RADIOJune 02, 2022

Will ANYONE go to prison for Clinton’s WITCH-HUNT against Trump?

Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann was acquitted of lying to the FBI on Tuesday, thanks to a federal jury in D.C. The decision was a ‘gut punch,’ Glenn says, but perhaps not an outright surprise. So is there a way forward for Durham’s investigation into Hillary’s 2016 witch-hunt against President Trump? Co-founder of The Federalist, Sean Davis, joins Glenn to discuss the lessons we’ve learned so far. Plus, Davis argues that if NO ONE goes to prison for this entire scandal, it means the rule of law against political actors in D.C. is OVER.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Sean Davis from the Federalist. The CEO and cofounder is joining us now. Sean, I saw this. And I wasn't surprised by the acquittal just because of the jury.

But I don't really know exactly, what does that mean? I mean, it implicated Clinton, and the media. But are we done now?

SEAN: Well, I think we're probably done with running cases in the district of Columbia, where the jury clearly did nullification, which is basically, they don't even listen to the facts. They decided coming in, they didn't like the case. And that was going to be it.

So I think if you actually want conviction, that -- that case has to be the end of bringing it into DC. Because it's similar to what you see in elections in North Korea or Iraq. Where they get 99 percent of the vote.

GLENN: Yeah. And it was weird. You had one juror come out and say, so what, if they lied to the FBI. Everybody does it. There are bigger crimes.

Than lying to the FBI? Really? When you're talking about the future of our country? And corruption and trying to take out a seated president? Really?

I mean --

SEAN: Well, compare that to the Michael Flynn trial. Recall that Michael Flynn was completely set up. His name was leaked in order to destroy him the Trump administration early on in the administration. And when evidence came out, that he was completely set up, that he didn't lie. And that the DOJ and the prosecutors themselves, said there's no case here. A corrupt judge in the DC district court said, no. Actually I'm not going to let you pull these charges. So compare that to what just happened with this DNC lawyer. And it tells you everything you need to know about the so-called justice system, when it comes to political people in DC. It doesn't exist.

GLENN: I mean, I really didn't even think it would make it to court. I didn't even think of the court, being so screwed up.

I didn't think about the DC court. I mean, that was just a blow.

I knew it was coming. Because, you know, once I saw the jury selection.

There's no way, this is going to go anywhere. Now, tell me what it means, going forward.

Anything?

SEAN: I think going forward -- oh, absolutely.

I think we learned so much on how Durham prosecuted this.

We learned, for example, that Hillary greenlits that entire completely bogus alpha bank hoax against Trump during the 2016 election. We learned a lot of additional information in there.

And I think just reading the tea leaves. And, of course, I could be wrong. Durham is building a much, much bigger case. And I think the whole alpha based thing with Sussmann lying about it, showed just how completely corrupt the FBI and the media are. They were working together. They were sharing information. They were ceding things with each other to do this sort of circular confirmation thing. I think we're going to get a lot more about how the entire Russiagate investigation, launched by the FBI against Trump in 2016 was itself a hoax from the beginning.

GLENN: From the beginning.

SEAN: So I expect that Durham will unravel that. But we'll see.

GLENN: Okay. So my speculation was that he was hoping that Sussmann would turn. And he could get the things that he needed from him, as he would turn on, you know, the Clinton campaign. He didn't turn. But he did -- I mean, he gave all that information, in the end anyway. It all came out in the end.

So was this originally just a foundation laying case, and a search for the truth that Sussmann couldn't get out of people in his investigation?

JONATHAN: Well, it could be. Because we actually -- or not we. Durham was able to get access to a whole bunch of emails he didn't have previously. That the DNC and Hillary campaign and Fusion GPS were all pretending were privileged communications with their attorneys.

Durham was able to significantly pierce that during the trial. And to me, kind of the foundation goes back to when that inspector general report came out, from the Department of Justice IG. And in that report, the IG said, oh, there's no evidence that the Russia thing was political. And it was legally predicated. And on that day, Durham himself came out and issued a statement, that he, based on his review of the evidence, didn't think that was true. We haven't even heard anything about that since that day. I think at the end of 2019. And I believe that that's where we'll end up. We will find out what exactly started this bogus investigation.

GLENN: So -- so do you know yet, as Durham telegraphed at all, what comes next?

SEAN: Well, we have -- he hasn't telegraphed it. We have another indictment sitting out, of Igor Danchenko, who is the so-called primary subsource for all of the nonsensical lives peddled by Christopher Steele and his dossier against Trump.

This guy is a Russian national living in the US, used to work at Brookings, shocker, who had peddled all sorts of nonsense. Including that intimates videotape that didn't exist of Trump in a hotel in Moscow. So that trial is still upcoming. And that trial is in Virginia. So that will play out differently than the DC case against Sussmann.

GLENN: Yeah. Have you been watching what's happening in the northern Virginia school district? I'm not sure it's that different. Maybe this time it will be different.

Thank you so much, I appreciate you watching this. If you had to pull one thing that everybody should get out of this, it is...

JONATHAN: It's that people at the FBI, don't go to prison for this. Then the rule of law in this country is dead.

GLENN: I hate to say, I agree with you.

Thank you so much, Sean, I appreciate it. You bet, of the Federalist. I mean, that was -- that was the gut punch yesterday.

