The Glenn Beck Program - 'Bombshell' Jan. 6 Testimony Is ALREADY Falling Apart | 6/29/22

Episode Date: June 29, 2022

Pat and Stu go through the latest in the January 6 committee hearings and how the new "bombshell" testimonies lack substance. Pat and Stu do what the media refuse to do: apply logic and critical thinking skills to the January 6 testimony to explain what it means. Pro-abortion activists at Amazon wrote a letter to the company demanding that Amazon stop business in pro-life states. Pat and Stu go over all the widespread media stories that turned out to be untrue. Pat and Stu commiserate with each other's car-buying issues. Pat and Stu talk about the absurdity and inconsistency of modern-day gender theory. Reports that a Google A.I. had gained sentience may have been overblown. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

All right. Thank you very much, Hillary. There's something about a business being family-owned and fully geared toward the best interests of its customers that has always been incredibly important to Americans and may mean even more in the coming months. It's true. The world of home loan options isn't always a friendly one, and navigating it can be really tricky. Not everyone's always out to help you. Since June of 2001, American financing has been dedicated to working with you to help you get your finances. where they need to be. They started in their home and they moved outward to yours. And they've been working for you, not just the bank, for a really long time now. We've been talking about them forever.

I've done business with them. I've had mortgages with them. I've talked to them about refinancing. They're just a great company and they give you all the options that you need and they're salary-based. They're not trying to get you into some loan that's not best for you. They just want to do the best thing they can for you and your family. Check them out. You really should get on top of this because as we know where interest rates seem to be heading. American financing, 800906 2440, 800906 2440, or Americanfinancing. Dot net. It's Americanfinancing.net.

And it is Pat and Stu in for Glenn Beck today. He's on vacation. We'll be back soon. Radio show starts here at about five seconds. Wow, the January 6th commission is clone things open. Wow. Finally. Yeah.

Now we're getting to the meat of the matter. Can't avoid it now. No. No, you can't. All you Trump supporters, you're going to be sorry. When we share with you the latest on what he was up to. Oh, man. That's coming up in 60 seconds.

I've never realized that during the summer, after the long days outside, you always feel and look more tired than you should. You know, they have the warm weather, the long days. You know, if you maybe get a little chlorine on your skin, hopefully. Because that's nice. It's a nice part of summer. But it can make your skin look dehyred. You can look a little extra tired.

Even your eyes show it. That's why we always talk about classic Genucel. Genucel knows that the area under your eyes needs a different kind of hydration than the rest of your skin. And it's why they've sold over a million products. And Genucel, the original bags and puffiness, still their top seller. Stop looking tired today and order Genucile for bags and puffiness. You can save over 65% off retail. And with its immediate effects, you get results in 12 hours or your money back.

Order the classic GenuCell today with their most people. popular package and you can save over 65%. Check it out. GenuSell.com slash Beck, G-E-N-U-C-E-L.com slash Beck. You can enter the promo code Beck and save extra money at checkout. Every order includes Genu-C-E-Sel's Dark Spot Corrector for free plus free shipping. They always hook you up at Genu-Sel.com.

It's genu-C-E-L-C-L-com slash Beck. Well, Cassidy Hutchinson has finally blown. on this thing completely open. We were looking for the smoking gun in the January 6th situation that links Trump to all the madness. Well, we have it now.

We have it. Did you see her testimony yesterday? I did see a bunch of the testimony, yes. Powerful. Now, she powerful. Powerful. Was the chief of staff for Mark Meadows. Yes. So in some... Who was the chief of staff for Donald Trump? Right. So what does that make?

I don't know how that works. Do you multiply them, Chief of Staff, Times Chief of Staff, to find out what it is? It is, the one thing you'd say about her, and I guess this is why they made such a big deal about the testimony yesterday, is that she's not an anti-Trump person. She was there throughout.

She, you know, to the end, was still Chief of Staff for Mark Meadows, right? And Mark Meadows was the Chief of Staff for the President in the United States. So this is not someone like, you know, it's not like, I don't know who's the right example, but there's been so many players in this at this point. But not someone who was highly skeptical of Trump the whole time and is now saying bad things about them now that they don't have a job anymore. She was there the whole time and was working closely with the president,

had access to a lot of the internal conversation. So I guess that's why she was a big deal yesterday. Yeah. Here's what she had to say about Donald Trump being pissed off that they weren't taken him back. He wanted to go to the Capitol building. I want to go to the Capitol building, be with my people. Here's what she said. Related to him, we're not.

We don't have the assets to do it. It's not secure. We're going back to the West Wing. The president had very strong, a very angry response to that. Tony described him as being irate. The president said something to the effect of, I'm the effing president. Take me up to the Capitol now. To which Bobby responded, sir, we have to go back to the West Wing.

The president reached up towards the front of the vehicle to grab at the steering wheel. Okay. Mr. Engel grabbed his arm. He said, sir, you need to take your hand off the steering wheel. We're going back to the West Wing. We're not going to the Capitol. Right. Mr. Trump then used his free hand to lunge towards Bobby Engel.

And when Mr. Renato had recounted this story to me, he had motion towards his clavicles. Yeah, his clavicles. He almost grabbed his clavicles. He's going to break his collar bones. That's what Trump was going to do. He's apparently very proficient at breaking people's collar bones. He can do that with, he just snap them in half with his hand. And it's important to know because, you know, look, our education system is not what it once was.

The Constitution explicitly bans the president from touching clavicles. Yeah. That is part that's in the clavicle clause. But Trump completely ignored it. Yeah. The clavicle cause. Uh-huh. It's hard to say.

Uh-huh. But that does exist. If you're Tom Broca, you can't say. The clavicle clause. It's a clavicle clause. Yeah. So the idea that, okay, the speech is over. Okay.

President Trump wants to go to the Capitol. They're driving him back to the White House. And look, it's a long walk. He's not going to make that walk. So he wants to be in the car. Yeah. And they say no. They say no.

The Secret Service says no. So keep in mind, he's in the beast. The presidential limousine. He's in the back of the limousine. He doesn't ever ride shotgun that I know of. Even when he calls it, he still doesn't get to do it. Well, if he calls it first. No.

They still don't let him do it. Wow. So he's in the back. I guess he jumps through the partition, grabs the steering wheel with his right hand, and with his left, he's got the clavicles of the Secret Service agent who's driving in his hand. And he's about to snap his collarbones. It's frightening.

