and to protect them.

So they're going to need to be in with the politicians.

And if the politicians are overseeing the -- the decrease of jobs, they're going to need the -- the PR arm of things like social media. And what it can be done.

What can be done now.

I was thinking, at the time. Google can do.

But they need each other.

They must have one another. And unless we have a stronger foundation, and a very clear direction, and I will tell you. The president disagrees with me on this.

I said, he's going to be remembered as the transformational AI president.

And he said, I think you're wrong on that.

And I don't think I am.

This -- this -- this time period is going to be remembered for transformation.

And he is transforming the world. But the one that will make the lasting difference will be power and AI.

Agree with that or disagree?

JUSTIN: 1,000 percent. 1,000 percent. This is by far the most important thing that is happening in his administration in the long run. You're projecting out ten, 20, 30 years ago years.

They will be talking about this moment in history, a thousand years from now. Like, that will -- and they will -- and if America becomes the epicenter of this new technology, they will be talking about it, a thousand years from now, about how Americans were the ones that really developed this.

That they're the ones that promoted it, that they're the ones that does took advantage of it.
That's why this AI race with China is so important that we win it.

It's one of the reasons why. And I do think it's a defining moment for his presidency. Of course, the problem with all of this is AI could kill us all. You have to weigh that in.

GLENN: Yeah. Right. Right.

Well, we hope you're wrong on that one.

And I'm wrong on it as well. Justin, thank you so much.

Thank you for giving me the out, where I don't have to call him today. But I might have to call him soon. Thanks, Justin. I appreciate it.

The ONLY Trump/Epstein Files Theories That Make Sense | Glenn TV | Ep 445

Is the case closed on Jeffrey Epstein and Russiagate? Maybe not. Glenn Beck pulls the thread on the story and its far-reaching implications that could expose a web of scandals and lead to a complete implosion of trust. Glenn lays out five theories that could explain Trump’s frustration over the Epstein files and why Glenn may never talk about the Epstein case again. Plus, Glenn connects the dots between the Russiagate hoax, the Hunter Biden laptop cover-up, and the Steele dossier related to the FBI’s new “grand conspiracy” probe. It all leads to one James Bond-like villain: former CIA Director John Brennan. Then, Bryan Dean Wright, former CIA operations officer, tells Glenn why he believes his former boss Brennan belongs in prison and what must happen to prevent a full-blown trust implosion in American institutions.