I expected it to happen. But that was the real gut punch.

And then it was followed by the juror who said, you know, what's the big deal, lying to the FBI? What's the big deal?

I mean, first in the '90s, it was, you know, so he lied about sex. He's married. It's no big deal.

Okay. Well, you don't lie to the FBI. And you don't lie under oath. But it was just about sex. It was nothing important.

This is about taking down the president of the United States. This is about using the full force and image of the Justice Department and everything else. To stand against and mount a campaign against a sitting president. That's not just about having sex. But now, the same group of people, with the Clintons involved again, eh. Lying doesn't really matter.

STU: It doesn't. It doesn't seem to matter. Other than that, what's gone on here?

It doesn't seem that big of a deal when you explain it that way. It's just about taking down a president. And, look, we all know there's all sorts of awful things that happened in the background of campaigns. Right?

We all know that people leak information. They do opposition research. This is reality.

GLENN: Nixon left office because someone tried to hack in at the time it was physical. Because you couldn't hack in. Tried to get information. From the Democratic, you know, office in Washington, DC.

There was nothing of value there.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: And then they didn't continue to spy and, you know, any of that stuff. He left office.

Because he was going to be impeached for doing that. You can't even get a low-level attorney.

STU: Yeah. Right.

GLENN: In trouble for lying to the FBI, about a bogus thing. That just didn't happen. Just before the election. It ran during his -- his -- his presidency.

They didn't stop.

STU: The Nixon thing was another time. And one -- I think you told the story many times of your dad, right? Around the Nixon time. Saying, it changed everything. And maybe it was part of the thing that got the ball rolling on this. In the wrong direction.

GLENN: Well, in the wrong direction, it did. Because that's why everyone went to journalism school. All the people ahead now. They all went to journalism school. Because they saw that two reporters, could topple a president. And they learned the wrong lesson. They now think that they can topple any president. Because they don't like it.

STU: As I was saying, we all know, terrible people were involved in this campaign, all the time. There are people that are -- that some of them are fine. A lot of them are terrible. It's just -- it's a terrible industry. It's created with people who -- who want to just destroy others. Like literally, their job is to destroy the lives of other people. As you go through these campaigns. And many of the strategists are on this. That's part of the reason, why, I'm less -- I don't know. Activated, interested, riveted, by what happens to the Clintons themselves. As I am, to what the media did with all this information. And how they handled it. I mean, they took this information with them. They told us, it was true. They -- they also tried to destroy a president and many, many people lives. Including low-level underlings of Trump. We've talked to several of them. And there has never been a moment where they said, holy crap, we got that one wrong. Hey, wow. We thought Donald Trump was really bad. Therefore, we jumped the gun on this. We believed all the bad stuff and that's our fault. And here's what we'll do in our future to correct it.

GLENN: No. They don't think they made a mistake.

STU: It's not one family, or one group of shady campaign operatives --

GLENN: And I never thought -- the Clintons will die rich and unhappy, and that's -- that's enough for me.

They are -- they're never going to go to jail. Anybody who thinks they are. They're sadly mistaken. They'll never going to jail. I didn't expect that.

But the fact that the FBI gets away with it. And the media gets away with it. In collusion with the Clintons. Is insane. What have you taught, attorneys, what have you taught campaigns?

As long as you're on the right side of the FBI, they'll help you. That's not good. Not good.

Tech Elite's Great Reset Agenda Exposed

The “groundwork” that Big Tech elites have set is being used to “enable” the policies of the Great Reset, warns Nicole Shanahan, who was once married to Google co-founder Sergey Brin. She recently sat down with BlazeTV’s Allie Beth Stuckey to share the inside secrets of the “Tech Mafia” that she once observed. Now, Allie joins Glenn Beck to discuss some of the most shocking moments from her podcast, including the near-death moment that brought Shanahan to Christianity.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: All right. I want to take in Allie Beth Stucky here, and bring her on the program.
There's a great story out about something she -- she has. She just released it. It was on TheBlaze.com.

And I had not seen the interview yet. I have seen pieces of the interview.

And it looks -- I mean, this is amazing.

Allie Beth is maybe one of the best interviews you've done can. Let me play a little clip of it first.

VOICE: So the tech-wide Mafia, I believe, were kind of being conscripted. And their money especially was being conscripted.

And to set the groundwork for The Great Reset. Specifically through -- specifically through a network of non-NGO advisers.

Relationship with Hollywood.

Relationship at Davos.

And their own companies.

GLENN: Hmm.

VOICE: So if you look at like who is on these boards, who hangs out with each other.

How these -- how the culture of -- of tech wealth works, like Silicon Valley tech worth. And that small group of people, responsible for a huge amount of money, and a huge amount of NGO activity across the United States. It's a really small group of people. And it's a really small group of people making these decisions.

And then. And then completely blind to everything else that's going on. And how their ground work is being used to then enable these other policies.

These great reset policies.

GLENN: It is amazing to go from five years ago, everybody saying, that's crazy!

That's not happening.

To the former wife of the -- the head of Google, coming out and saying, yeah. This was all orchestrated. We didn't even know what we were into. As wives.

As the Silicon Valley Mafia wives, as she calls them. Allie Beth, welcome to the program. How are you?