It was one of the first things I thought about. How agile he is. It didn't seem just in that vehicle that that would be possible. It doesn't seem possible. That's the thing. Yeah. And, you know, the Secret Service is already volunteered to testify on, you know, under oath that that did not happen. Right.

So that's the biggest part of this, right? Yeah. It did not happen. If this was the biggest story in the world from her. you would want to find out from the Secret Service agent if it was true or not. Right. And, you know, Secret Service agents not... Before you started reporting it as if it's gospel truth.

Right. Okay, well, this person heard it from some other person. It's absolutely true. Right. And so you'd want to get that confirmation. Now, Secret Service agents are not necessarily known for volunteering information. The fact that they immediately came out and said, wait a minute, this didn't happen is incredible.

Without hesitation. It dissolves the entire story immediately. Right? That's how bad. Like literally the whole story falls apart within an hour. Now, that doesn't mean that she lied because if you, I think the most important part of what you just heard was that she said,

Tony said, as he recounted, it is, she's told you it is secondhand information. It's not like she's writing shotgun in the limo. Right. And sees this occur. She's not there.

No, she didn't see this. She didn't witness it. She's saying she talked to the Secret Service agent who then told the story. Now, it's not impossible that something happened, some sort of, you know, he maybe, I would totally believe that Donald Trump yelled at the Secret Service agent in that moment. Maybe he was very emotional in that moment, very possible. And maybe he inflated the story to her. I mean, that's not a crazy telling of this.

Yeah. But the bottom line is, you follow up with the people involved. And the Secret Service agent, if he really had his clavicle attacked here, Pat, would probably be very willing to tell the story if asked. And he immediately came out instead and said the exact opposite, that it was not true. So that part, which is the biggest headline from the January 6 hearings in a surprise moment with an unknown witness. Bombshell, every media headline you will read will tell you it was a. a bombshell. And that has already been opposed by the person who supposedly told the story. Already debunked. And not a political figure. Like if it was a, let's say it was Mark Meadows saying this.

You might say, well, Meadows is covering for Trump. The Secret Service is not doing that. That's not what they do. That's not, that's not their job. Their job is not to cover for the president in testimony. You almost never hear of Secret Service agents, even after they've long retired saying anything about their service with the president. Right. They almost never. do that. No. You don't hear about it at all. Yeah. Afterward. I mean, we've talked to Secret Service agents who are friendlier to our cause than the cause on the left. We've talked to several of them over the years. People who worked for President Obama, for example. Dan Bongino, for instance. Dan Bonino's talked about it

publicly. And he's talked about it. But he, even he doesn't relate specifics. No, he's very limited on what he would tell you. And we talk to others who won't say one word on the air about what they witnessed in the White House because they see it as part of their job to never talk about those things. And I think, you know, watching this, I think we had a different perspective, Pat, than a lot of America in that we've dealt with with high-level security people because Glenn always has them around. I mean, you know, Glenn has had all sorts of threats on his life over the years. And so we've, we talked to these guys. We know these guys. We talk to them off camera. off the air, and they still won't tell, people we've known for years will not give us names

of celebrities they've protected because they guard that so closely. They don't even say who they've guarded, let alone tell you specific stories about guarding them. Right. Because that's, you know, they see that as like their oath. And certainly the Secret Service agencies that it's probably even a higher level and that it's, you know, it really is an oath, not just a job responsibility. So seeing that, and then I thought another part of this, Pat, was interesting from maybe our perspective more than, you know, the, the, a person who is in a, you know, a normal job not working with a person that has 15 active threats against him all the time. The, the actions of Donald Trump, if true, not the clavicle part, because we know the clavicle clause, of course, bars that behavior.

But I'm saying like the behavior of I want to go with my people into a dangerous situation that my security people are saying no. I totally believe that's true. I totally believe Donald Trump wanted to go down and be with his people at the Capitol. That wouldn't surprise me at all. It would not surprise me at all because we've seen Glenn try to do the same crap a hundred times. And like it is really frustrating for the security people because they're like, we can't secure you there. It's not that you don't trust the people who are in the crowd. but all it takes is one.

Right. You know, all it takes is one hinkly to be in a crowd, and we've got a national tragedy on our hands. Yeah. And you don't know if, even if 95% of those people are perfectly fine, there could always be a psychotic person in there doing something crazy. So the Secret Service and any good security team is going to say, dude, no, you can't go down there.

I can't bring you down there. We're not ready for it. We're not prepared for it. We can't just, you can't just spring this up. on us right now. We cannot bring you down there. We need to bring it to the West Wing. That is totally believable to me and probably true.

But the way the media is presenting that information is Donald Trump wanted to join the coup. Donald Trump wanted to go down there. He wanted to be there to overthrow the process. Now, so stupid. Come on. That is total spin. He wanted to be with his people. He wanted to show that he wasn't going to.

to just go hide in the White House when he was asking them to go down there and walk down to the Capitol and not riot, but protest. Totally believable. The idea that he Donald Trump, who's, look, take all the other stuff out of it. Donald Trump's a pretty coddled guy.

He's lived as a billionaire for how long? Do you think he wants to be in the middle of a brawl inside the Capitol? No. Do you think he wants to be in the middle of a group of people putting flagpoles through windows of the Capitol.

Do you think he wants to be in the middle of people? Do you think he must be in the middle of a pepper spray incident? The guy lives in a gold palace. He does not want to be in the middle of that. If you thought he had the worst intentions, the way Donald Trump would handle that situation is being somewhere safe directing it from a distance. He does not want to be in the middle of that.

That's not who the guy is. Yeah. And even if, you know, even if the really ridiculous story of him grabbing the wheel and trying to drive, forcibly drive the beast back to the Capitol building. Even if it was true. What does that prove anyway? It just proved he wanted to be there.

He wanted to go there. So what? It doesn't mean he was overthrowing the government. The clavicle thing would be bothersome. If he was actually putting his hands on a clavicle. It would. Especially thinking he's going to be able to do something overtake a secret service agent.

that's not smart. Trump's a big guy, but I don't think he's winning against the Secret Service agent. You know, that's just not the profile of Donald Trump, right? I know he has the perfect health, as we learned from his doctor. Yeah, he does. But I don't think that that would happen. And, you know, that has been, let's take a quick break and come back on the other side in 60 seconds, because they have, there was one other major claim from this hearing yesterday.

Yeah. And this one's going to hit you hard. Shocking. This one's going to hit you hard back in 60 seconds. We just talked about one Glenn back, who is, he's out right now. I don't know what he's doing. I believe I'm supposed to tell you he's having some maybe a transition surgery, which is basically what he does every time I go on vacation.

But I will say he's just on vacation this time. But he is real estate agentsitrust.com. His company is still, in effect. They are still working. Luckily, Glenn doesn't, I mean, Glenn came up with this idea for real estate agents. trust.com. He's not actually checking each individual real estate agent. Oh, I thought he was. Which is good for you as a person who needs a good real estate agent. You want the professionals to do that work, and not him. Who knows who he would pick? But these are people who, generally speaking,

are fans of the show who relate to your values, but all of them are the best real estate agents in their area. These are people who have, their word is their bond. These are people who get the best deal for you for whether you're buying or selling a home they go both sides of this and if you happen to be someone who we hear this from people all the time hey i was in california and i've been living there my whole life and then covid hit and now i'm getting out of here if that's you this is a big move you want to have someone in the new community you're working you're moving to that that you can trust because you don't have any connections maybe in this new in this new state, come join us here.

We would love to have you in Texas, first of all. And when you do, if it's Texas, if it's Florida, wherever it is, Nashville, wherever it is, you can get the best agent in your area at real estate agents. itrust.com. The name kind of says it all. Real estate agents, I trust.com. It's real estate agents. I trust.

Dot. Get the gun thing. So Pat just reminded me that there's actually a couple. Maybe we get to go through this hour. Yeah, I'm not sure if this is enough time in this segment. I think we're going to have to stretch it out a little bit. Really? There were too many bombshells yesterday.

Let me give you one quick one, which I thought was pretty fascinating. And just a typical misunderstanding of American culture, right, from the media. The headline of part of Cassidy's testimony yesterday, this is the Mark Meadows chief of staff, she said that Donald Trump wanted people he wanted to take the magnetometers out and he wanted the people who were outside of the rally area to be allowed in even though he was told they were armed and then he wanted to march with them to the Capitol

so the way that's been summarized by the media is Donald Trump wanted to march with armed men to the Capitol That is how they're literally summarizing this entire story. Now, when you listen to what even she said about Trump, what he said, first of all, I want these people to be allowed in because my area of crowd is not filled up and it looks like it's empty. That was his big complaint. Now, we've only heard Donald Trump complain about that every single time it's happened throughout his entire life, right? Like, we all know that Donald Trump likes full crowds. Even sometimes when they're not full, he says they're full.

Right. Like, this is really important to Donald Trump. Trump, as we all understand. So the fact that he would want more people allowed into that area is totally believable, right? He probably did. And when they said, sir, these people are armed, he said they're not here to harm me. And he wouldn't want them to come in. Now, what I read this as totally is a complete media misunderstanding of the Second Amendment and guns.

they think they were armed to kill people. Yeah. When they see a gun, they say the only reason they could be there is because they want to kill people. No. That is not why people have guns, right? I carry a gun sometimes. And when I have it, I don't want to kill anyone. I hope I never have to use it.

The same thing, I'm sure, is happening here. We have had people. We've had people who are armed around us many, many, many times that are listeners of this show. And we believe that gun owners, are not psychopaths. So we don't think that violence is about to break out because they're armed.

And they are making such a big deal of some of these people being at the Capitol building when the riot occurred and some of them were armed. Well, yeah, did they use it? Did they use their guns? Not one person

except the cop who shot Ashley Babbitt. Nobody else used a gun. Right. That's true. And that, you know, look, I again can understand why the Secret Service would say no to this request. I understand.

You don't know if one of those people is a psycho that's going to take a shot at the president. However, I also understand President Trump saying, like, look, these are my people. They're not going to try to take a shot at me. I want them in here. I want them to be part of this. Again, this is, it's so easy to apply our current understanding of what happened on January 6th to the moments before the riot broke out. It's easy to apply that now because you're like, wait a minute. Iron people, marching to the Capitol, riot, he wanted to be there.

I mean, he wanted to be in the middle of a riot. Like, come on, guys. You think Donald Trump wanted to be in the middle of a riot? No. That is not who he's not who he is. He wanted to be down there to support his people, to be able to maybe make another speech, to be able to show that he was with the people, people who were going to be responsible for his political future,

his business future. He didn't want to be hiding in the white. House. He wanted to say I'm down there. This is before the riot breaks out. And the fact that he's saying he's not scared of guns is because he's a believer in the Second Amendment and he's not scared of guns. I understand you and the media are scared of guns. So you see guns and you're like, oh my gosh, he wanted to an armed revolt at the Capitol. I don't think there's any evidence from this testimony at all. Even her accusations that back that up. I don't think there's any accusations there that say any other than Donald Trump realizes his people are supporters of the Second Amendment, so some of them would have guns naturally and he wasn't scared of them. That's all. There's more. We'll see what you have to say about it when it. Play it for you.

Mr. Apologist. Oh, my God. There you go. Back program. You know, the sooner you switch to Patriot Mobile, the sooner you can start paying less. And I mean, way less. Less than you're paying now with your major mobile company. There's no reason to pay out the nose.

And, you know, how we're always talking about how major. or mobile companies donate a portion of your bill to leftist causes. Well, Patriot Mobile doesn't do that at all. In fact, they do the opposite. They donate to conservative causes. Wouldn't you rather get behind something like that? You think about all the efforts that came to overturning Roe versus Wade. I mean, that's five decades of activists staying with a cause the entire time.

Patriot Mobile has been highly involved in that. They believe in your rights and the things that you believe in as well. They support your values and why not support a company like that? paying too much for cell phone service, make the important switch over to Patriot Mobile today. They have 100% U.S.-based customer support, and they give amazing personal service. It's Patriotmobile.com slash Beck or call 972 Patriot. Get free activation with the offer code Beck. Veterans and first responders save even more so you can make the switch today between the left,

the media and the rhinos. We need to stick together. Patriotmobile.com slash Beck. It's PatriotMobile.com slash back our 972 Patriot, 972 Patriot for Patriot Mobile. Don't forget to use promo code Glenn for $10 off, your subscription at blazedTV.com. Pat and Stu for Glenn on the Glenn Beck program, we've been showing you some of the bombshell evidence that came out yesterday from the J6 committee. I like how you said that, Pat, J6. Yeah.

You know, it's not January. It's not important enough. It's like Fast and Furious Five. It just became F5. F5. You know what I mean? F9. This is as important to this country's future as.

Fast and Furious 5, and I do not say that lightly. Well, it's almost, almost as important to the country as F5. All right, you're right. It's not quite. It's not as important as Fast and Furious 3 Tokyo Drift. No. That's obviously more important to the country. But F5, I think there's an equivalency there that I think works pretty well.