ALLIE: Thank you so much. Doing well.

GLENN: Really powerful interview. What did she say was her turning point? What woke he her up?

ALLIE: Wow. There were so many moments across her journey. Kind of started on the campaign trail with RFK.

She shared something that she had never shared before. That she was pregnant surprisingly on the campaign trail. And that she had a long-term miscarriage at 20 weeks. And it was life-threatening for her. She lost the sweet baby. And she almost lost her life. And she said that as she felt her life being pulled from her, she almost made this kind of exchange with God.

Like, okay. God. You have my life.

You know, I will do anything, basically.

I'm paraphrasing. People can watch the interview for her actual verbiage.

But she felt all of a sudden, this kind of peace of God.

That there's been a lot of moments until then, that had led her to that realization.

That he is real.

That the gospel of Jesus real.

And all of this. And something interesting she talks about on the campaign trail.

And she and I talks about this privately too. And it's okay for me to share. That she really saw the reality of evil. The reality of hell. When she was deep into politics. And that that kind of started to shift her perspective on, who were the bad guys here?

What's going on?

All this evil is being done under the guise of really good intention.

Especially in Silicon Valley.

And I don't want to be a part of that anymore.

GLENN: She said a couple of things. First of all, you kind of just said, the interview gets into much deeper of her losing the baby.

She lost over 4 liters of blood. You really only have about four liters of blood in you.

ALLIE: Exactly.

GLENN: And she was bleeding out.

So it was a really traumatic moment of her tying, as well as her child, dying, at the same time.

She said, at one point to you, you know, when I started to realize all of this stuff. It's a little difficult, when you're married to the guy who started Google.

ALLIE: Yeah. So that kind of goes back further in her journey during COVID.

She shared that her daughter was diagnosed with autism. And like any good mom. She's trying to figure out, wait. How did we get here? How can I help her? What's going on in her little brain, to help me understand how to best support her?

And as she was digging into the research, she found some things that have kind of been dubbed right-wing conspiracies, about environmental factors, even pharmaceutical factors, that could possibly cause some symptoms of autism. But she had a hard time researching, because the search engine that almost everyone uses censors that kind of information. And while she was married to the cofounded of Google, who was playing a part in censoring that information. Not only inhibiting her research for her daughter, but research for the effects of the COVID-19 vaccine.

And she shared that caused understandably a lot of conflict in her life, and still does.

GLENN: I wonder what the conversations were like. You know what I mean? If you're looking at these things. Then all of a sudden, Google, your husband's company is censoring and saying, this is bad.

I mean, can you imagine that?

It would be really, very bizarre, to have that conversation at dinner that night.

Hey. I'm trying to do some research.

And you guys are shutting me down. And I have to tell you, I don't think this is crazy stuff.

I wonder what those conversations were like.

ALLIE: Yeah. I don't know.

It's crazy to think about.

GLENN: What was the biggest thing you took from her. I really, really like her.

Is this the first time you met her?

ALLIE: The first time I've met her in person. I'm just struck by how genuine, vulnerable she is. It was not easy to admit. Especially when you're someone who has been prominent in that space. Has donated a ton of money to entities like Planned Parenthood, George Gascon, other progressive causes, to admit that you were wrong, that you didn't see things as they were, and now you see things differently.

At one point, she said, I helped all these women get abortions, and I suddenly realized, I never helped a woman keep her baby. How dare I!

Not many people, especially in that space, have the humility to admit something like that. And I just praise God for that. Because that transparency will help a lot of people.

GLENN: How has her friend circle changed? I can't imagine she's got a lot of friends that were in that original circle.

ALLIE: You know, she still has friends. Maybe I don't know about in the tech-wide Mafia. But she still has friends who are very progressive.

I can see how she's a good person and a good friend, but she's having bold conversations with them. I know that for sure.

GLENN: Well, it's great.

You did a great job. I'm so happy for your success, Allie. I really am.

You deserve it.

Talk about your Shared Arrows. Get your Shared Arrows pitch here.

ALLIE: Yeah. Yeah. Shared Arrows. It is our women's Christian event. October 11th, Dallas, Texas. We are going to have Francesca Battistelli leading worship.

We're having Alice Childress. We're having Jinger Vuolo. Katie South. So many amazing speakers that are just rallying for women, to be courageous in our homes and whatever spaces God has placed us, to share the arrows of fellow believers that we face a common enemy.

So super excited about it. People can go to sharedarrows.com for more information.

GLENN: Thank you so much, Allie. Appreciate it, God bless.

ALLIE: Thanks, Glenn.

GLENN: Allie Beth can be heard on Blaze TV.

MSM Proves Trump RIGHT About Canada & Illegal Immigration

A shocking “60 Minutes” report recently proved that Trump was RIGHT to crack down on illegal immigration across the Canadian border. The reporter recently interviewed a member of the Sinaloa cartel, who admitted to trafficking people and drugs across the Canadian border, including fentanyl from China. Glenn breaks down the story, as well as the incredible way the President of El Salvador is handling criminals that refused to self-deport.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So President Trump has imposed a 25 percent tariff on nearly all goods imported from Canada, and he's been saying, you have to work with us. You've got to secure the Northern border.