Cassidy Hutchinson, who is the chief of staff or the chief of staff, And she had some incredible things to say yesterday. One of them that Donald Trump left from the backseat of his limousine to the front seat and tried to grab the steering wheel and the clavicle of the Secret Service agent at the same time. One of the things I thought was most interesting about that part of her testimony was how she said it happened Matrix style. And he paused in midair as he was going through the partition. And he was able to do both of them like Neo. I thought it was pretty interesting. That part of it was unexpected.

But again, it was secondhand information. So we don't know for sure. We don't know for sure. Right. So, but she had more. She had more. She did. Yeah.

She had a lot. I mean, she was up there for a while. And if this doesn't finally get you to understand what this president was doing that day, I don't know what will. Here's what she had to say. The physical altercation that means. Ms. Hutchinson described in the presidential vehicle, was not the first time that the president

had become very angry about issues relating to the election. On December 1, 2020, Attorney General Barr said in an interview that the Department of Justice had not found evidence of widespread election fraud sufficient to change the outcome of the election. Ms. Hutchinson, how did the president react to hearing that news? around the time that I understand the AP article went live I remember hearing noise coming from down the hallway so I poked my head out of the office

and I saw the valet walking towards our office he had said get the chief down to the dining room the president wants him so mark went down to the dining room came back to the office a few minutes later after Mark had returned I left the office and went down to the dining room dining room and I noticed that the door was propped open and the valley was inside the dining room changing the table cloth off of the dining room table. He motioned for me to come in and then pointed towards the front of the room near the fireplace mantle and the TV

where I first noticed there was ketchup dripping down the wall and there's a shattered porcelain plate on the floor. The valet had articulated that the president was extremely angry at the Attorney General's AP interview. Oh, no. And had thrown his lunch against the wall. What? Which was causing them to have to clean up. So I grabbed a towel and started wiping the catch-up off of the wall to help the valet out.

And he said something to the effect of he's really ticked off about this. Don't say that. I would stay clear of him for right now. He's really, really ticked off about this. right now. Yeah. Wow. Wow.

Wow. He was in a complete rage to the point where he threw his lunch against the wall and ketchup was dripping down it as a result. Do we know it wasn't blood, Pat? Do we know he hadn't murdered someone and then throwing them against the wall? Frankly, I don't know that we do. We don't know. Was it brain matter and blood?

We don't know. We don't know. All we know is there was red stuff falling down a wall. Like, okay. Could you believe that he, I can totally believe that? Totally believe it, right? Like, he threw something against a wall? Look, he's.

So what? What is the, yes, I don't even know what to say about, what is the accusation here? I know. He got pissed off once in a bad moment for him. Yeah, so what? Like, it was probably one of the most significant moments in his fight to, to win the election. Mm-hmm. Because Barr had been a very, very loyal def-not, I don't say,

loyal defender because I think that undercuts Barr. I think that like he wasn't like a mindless defender. He was a credible defender though of Trump throughout the impeachment and many other times when things could have gone awry for the administration. Barr was one of the strongest voices for Trump for several years because he actually had some credibility. He didn't come at this. He didn't sound like, you know, some partisan supporter of Trump. He was very well reasoned and calm. And that's why, you know, for most of the Trump administration, Trump fans love the guy. I mean, he was really, he did a good job defending Trump. He disagreed with him on what happened, obviously, after the election.

And when he came out and said it publicly, it put that effort to try to win the election in real peril. I mean, it was probably, it was one of the toughest moments, I think, in that effort for the president. So the fact that he was pissed off about that does not surprise me at all. Right. And the fact that it may have pissed him off enough to throw a hamburger against the wall isn't exactly shocking to me. Not me either. No. I don't.

What is the accusation here that he's like so out of control with anger that he couldn't be trusted in those moments? I mean, I think if you go back, certainly you'd find that type of behavior from Nixon. Oh. You'd find that type of behavior from LBJ completely. Clinton, probably Bill Clinton. Probably Clinton. I mean, I think there is a these are

big moments. These are historic moments. You know, at that point, he's seeing someone who's generally speaking, been on his side, say something he didn't like that put one of his biggest efforts in peril. Take it out of the idea of whether you think his efforts

to win that election were right or wrong. He wanted to win it. He believed he was correct in what in what he was saying, and he did not want someone undercutting him. Now, look, I think it's Barr's responsibility for him to say what he believed was true. And so you can be critical of Barr on that or not. If you believe that Barr was wrong, you probably don't like it. But the bottom line was, both of these guys should probably be saying what they believe is true.

And, you know, did it piss off Trump in that moment? I'm sure it did. I'm sure it did. It would not surprise me at all. Yeah. But what is the point of that? That's nothing to do with January 6th? I honestly don't know.

Yeah. It's just an anecdote that makes him look bad. It makes him look angry. It makes him look out of control. Like nobody's had an angry moment? Yeah. We've all had angry moments. I don't know if I've ever thrown a hamburger at the wall.

No, you don't want to lose a hamburger. I tossed a spatula once across a room. Pat. Yeah. This is not secondhand information. You're telling me this actually happened? From the source. Yes, I'm the one who did it.

And I'm the one relating the story. That is, wow. I can't think you said that on national radio. I was probably in my early 20s, and I threw a spatula from the dining room to the kitchen. I don't feel safe being in this room with you right now. The overwhelming anger, you can blow your top at any time. I have mellowed a little bit with age, and I haven't thrown spatulas since. But, yeah, there was a time when I threw a spatula.

I think we've all had moments where we lose it, right? Oh, yeah. And would you be at all surprised if the president lost it in that moment? No. I'd be surprised if he didn't, frankly. Yeah. I would. Because that is something that meant a lot to him.

Say which you will about whether or not you think the election was fraudulent. He believed it was. He thought he won. And frankly, I can't believe this buffoon beat him. I can't believe it. And it's still really hard to believe he got 81 million votes. That's really hard to believe. And look, a big part of the January 6th hearings have been trying to convince you that someone close to Donald Trump told him that he didn't win.

Well, yeah, they did. You know, Bill Barr wrote a whole book about it. Right. Like, this is not a surprise. It's not been a secret from him. A lot of people around him did not believe in what he was doing, which is, you know, look, you can, I think you can be. critical if you don't believe that the election was stolen and say, hey, he should have believed these credible people instead of people like Sidney Powell, right? Like, I think totally, that's a

totally legitimate piece of criticism. And part of what Trump tends to do, as we've seen this over the years, is to find the people who agree with him and go to them more often, right? Like, he find, like, and that's not, you could say that's not a good trait, but you could not say it is a like that he knew, look, he knew he lost and he was going to overthrow the government. Like that is not what, that's not what we know about Donald Trump. That's not who we've seen in multiple decades of public life. You know, did he go, did he lean toward people like Rudy Giuliani who were supporting his theories?

I'm sure he did. Yeah. I'm sure he did. When people told him, no, sir, you lost. He didn't like them as much. That is, that's kind of how Donald Trump acts. I mean, we've heard that from Bill O'Reilly, who's tight with, with, you know, with Donald Trump and who was, I mean, just went on tour with the guy.

You know, I mean, they, right. You know, when I asked him, I said, like, well, what, you know, talking to Bill O'Reilly, I said, Bill, what, what was happening in this moment, you know, why, why didn't he react as quickly as a lot of, a lot of people thought he should on January 6th? When the riots going on, why isn't he tweeting stuff like, get the hell out of that building, right? I think we all know enough about Donald Trump to know that he loves the country. and does not want the capital ransacked.

And now, I know people on the left would disagree with that, but I think most people would understand that, like, while you might not disagree with everything that Trump says, you know, the guy loves the country and there's no, he would not, this was not his plan, he was not trying to ransack the capital. But even if you think it was, I asked Bill, I said, well, why didn't he respond quickly? Why didn't he come out with that tweet that I think every,

that people like Sean Hannity and Mark Meadows, and Donald Trump Jr. and Ivanka Trump were texting and saying, please make him make this statement. Why did he take so long? And Bill said he didn't know what to do. These were his people. He knew it was wrong, but he didn't want to sit up, come out here and go after his people. Right.

And look, that makes a lot of sense. It makes sense. You can still be critical of that. You can say, well, he should have known what to do. Yes. But the bottom line was it's very consistent with who we see Trump as. He's loyal to the people who are close to him, who have supported him. And when they stop supporting him, he's not so loyal to them.

Like, like, that's just kind of who Donald Trump is. And it's something that we all know about him. He really believed he, this, you know, he won this election. And he was going to do whatever he could to try to, to write that wrong. And look, after December 14th, there is nothing in the Constitution that allows for this. Safe Harbor Day is a thing. and once you pass it there's really nothing to do

legally. But, you know, he even if it was looking toward the future, he wanted to make sure that he got that truth out there that he won in his eyes. So it's not surprising at all that if Bill Barr said you didn't win, he just didn't believe him.

And he threw a hamburger. And he threw a freaking hamburger. That's not, this is not, this is not, I don't think it's national news that the president got angry and threw a hamburger. It is not. AAA 727 B-E-C-K The RANDback program So obviously now we now know

that Pat, I hate to scare the audience here But I believe the January 6th hearings Will result in the President Donald Trump Needing to leave office Oh no. Yeah. I don't think he's going to remain in office right now Wow.

And I think he's going to have to... That's quite his statement. I think for the next two years, he's not going to be in the White House at all. Completely barred from the White House? I think he's not going to be, well, it's not going to be present. He may visit. He may take a tour. Okay.

You know, but he won't be, he won't be the guy in charge. I think for a good two years plus. And I hate, look, I think these hearings have been that impactful. I wish he was in charge. No kidding. But right now. Yeah. But I think they're that impactful.

I think they may result in the exact situation we're currently in. And that is not a good one. What they're trying to do is preclude him from holding office again. I think you're right. That seems to be the point to me that, okay, this is a really bad guy. This is a guy who throws hamburgers against the wall and ketchup drips down the wall. I mean, just as a person who might love hamburgers, you may have a problem with that, right? Like, don't waste.

Hey, don't disrespect. Don't you dare. No. I do think that's what they're trying to do. Look, they see this. There's two things I think they're trying to do here. One is to make sure Trump does not come back, does not become the candidate. There's rumors he may announce he's going to run for president, like within the next few weeks.

Yeah, soon. I don't believe that. I don't know. I guess the fundraising. I think you waits until next year. Yeah, the fundraising thing, maybe you could see that as the advantage. But it would seem almost like a sign that he's scared of DeSantis, I think, if he did this now. I mean, DeSantis still has a gubernatorial election coming up.

up. He obviously isn't going to announce now. And it would almost seem like he's trying to get out ahead of DeSantis. And I don't think Trump feels the need to do that. I think he's going to announce when he feels like announcing. And maybe it'll be soon. I don't know. I could be wrong on that. That's totally a guess. But you know, you look at this situation and he's, they're trying to get him, so he is injured, right, politically, and cannot run for office, maybe even something like more than that. But I think also it's their attempt to distract from all the bad things that are happening under Biden right now. They're going to lose this midterm election in a landslide, and they're looking for anything else to dig their claws into. We talked about it yesterday with the abortion ruling, and this is the same thing.

They're looking for something to distract people from the fact that their life kind of sucks right now. You know, and that's, I don't think it's going to work, but you know they have to try something here. Yep. and they're pulling out all the stops. I mean, Cassidy Hutchinson, with her testimony yesterday, powerful. Powerful stuff. This is the Glenn Back program. If you own a home or a property, you have a couple of reasons.

You never want to become the victim of home title fraud. Like, for example, you know, if a cyber criminal gets a hold of your home's title, he'll take out loan after loan using your home's equity, and then he'll vanish. He's not going to hang around and talk it out with you. he's going to leave you to prove that you didn't commit fraud. Good luck with that. Also, you might not even know that this has happened to you for months. No agency notifies you or asks if you sold your home or added someone to the title. You'll find out when the collections calls start for loans. You don't want this to happen. So make sure you take a couple of steps.

Go with America's trusted leader, Home Title Lock. They'll help you out with this. Go to HomeTititleck.com. Read the testimonials. Check out all of the information there and register your address. See if you're already a victim and don't even know it yet. And when you register to protect your home, there'll be a place for you. Tell them that Stu sent you. That way you get 30 risk-free days of protection. So do that.

Hometitlelock.com. It's home titlelock.com. Amazon employees wrote a little letter to the leadership of Amazon. Demanding certain things. We'll share some of that with you coming up in 60 seconds. If you own a home or a property, here's a couple of reasons that you need to make sure you have the best real estate agent possible. You need someone that you can trust.