You've got to stop the drug cartels. The drugs, and the human smuggling that is happening on our northern border. And everybody is like, oh, no, Canada would never do that. That's not a problem. Okay. It's a problem. It's a border. It's a problem. And it's porous.

All of them are. We've got to do something about it. And ask our friends on our border, to help us. Well, they're not. Sixty minutes went up. I can't believe this was on 60 minutes over the weekend.

And they had a cartel smuggler on 60 Minutes.

How does 60 Minutes -- I mean, is that in the phone book. Where do you find a cartel smuggler? But they found one, and he went on record, and he said, I'll always find a way to get people illegally across the border.

Here's a piece of what he said.

VOICE: This video was reported in January. A group of men who just crossed the border. Ran to an SUV that drove them deeper into New York.

You can also see a woman getting out of a car, and go north to Canada. This man told us he coordinated the handoff and took the video.

GLENN: Can you tell us who you work for?

VOICE: For the Sinaloa Cartel.

VOICE: He goes by the name Javi, and he agreed to speak with us only with his camera off. He can't risk his identity being exposed.

VOICE: How does this work? They tell you where to go? They tell you how many people you have to bring across each week?

VOICE: Exactly. That's how it goes. They provide the people. They have more people who are behind all of this. Looking for customers. Finding them. And summoning them to certain locations.

VOICE: We found Javi through his online ads, which he said TikTok recently took down.

GLENN: Wow. Here he is talking about smuggling babies and fentanyl across the border.

VOICE: What's the youngest child you've ever crossed?

VOICE: Three months.

VOICE: Yes. Babies.

VOICE: What happens if one of the migrants you're working with doesn't pay?

VOICE: They cannot go. They're held hostage until they pay up.

VOICE: Until what?

VOICE: Until they pay.

VOICE: Do you work with only humans, or die move drugs also?

VOICE: Everything.

VOICE: How much fentanyl do you move across that border?

VOICE: Lately, it's been quiet. But for a while there, we were bringing in 30 kilos per month.

VOICE: Wow. The drugs come from?

VOICE: From China. I get more into the US, but also it goes from the US to Canada. And weapons.

GLENN: Hmm. Hmm.

Interesting. Isn't it?

So that's what we're dealing with.

And I don't know if you saw the video of the -- the people that, you know, were boarded up on airplanes.

And sent to, where was it?

Venezuela. Not Venezuela.

But El Salvador.

Did you see that?

Trump posted this amazing video.

You guys didn't see this?

Oh, we have to look it up, and play it!

It's this amazing video of the plane arriving in El Salvador. And them getting on the plane. And getting off the plane. And then, you know, ankle and bracelets on their wrists.

Walking hunched down, into this new prison. And I've got to tell you, that video itself, if I were thinking about coming here. I would immediately go, I'm not going there.

If that's what happens to you. I am not going there.

It sent such a strong, strong message.

This is how we treat people who are coming here, who are bad guys.

Now, this is the one that Trump -- or, that the administration is in court now, because an activist judge is like, you can't just do that. You know what, why?

Well, because you didn't vet them. No. I tell you what we did. We gave them exactly the same kind of vetting, that the last president gave when he let them all this.

Now, now, these people were on a list.

Okay? It doesn't mean that they are -- were all gang members. But you're here. You're here illegally. Buh-bye.

I know that sounds heartless. But -- I really believe that they all need to go home. They all need to go home. And a lot of these people were not just on a list. They were known to be gang members. And a lot of them had committed crimes here in America.

Buh-bye.

See you!

STU: Yeah. If you -- I love that. I love some of these people. Some of these people don't even have criminal records in America.

Well, first of all, if they're here illegally, to me, they have a criminal record. Right?

They act like this is not a crime!

Well, there is a law, okay?

And I understand there's some nuance within that law.

But like, there's a law, you're not supposed to come here. They know they're not supposed to come here. Many of them had criminal records at their home country, and not here.

Again, does that mean, that we don't -- that we're going to leave them here?

Because they didn't commit a crime that we know of yet, here?

I mean, the point is to prevent those, right?

It's possible! Right? That they made a mistake.

There's some claims that a couple of these people, should not have been going to prison.

And even if they should be deported to their home country.

If they didn't commit a major crime. They didn't necessarily need to go to the El Salvadorian lockups.

All that said. Find those problems. Solve those problems. I like what Elon Musk said about this, in the White House, a couple weeks ago.

When he was asked about it. And they said, like, hey. You -- and this has happened with DOGE. Hey, you posted. You saved $1.9 billion. And actually that had been canceled in the previous administration.

And he said, yeah, we're not going to get everything right. When we notice one of those things, we will fix it. And we will get it fixed right away.

Like, that is actually a normal human way to deal with an issue like that. It's so weird in Washington, to hear it.

Now, that's okay.

If you happen to be the person that is sent to this prison.

You won't like it very much.

GLENN: You shouldn't have been here the first place.

STU: That's the point. There's an initial thing that put you into this bucket. If you commit a crime, by crossing into this country, which we have warned you, not to participate in. If you do that, there are consequences to it!

And, you know, if Europe wrongly sent to this prison, they should absolutely correct those mistakes.

GLENN: Well, I have to tell you, I mean, every message he is sending is the exact opposite message that Biden was sending.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: He's sending right now. What Biden was saying. Even if you're a terrorist.