You need someone on your side. This is the biggest financial transaction you probably will ever go into. And this is true for almost everybody because each time you buy a house, you know, if things are going well in your life, it's probably a little bigger, maybe more expensive than the one before. And it's always you're just doubling down, doubling down and doubling down on a market that you probably don't fully understand. I don't think people spend their whole time trying to,

figure out the real estate market in their area. That's why you need a real estate agent you can trust. Realestateagents.com is a place to go to find that person. They do spend all their time trying to figure out this market and understand it. And it's important to know not only that you get all the paperwork right and all that, but you have someone on your side that can say, hey, you know, you're thinking about spending a couple thousand dollars fixing X, Y, or Z. You don't need to do that.

That's not going to help you. You're not going to get that money back. Someone who would talk honestly to you about it when you're selling your house. Or if you're going to a new area, moving from, let's say, New York or California to a red state. You need someone in that area. You might not know anyone yet. So how about real estate agents.com? The name kind of says it all. Real estate agents I trust.com. It's real estate agents I trust.com. It's Pat and Stufer Glenn on the Glenn Beck program. Here's another example of the inmates running the asylum. The Amazon employees got together and wrote the leadership of Amazon

an open letter. Group of pro-abortion Amazon employees filed this public letter to the company where they demanded that the online retailer cease any and all business in pro-life states. We the undersigned, they wrote,

come to you today to request immediate and decisive action against the threat to our basic human rights with the overturning of Roe v. Wade. As part of Amazon's wide-reaching efforts toward a more inclusive and diverse workforce. Really?

Are they really trying to get a more inclusive and diverse workforce? We believe that Amazon cannot let this recent decision go unanswered. We ask Amazon, the world's best employer, to actively defend against this assault on our liberty. Since when is this a corporation's job in this country to defend their employees' liberty? I mean, Amazon's in business to make money. Let's face it.

That's what they want to do. Bezos started the company so that he could make a living for himself and his family. It worked out pretty well. It turns out that he made a really nice living for himself and his family. And it's not his responsibility to follow up on the ideology of his employees. But they want him to cease. operations in states that enact laws that threaten the lives and liberty of abortion seekers. So stupid.

I would abort every one of their careers. I would do. Everyone who signed it. I'd abort that career. Either by denying health care in life-threatening circumstances or by criminalizing abortion seekers and providers. Nobody, nobody is criminalizing abortion seekers. Now, some have threatened the abortion providers. like the doctors or the clinics that are involved.

But nobody is saying that the woman is going to prosecute it in any way. I don't think that's in any of these laws. Nor is their life in danger because in, I believe, every single case in these states that are banning abortion, there's the exception for the mother's life being in danger. Every single one. Every one of them. Now, their argument is this weird Roe versus Wade argument that's been a around for a long time now, which is, well, they could die in childbirth. That's really their

argument here. Like, if you make them carry it to term, they could theoretically die during childbirth. I mean, come on. Really? Yeah, that is this 1842 now? Yeah, exactly. Is that where we are? We're a little house on the prairie. And, uh, the dock is about 80 miles away. We got to get him by carriage. Right. It's just so, come on. It's fully stupid. Obviously, you could die during child birth, you could die driving to the hospital before childbirth too. You could die for a lot of reasons. You can't predict it. Obviously, the chances of you dying during childbirth are very, very small. But you could also die during an abortion. You know, there's risk everywhere all the time. That is, it's not a, it's not a sensible point. They've been trying to make that, you know,

they tried to make that back 50 years ago because it was more common. And so they would compare it against abortion, which, you know, also has its risks, but especially with like the medical ones they have now, their claims are, well, it's much safer than going through with a full childbirth. Now, look, in 2022, we're talking about two very unlikely outcomes. It's unlikely that you would die during an abortion. It is unlikely that you would die during childbirth. That's not very common. And it might be about equally risky on both of those. You might have about an equal chance with each. I don't know. They claim, you know, their claim is, oh, no, it's much more dangerous. you know, and like it's not, you know, this is a relative versus absolute risk thing they're doing here,

which is like both abs, when you talk about absolute risk, chances are incredibly low that either one of these two things would happen. However, their claim is, oh, well, if you compare, if you do a relative risk calculation, you could say, well, it's much more likely. It's very unlikely either way. It's a silly, silly defense. It's ridiculous. It's ridiculous. Come on. It's just, it's completely ridiculous.

I mean, we've taught, I don't know, badger people with all the numbers and go through the whole argument again. But it's just a silly argument. I mean, anything can happen in life. Of course, you're going to die at some point. There's a hundred percent chance of death in your future. You know, I hate to, I hate to break it to you. There's a hundred percent chance they're going to die someday. Yeah.

And, you know, you're not going to be able to manage exactly when that's going to happen. The chances of you dying during childbirth. are extraordinarily low, all, you know, in any developed country at this point. But they've been doing this from the beginning. Even before Roe v. Wade, this is how they got Roe v. Wade passed in part, is lying about the risk for women

who don't have access to abortions. Because they just made up a number of 10,000 back alley abortion deaths every year. Well, what? Where did you get that? If you go back and look at, look at where they got that, which 10,000 back alley abortion deaths every year. There was a doctor who was a pro-abortion guy who just made it up. He just completely picked a number and threw it out there.

The press ran with it. And that's one of the things that turned the tide. So often the case with the left and their arguments. It's the same thing with the straw situation. The straw one is the one that's the nine-year-old kid. kid and a homework project trying to figure out how many straws were wasted every day and

somebody threw out a number that was completely inaccurate and made up of 500 million a day. And it was a kid. Legitimately a kid who put this in a school project and that is why these dumb restaurants have paper straws. It's legitimately the story.

Yeah. I think it was a 9 year old. It was a 9 year old. Who had a school project that got into the media and then got picked up by a bunch of people. And then everyone said, oh my gosh, the problem here are plastic straws.

We need to get rid of those plastic straws and have paper straws that immediately fold when you start putting liquid through them because they're paper. Paper and liquid are not always the best match. And then they fold

and you have to ask for three more so it doesn't save the environment at all. And we are down that road. Another one? The garbage island in the middle of the ocean. Yeah, the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. Yeah, which is not exist.

and a half times the size of Texas. Yeah. Been reported a million times does not exist. Can't for some reason be photographed by a satellite imagery. For some reason, we don't have a picture of it. Why don't we have a picture of it? Because as Stuja said, it doesn't exist. It's not really there.

These things are so widespread that, like, I remember when I learned that the island didn't exist, because I went through the exact same process you went through, Pat, I said, well, wait a minute, why isn't there a picture of this? What does it look like? Where is it? What's the location of it? And you look for it and oh yeah, there isn't one. They're just saying there's a bunch of garbage in the ocean.

And if you combine it all into one place, in theory, there would be an island that's this big. But that's not what happens. And by the way, we're not the ones responsible for it. Almost all the trash is coming from China. Yeah. Yeah. And it was my search for the picture of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch where I found the Salon article. Salon, which is a

left wing, big time left wing publication, where the guys admitted, hey, you know what, we should really tell people there really isn't a great Pacific garbage patch. We've been lying about that for years and it's just not there. For years.

Wow. These things happen. I was blown away. I really thought there probably was a garbage patch. Yeah, I just assumed there was and was like, well, I mean, I don't know. That seems, it seems bizarre, but I guess maybe the current

polls it pushes it in the, I don't know, who knows? I don't know what I thought was actually happening. I never put much thought into it. It was so much reported as such fact. Another one is this idea that global warming, if we don't do anything in 10 years, the society is going to end. Yeah. And this has been everywhere. Every politician on the left has said it. AOC, it's like her favorite thing to say. Biden has said it multiple times. And my argument on that when I first heard it was, look, I've looked in enough climate data over the years. This seems like some outlying, scary scenario that some doctor or some scientist said, but is not the realistic possibility. Is it, you know, is it, you know, and it's not, doesn't mean the world's going to

end. It means that we hit a point where it's going to be difficult to, to return because of this idea of positive feedback. It's a standard thing in global warming theory where each thing that goes wrong feeds back and makes the other things go more wrong. And then that in turn makes the next thing go wrong. It's a feedback loop. And there's no reason to believe in all the stuff that I've ever read and what I certainly believe, and many scientists as well, that the climate is a positive feedback system. It seems very clear over thousands of years. It's a negative feedback system.

It seems to be able to correct its ice ages with going the other way. The reason why humanity has been able to live here for a long time because of that. So that's a whole other story. But that's what I thought. And that was just me analyzing it and just kind of like looking at the way these things normally play out. However, that was not accurate. My opinion was not accurate. And the reason I know this is from Michael Schellenberger, who wrote in his book about this and decided to actually go to the scientist who supposedly was being quoted and asked them, hey, guys, did you guys say this?

Was that the UN's climate division or whatever? What do they call that? IPCC? IPCC. And he went there. And he talked to the scientist. Talked to the very scientist. And what the scientist said was,

oh, thank you. We were so sick of this being reported. No, we didn't say that. That's really what it was. That's how it turned out. Yeah. It's one of the most widely shared pieces of climate hysteria. And the guy who was quoted didn't even say it.

that is how crazy this stuff is. It becomes part of the ecosystem in such a weird way. And from the straws to all of this stuff. To deaths of back alley abortions. Yeah. Back alley abortions is a great one. Look, there probably were. And we know there were, by the way,

because some of the abortion activists were the ones doing it. They were doing the procedures that were killing women. That was not pro-life people being like, I can't wait to do a fake abortion. I can kill people. The year before Roe v. Wade, where they were still doing back alley abortions because they were illegal. There were 24 deaths. 24.

Due to illegal abortions. There were, no, there were 24 deaths due to legal abortions. There were 39 deaths due to back alley. Okay. So 39 in a year, the year before Roe v. Wade was passed. Because at that time, about two thirds of states had banned it. Yeah. but there was still a third that had allowed it.

Right. Because it was in the situation like it is now, which when they keep saying, we're going to go back to pre-row times, that's not true. It's going to be, there's going to be more access to abortion now than there was pre-row because more states will have it open. But, yeah, so you have several dozen. And look, we want to obviously stop all of them. There was, you know, maybe it is, you know, I would think a back alley abortion would be

very dangerous, but honestly at this point. Far from 10,000, though. Very far from 10,000. Yeah. And this is, again, there was a group, we talked about Jane's revenge that was threatening to burn down cities and stuff when this verdict came out. That is based on another organization. The Jane part of that comes from an organization that popped up after Roe versus Wade. And they were providing illegal abortions for women.

Yeah, it was leading up to that, I think. And the idea was they would give these abortions. abortions out and those are the people, not just that particular organization, but those types of organizations were the ones doing the illegal abortions. These groups that are praised by the left are the ones doing the illegal abortions that led to the deaths, at least in some of these cases. And that one, I don't know if there's any one with that specific organization, but a lot of those organizations existed in places where these things were banned. But beyond all of that, right? They're like, oh my gosh, we're going to go back to this era of back alley abortions.

Why? Wait, what? What? What? What? What year is it? Right? We have a situation where any woman in any state can get an abortion if their life is in danger. Any person in any state is within a two-hour flight of being in a place where they can get an abortion at any time. Okay. And your employer will almost certainly pay for it. And your employer will probably pay for it.

If not, an abortion activist organization will pay for it. There's a bunch of them that have already popped up. And HHS is talking about paying for. HHS is talking about it. AOC wants to put these on federal land. I think that's idiotic and won't pass up. In national parks, that'd be great. We do know that private organizations are doing Winnebago's,

and they're pushing them right up to the borders, so you can come right across the border and get your abortion. And all of this is almost a pointless conversation for most women because you can order it online from an Indian farmer. which will have your abortions pills to you within days. And you can take it in Texas, in Louisiana, in Mississippi, wherever you want to. All of this I consider to be bad. But why would you go to a back-alley abortionist when this is the situation where you can get it legally?

Good question. And get it free anywhere or just get it in the mail. Why would we go back to an era of back-alley abortions anyway, even if it was only, 39 deaths. It doesn't make any sense at all. And anyone who thinks about it, I think gets to that conclusion. But your job as an American right now

is not to think. Because if you think, then all these things are obvious. If you can do what they want you to do, which is just nod your head and go along with it and post your tweets and memes and TikToks, then you're playing the game the way they want you to play it. Pat and Stu for Glenn on the Glenn Beck

program. Pat and Stu for Glenn on the Glenn Beck program. By the way, Amazon employee letter to the leadership continued. Yeah, I forgot that's where we started that conversation. Yeah, that is where we started. Okay, we'll get back to that. It's not where we ended, but it's where we started. A little ADD going on.

Yes. Yeah, but I mean, it's insanity because they also need, okay, in addition to Amazon doing all these things and not even doing business in states that don't provide abortion. Like they're going to divorce Texas and Utah and Louisiana. and all of these places and just not do business in 26 states. Okay. Good luck. They also need space and time to grieve the Supreme Court decision. Yeah, they got to grieve.