Even if you're a murderer. We won't really check. So come on in, you're fine.

Now, you might be a good person.

You might be, you know, a dad of 16, whatever.

And you're just coming in.

But we don't know.

STU: Yeah. But no.

GLENN: We don't know. So don't come.

Leave. Leave, right now.

Leave on your own.

He is begging people to self-deport.

And when you see the video.

I have to play it for you.

It is amazing. When you see this video, it is -- I watched it, and I was like, oh, we have it.

Yeah. Go ahead and play this. Watch this!

It shows the airplane. Now, here they come down the stairs.

And look how they're all marched in a line.

And they're all being marched right into this maximum security prison compound.

And no, thank you.

STU: It doesn't look great.

GLENN: It does not look great. Look at that.

No, thank you.

STU: And this is -- they actually tweeted this.

The -- the president of El Salvador.

GLENN: Yeah. I mean, you are not -- if you --

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Yeah. If you are thinking about coming to the country. Or you're here illegally. Would you not be packing up everything right now, and go, yeah?

STU: Why mess with it, right? And it's the messaging.

GLENN: Yeah. Go home.

STU: As much as we've been very, very difficult.

Or tough on illegal immigrants.

It's true. There's always a part of me that does acknowledge the fact that we treat and have for decades. Treated illegal immigration kind of like it's a speeding ticket.

You know, you shouldn't do it. But we're not really going to do anything about it. If I were in a situation, like some horrible country.

Everything was overrun, we were all poor. Would I risk a speeding ticket?

Maybe.

GLENN: Yeah, me too. Right.

STU: This is going to surprise people. Occasionally, I drifted a couple of miles an hour. Over that speed limit here in the United States.

That's off the record for anyone listening.

GLENN: What?

STU: Yeah. Occasionally that happens.

And I do it for almost no gain.

I do it because I want to get home, 13 seconds faster.

If you were -- if your entire family was --

GLENN: You have all that recorded, right?

STU: Was devastated. And the United States government was constantly sending the signal.

Sure, it's kind of like breaking the rules. But don't worry about it. We have sanctuary cities here for you. The president was in a debate. He just won. Joe Biden. And he told you, what should we do with illegal immigrants?

We should welcome them. That's the real policy.

Like, I could. It almost takes away, a good chunk of the responsibility, of the illegal immigrant. That's how bad our policy has been, Glenn.

The policy is different now. The policy has been communicated, quite clearly to anyone who would consider coming here.

GLENN: Yeah. Or is here illegally.

STU: Yeah. Get out.

GLENN: Get out. Get out.

And he's doing all of this to not have to round people up.

He's starting with the worst of the worst.

And showing the examples of what is happening to them.

To say, to you, please, make the right decision.

Leave on your own!

We don't want to round you and your family up.

We don't want you to go through this.

You have an opportunity.

In fact, if you let us know, we're going to give you a special pass, that means, you could come back to the country, and apply for citizenship.

Not ahead of the line. But you can!

If we catch you here, and you haven't self-deported. And you're totally a law-abiding citizen.

You're never coming back.

You're on a list. And you're never allowed to come back. Okay?

He's sending these messages. And telling people, I think with compassion.

Hey. We might come for you, one day. You really should leave now.

We don't want to make this an ugly thing.

You came in the wrong way.

Sure, we encouraged it, whatever.

But not anymore.

And this has to be done. Or we turn into Europe!

Why is no one looking at what's happening to Europe. And concerned?

I was talking to a friend last night. Kind of the circle of the know.

And he said, I think the world is preparing for a three-front row.

And I was like, boy. That doesn't sound good.

He said, you know, look at the actions.

Look what's happening around the world right now.

He said, it could go horribly wrong with Europe.

And it appears, that there are players on all sides that want to have a war in Europe.

You can make your own decisions if that's true. And why.

But also, in -- in the Middle East.

There -- everybody is preparing for war. And preparing for possible war with Iran.

And then China is preparing for war. And if -- if there is a huge war in the Middle East, then we're berate into it. And a war in Europe. And we're berate into it. You don't think the third leg would stand and up take Taiwan?

They would take it in a heartbeat. Because we would not be able to fight a three-theater war. We're just not prepared for it.

And the one in Europe. If we're fighting in Europe, you know, we're approaching a place to where that could be 100-year war. Because that will all be about ideology.

And we're not talking to the Russians. We're talking about the Islamic State.

You know, there -- they're all -- all these Islamists have been brought in, and then they change. And then they have no-go zones. And then they set up Sharia courts. Do you think that will stop at some time, France? Germany?

Holland? Sweden? You really think all of a sudden, they will go, but that's enough. We won't go past this.

We will have our Sharia courts, but we respect you Lutherans over here.

Of course not. Of course not.

They have to take care of their own countries.

And the population that have been moving in, that is destroying their countries.

And making them an enemy, of the freedoms of mankind.

I don't want to deal with it. They need to.

But we're in the same boat!

We must protect the homeland. We have -- we'll never be able to save anyone. If we don't save ourselves, first. If we don't know who is here, we don't control the crime in our own cities.

We don't have cheap and effective energy. We don't have an educated, not miseducated, but an educated population. A hard-working population.

Somebody that -- a population that understands its own country. Its own history. And its own values.

You don't survive. You don't survive.

So we have a very clear job, that we have to do. And I think Donald Trump is doing a good job of it so far.

But the rest of it is up to us.

But we must act. I mean, I really think that God -- God does what we can't do. I couldn't have stopped that bullet.

I couldn't have done. Nobody could have stopped that bullet.

God stopped that bullet from hitting him.

I've never seen anything like that. If that wasn't a clear, almost Moses parting the Red Sea style miracle. I don't know if I have ever seen one then. That was a miracle. But God does the things that we can't do. We now have to do the things that we have to do. And one of those things is, if you want the government to be less powerful, we have to stop giving it power!

If you want the government to do less, we have to take on the responsibility to do more, in our own communities, neighborhoods, and family.

That's the way we fix this thing.

But the time to fix it, is right now.

We may only have another three years. And who knows what happens in three years?

Let's make sure we're doing all the hard work ourselves, right now.

DEBATE: Should AI Facial Recognition be Allowed in Court?

Is AI facial recognition software, like Clearview AI, reliable enough to be used as evidence in a court of law? Glenn, who is against Clearview, has a friendly debate with Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, who wants to expand Clearview’s use in court cases. So, how do we balance the good that Clearview can do and the bad that it is capable of doing in the wrong hands (for instance, a totalitarian government)? AG Yost gives his thoughts and also previews how he hopes the Supreme Court will rule on this.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I am thrilled to have the Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost on with us. He served as the auditor of Ohio, for a long time. Like eight years.

And then he became attorney general. I think he's -- I think he won it with more votes than anybody else in the history of Ohio has. And he is defending and fighting for something called Clearview. Now, I like Dave.

But I'm against Clearview. And maybe he knows something that I don't know. So I want to have a conversation with him about what is happening in Ohio, and what's being heard now in the courts.

Dave, welcome to the program.

DAVE: It's good to hear your voice.

GLENN: Thank you, sir. By the way, thanks for everything you've done. You're really making a difference.

DAVE: You're very kind, thank you.

GLENN: Talk to me about the case now of Clearview. Which is an AI facial recognition, and it is a great tool for law enforcement. But it frightens me a great deal. Talk to me about the case.

DAVE: Sure. So let's -- let's start with the backs of crimes.

Fellows walking down the street. Minding his own business. Mind you, this guy has no criminal background. He's just -- he's a good guy.

Pays his taxes. Goes to work. He's walking down the street on February 14th, Valentine's Day. Day of love. And the bad guy, I'm not going to use his name comes up behind him, robs him on the street, shoots him twice in the back, and runs off. Now, surveillance cameras see him, that are just on the street. See him going into a particular apartment. Well, fast forward a week. Police doing their investigation, trying to figure out what happened.

And as a -- he goes to a convenience store, and the surveillance camera there, over at the cash register, picks up his face.

And he goes back, same kind of route, to the same apartment.

And so they go, hmm.

Wonder who lives there.

And they run the probation website, or the parole website from the Department of Corrections.

Lo and behold, then they run that guy against the -- excuse me, they grab a facial freeze frame, off of the convenience store footage, and run it through Clearview AI, and it's a match.

So they say, a-ha! They go in, and get a search warrant from the judge. During the search, they come up with the gun.

The murder weapon.

And so they arrest the guy. They've got a pretty good case at that point.

That guy goes to court and complains. And says, hey, that facial recognition tough is not reliable. They say right on there, that you can't rely on it.

And don't use it.

GLENN: Right.

DAVE: And the judge tosses the results of the search. Which means, this guy is going to walk, if we don't have the murder weapon for evidence.

GLENN: Right. And he tosses that because the clear view evidence is what got you the warrant. So anything is fruit of a poison tree. Correct?

DAVE: Well, that's what the argument is.

GLENN: Right. Right. Right. Right.

DAVE: But the law says there's a long-standing, decades long good faith exception. And you're only supposed to use the fruit of the poisonous tree. If there's no other -- if there's bad faith. And there's no other option to do it.

There was no bad faith here.

And, in fact, there's other useful evidence, probative evidence, including seeing the guy go into that apartment, that is useful. And supporting probable cause for the search warrant.

GLENN: It also reminds me a little bit of the glove doesn't quit, you must acquit.

The use of DNA evidence during OJ Simpson. Everybody said the same thing. That's unreliable. We don't even know what that is. Could be one out of every 100 have the same kind of -- they made all kinds of crazy things.

And so that was tossed out. Because people didn't understand how accurate, that was. Pragmatism so I don't -- I don't disagree with you at all. This is a great thing to get the bad guys.

However, Clearview. What they have done, is they have scraped billions of images, without anybody's consent off of the internet.

And I believe it's very, very accurate. And the argument would be, well, I'm not doing anything bad or wrong. So I don't have to worry about it.

But I don't -- you know, in a time where we're headed for AI the way we are. And what's happening in China.

This is exactly the kind of technology that is used for governments to track everybody.

How do you balance that the crazy world that we live in, to make sure it doesn't become a tool like China?

DAVE: Well, you know, Glenn, I worry about that too. And I think that the solution is the regulation of the use of the thing.

For example, we do not permit here in Ohio, the use of -- of facial recognition, without anything more to support an arrest warrant. It can only be used as a lead.

Then you have to go out and do the shoe leather. To prove that the guy you think it is, is the guy you're looking for.

GLENN: Which is what you did.

You used that. And you didn't arrest him because we had the AI. You arrested him because you had that, got you a warrant, you got in, you found the gun. Right?

DAVE: Well, it was a search warrant that got us --

GLENN: Right. Right. What I mean is, what you're saying you wanted to be used like, is exactly what you did. You didn't go get the guy because he was on Clearview.

DAVE: Exactly right. And here's the rubric. I know you're a fact guy. But you love -- you love, how do we think about this?

We have public spaces everywhere. So a cop can stand on the corner and observe all day long.

Ask sit there for an eight-hour shift. And just watch. And anything he sees is fair game. They're allowed to react right there. And that's not improper surveillance. Because it's a public place.

When does it stop becoming a public place? Or proper?

When it becomes a private place. If it's your home. If it's in some circumstances, your business.

You have to have probable cause, get a somewhere to sign off on that. I think when we're talking about these technological things, the question is: What is the government allowed to do with it? And what -- and did it occur in public or in private?

When we're talking about Facebook, you know, I'm sorry. It's electronic. But that's kind of a public place.

That's more like the cop standing on the street corner. On the other hand, the cop standing outside.

We just had a Supreme Court case about this a couple years ago. A cop standing on the street, but using sensitive ultraviolet thermal imaging to look for marijuana grows. They're looking at what's going on inside your private residence. That means, that's a Fourth Amendment violation.

So I think that this principle of public versus private fears. Goes a long way, to helping us think through this.

GLENN: Yeah, they are.

So, Dave, I want you to know. I mean, I hope this hasn't felt like a hostile interview.

I want you to know. I'm a fan of yours. But I'm very, very concerned of this slippery. Almost straightdown slope to the cage that AI could build for people.

And we could have all of the best intentions. But it falls into the wrong hands.

You know, we lose several elections in a row.

And, you know, it could be -- it will be a prison. It will be a panopticon. Like it is, in China.

And so that's why I'm concerned about it.

So this is in front of the Supreme Court. Closing arguments haven't happened yet.

DAVE: Nope.

GLENN: How do you think this is -- the court will look at this. And what do you think will happen?

DAVE: Well, it's a case of first impression, right?

I mean, we haven't had a lot of cases, challenging the intersection of the Fourth Amendment, protecting our privacy, in our homes. And papers.

And this new technology. So we're arguing for a narrow reading of it.

But that it should be -- it should be an available tool.

GLENN: Right.

DAVE: To your point earlier, I couldn't agree with you more. It scares me, what government can do about this.

If you think about, back to the Biden administration. And social media ask what they were doing.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

DAVE: Multiple that. Make that geometrically larger. That's the potential. We've got to be vigilant.

GLENN: What is the difference between this, and, for instance, in Texas, you can't clock me speeding with a camera.

A cop has to be there, to stop me. And even they can take a picture of me, driving the car. Et cetera, et cetera.

They cannot ticket me for speeding. It has to be a physical police officer.

What is the difference between this, do you think?

DAVE: Well, and that's a great -- that's the same law we have in Ohio. And that's a great example of how the government can restrain technology. To prevent it from going too far.

That's not a constitutional issue. That's a statute that the general assembly passed. And said, we're not going to let you do this. Yes. You've got the technology. We're not going to let you do this. That's just too far.

GLENN: Okay. Dave, I mean, I appreciate that at least you and others are thinking deeply about this because we're on the verge of a whole Brave New World.

And I honestly don't know what the right answer is. I mean, the law -- you know, law-abiding citizen in me, is like the guy clearly -- you've got the gun in his house. He clearly did it.

But the person that is concerned about this new technology, and things like China.

I just don't know how to balance it yet. But I appreciate the conversation. Thank you so much.

DAVE: Thanks for having me on.

GLENN: You bet. That's Dave Yost. He's the Ohio Attorney General, and that is happening in Ohio right now.

Insights from Glenn Beck's Lee Harvey Oswald Shot Recreation

We still have plenty of questions after the JFK Files release. So, Glenn wanted to put one of them to the test: Could Lee Harvey Oswald have made the shots that assassinated Kennedy in the allotted time, as the Warren Commission said he did? Glenn recently put the theory to the test and tried to make the shots himself. The full recreation attempt will be available exclusively to BlazeTV subscribers on March 26, 2025. But first, Glenn gives a preview of the 2 incredible things he discovered ...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Yeah. Well, I went up to Oklahoma this weekend.

To a friends house. Or a friends ranch.

He's got a shooting range. And we went up, because we were shooting something that is for Wednesday's special.

Last week, we shot what's his name?

Oswald's gun. The exact copy with the exact ammunition.

And the ammunition itself leads to you conspiracy theories like crazy.

I mean, the more -- the more we do things on this.

Like, we will just disprove that.

Then you're like. Eh.

I mean, one of them is the ammunition.

This gun is -- was for Greek fighters in World War II!

It's a really crappy gun. The -- the scope today, the same exact scope, if you can get it, very rare.

If you can get it. It is so crappy. That it's a 10-dollar scope, today. Okay?

Back then, it was -- and it's really -- this gun is -- has everything going against it. Okay?

And the ammunition, there wasn't ammunition for this gun. The CIA after the war said to the DOD, you've got to make a bunch of ammunition over to this gun. And send it over to Greece. Okay?

So it was all CIA-ordered ammunition. It didn't sell. It was there. So they shipped it back, later.

Now, how did Oswald get the ammunition that was -- was ordered by the CIA, brought back by the CIA, and the DOJ.

How did he -- we have those shells. They are $40 a piece. So we were using the shell.

We used absolutely everything. And last week, the gun jammed on us. Actually, the firing pin went out, and we couldn't get it fixed fast enough for what I did yesterday.

So I went out last week, and I shot.

And it was just stationery, at the exact stance. Can we -- can I hit those things, using this gun?

Yes. Then we decided, we have to do it though, moving. And the exact angles, and as high up to six stories as we can get.

So yesterday, I go to -- go to Oklahoma. To this great side by side ranch. Where, you know, it's for hunters.

And the guy who runs it, is a guy who is a Beretta sharpshooter, if you will. The kind of guy that he will go to gun shows and stuff.

He will throw up a quarter, and he will shoot a hole through the quarter. He's that kind of guy. Really good shot. And he said, this is difficult.

I'm like, eh, is it? And he's like, yes. Glenn. This is a difficult shot. We're going to be here all day. Let me just say, my day lasted -- I expected maybe 20 minutes. It was an eight-hour day to do this. Okay?

STU: Wow.

GLENN: So we take the shot. I don't want to reveal what we found. We found two things that I did not expect. I thought for sure it would go a certain way, and it didn't.

And then on top of that, he comes back, and he's -- because we had it in the back of a car.

Shoot through the back of the car.

And we did!

And so it was the same angle.

Absolutely everything.

And he comes out, after the shoot, and he said, I want you to look at this.

And he shows us something on the car.

And I said, wait a minute.

Wait. Explain this.

Because it seemed odd. Once he pointed it out. I said, wait a minute.

And he said, yeah. We started talking about it. The whole crew came around.

We're doing research today.

Because if the Warren commission did not talk about this. And they had to have.

STU: Right.

GLENN: If they didn't talk about this, it was -- because there's no way around it, and we'll show it to you on Wednesday's show.

It's fascinating!

It is absolutely fascinating.

STU: Sounds it!

GLENN: Yeah. It's really great.

STU: What was it like, going through the process of re-creating that?

GLENN: It was weird, because we had put balloons.

STU: Right.

GLENN: Where everybody was. And so we put balloons there.

And the idea of -- I could relate to him on nerves.

Because I was thinking, okay. So what other elements did he have to deal with? And the only one that I couldn't re-create is, I'm shooting the president.

And I'm probably going to walk away dead.

STU: Of course.

GLENN: So, you know, that's the only thing. That would slow you down. Make you a sloppier shot. Or anything else.

And we couldn't re-create that.

STU: That's a big one.

GLENN: Yeah. The other thing is, he was in a Lincoln continental. Even moving, it's 11 miles an hour.

That thing is not bouncing around. We had it in the back of a truck.

And the truck was being dragged through this field.

And it -- it kept losing -- you know, the field is bumpy.

STU: Not paved.

GLENN: Yeah. Not paved at all. Not even smooth.

So I think that kind of made up for him being was this. Because that -- that's what Scott was saying.

He was like, this is a difficult shot.

Because of that!

So I think we kind of balanced it out.

But it's really amazing.

We're doing a show from the Oval. Wednesday. And we have got -- we've got somebody on that has a tape. He's bringing it. Would not release it. To us. So he's coming in, and he's bringing the tape of a conversation that he says, two people talking about Johnson.

And Johnson's involvement.

We also have Roger Stone on the program.

STU: Really?

GLENN: Yeah. Talking about that.

Because I also want to go in with Nixon.

And he's part of the Nixon thing. Because the more you find out about what our CIA was doing.

The things we'll show you on Wednesday, that we've now confirmed.

And we didn't even know we were looking for this.

But the things that came out of those JFK files now that we confirmed, shows that the CIA is absolutely out of control then, and it will make you question everything else that you know in history.
Was that real, or was that not real?

And so that's Wednesday night.

9 o'clock. Blaze TV.

Join me. BlazeTV.com/Glenn.

Just use the promo code Glenn, and you will save.

STU: Doesn't Roger Stone have a Nixon tattoo? So he was definitely -- he was there for that.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

STU: A big fan.

GLENN: Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

But I don't know how I feel about Nixon thousand.

I mean, I know how I feel about Nixon.

I don't think he was a good guy.

I don't know how I feel about -- what I know said. My dad said, he's just like everybody else. He just got caught.

I think he's bare minimum.

Right about that.

It may have been, he's just like everybody else. But they set him up.

STU: Hmm. This is interesting. This is interesting. Because we have all these documents. And as usual, they've calmed no one, it seems.

GLENN: But this has only made it worse. I think. This has only made it worse. And we're trying to disprove things. When you see what happens in the field, I think you'll -- I think you'll really be surprised.

You'll really be surprised. At what we found. And what happened.

STU: That's interesting. I can't wait to see this. This is Wednesday night. On your normal show.

Your normal special.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: By the way, you can subscribe to Blaze TV. BlazeTV.com/Glenn. The promo code is Glenn. You can save 30 bucks off your subscription.