This I like. You know, I got to say, I don't support them in their decision-making process here, but I do like the fact that they're using it for time off. It's the type of scam I would have pulled in high school. You know? Yeah. You didn't think you'd be able to pull it in the business world, but you can. But I like it.

It turns out you can. Yeah. Yeah. They also want a company-wide policy change going forward to ensure Amazon does not aid or abet anti-abortion causes, ideologies, groups, or public figures, including via donation, public sale, public statement, or otherwise. So anybody who works at Amazon can't even donate to a political entity who supports pro-life causes. Come on. Is that amazing? I mean...

It is absolutely amazing. do you people think you are? We pointed this out yesterday. It's other than the wokeness of so many of these organizations, and Amazon is certainly one of them. There is also a financial motivation here. Why, think about the things you have to do

if a woman is pregnant. Look, I support a woman who's working, you know, and being taken care of them as an employer. I think that's a great idea. But it's not the easiest thing for a company to deal with. You have an employee who you value, who's leaving for several months, you have to pay their maternity, then you have to hire a temporary worker potentially on the other side of that.

Add all that stuff in a couple thousand dollars to pay them to go out of state. Totally worth it for them to get $4,000 to somebody seeking an abortion. They are saving money and I guarantee that is part of the calculation here. It's not just wokeness purely. That is they are like, well, this is going to be cheaper for us. And so they're seen as virtuous and they save cash. Maybe 90, maybe 95. It's Pat and Stu for Glenn on the Glenn Beck program.

Check out my show. Pat Gray Unleashed. I will. Immediately preceding this one live. I can't do it now. It's already passed for it. Well, that's true. But you could listen later on at your leisure.

Wait, on demand? Yeah, on demand. Whenever I wanted it will be there. Whenever it's convenient for you, you can listen then via podcast. That's incredible. Anywhere you get your podcast. Plus, I understand that you also have a show to listen to and watch, view. you should check it out. It's called Stu Does America. Huh. And every day we do this country.

Okay. And it's fun. All right. We've had a lot of, it's been a fun show. And I know yours is as well. I think there's a lot on the conservative side that can get boring and frankly just, you know, bore you to tears every day. And so we try not to do that. Yeah, we do too. We try to make the apocalypse fun. Yeah. That's our goal is to make the apocalypse that is happening right now. Now, make it fun. Make it fun. Yeah. By the way, on this note, we've been talking a lot about January 6th today. And that's the day the left wants you to remember. I would argue. Well, it's the day democracy almost died.

Yeah, I've heard that. Yeah. That's really bad. And they really want you to be talking about January 6th. I'm going to go ahead and argue you should be talking about a different date. We've got the new T-shirt up right now at Studeosmerch.com. 624.22. The day Roe versus Wade was overturned.

Turned. I like that. Go get it. It's a great shirt. And it's one of those shirts, too. It's like, it's a way to show your pro-life and you don't have to have like a fetus on your shirt, you know? You know, like, you don't want to necessarily have like. I don't want to wear a fetus.

As much as pro-life as I am. Yeah. I'm not wearing a fetus on my shirt. Yeah. I don't want like some graphic image of a fetus on my, on my stomach as I'm walking around. I already look bad enough. So this one will help you look good and kind of give you. If that makes me a bad person, then so be it.

Yeah. You know. Yeah. All right. Sorry about that. I'm terrible. So get it now. Stu doesmerch.com.

It's the 62422 shirt. They also have the mugs and the stickers and hats and all that stuff. And they're all Sons fetus? No fetuses. No fetuses. I mean, maybe we should do a separate shirt that's just fetuses. Like it's just constant fetuses on every part of the shirt. I don't know.

Maybe that would sell even better. But I hope you do it. I like it because, you know, look, I want to make clear what I believe. But I also, I like the fact that people who know who are on our side are going to know that date. And I want them to know that date. The left is going to be saying, January 6th, I want to be talking about that date. That's the most important date we've seen in the last couple of years, I think. Oh, yeah, one of the most important dates in our lifetime, I'd say.

There's already the first number I heard was they think, even with all of the craziness going on with states opening up abortion access. And, you know, they still think it could prevent 100,000 abortions a year. It's a great start. It's a great start. There's 600,000 now. And if it's only 100,000, what an incredible day. I mean, what an incredible. If it's only 100,000, what an improvement. It's still way too many people are going to be aborted. But you know what? Making even that amount of progress shows that we still have a long road to go, but also indicates how important this day was. And when? Really, when is enough enough? The number in the United States alone is over 63, somewhere between, 63 and 65 million babies that we've lost since 1973. Isn't that enough? I would say it is.

It's one and a half billion worldwide. That number kills me. One and a half billion. 63 million here is really, really bad. And it always hits you in a rough way. But man, when you think about globally over a billion, a billion. And it's between 50 and 75 million every year. That's a 50 and 75 million a year.

Soul crushing. And many of the areas. of the globe are going the opposite direction. We're becoming more liberalized of these rules. So, hopefully that that switches, and at least it's kind of switched here in part of the country anyway.

So check that up. By the way, speaking of the Supreme Court, there were two, this is a surprise to me, I will say. I thought there was three or four decisions left. There were four. Yeah. And I expected we would get four

because this is the last day they had announced. And also, they had been doing about five per day for most of this as they were releasing these. Well, today they came out, they gave the two boring ones. No offense to you if you're involved in these cases. But we got the two boring ones and didn't get the two big ones. The two big ones we did not get is the EPA ruling,

which I think is the biggest one as far as it affects your everyday life and how your government operates. It's a huge, huge case. And then the other one is the remain in Mexico part of the Trump. The immigration situation. The Trump directive. Yeah. So neither of those came out today.

They did announce that. they're going to come out tomorrow. So that's your last decision day of the session. Tomorrow, you will get those decisions alive on this program, at least during this time slot. And the two that came out were it was a Native American issue about who can prosecute in a Native American area and a Veterans Affairs issue. Both of them, you know, important in their own way, but not necessarily top of the mind. So we're not going to spend too much time on that today. How did it turn out, though, on the Native American thing? I mean, who won?

It was a five, five, four decision. I'd have to go back and look at it in more depth. I kind of, I usually when we go through this, we start with a zillion cases. And at the beginning of the session, I have to go through all of them and kind of understand basic knowledge about all of them. And they keep getting knocked off as you go through this release period. And as they get towards the end, the ones that I never really locked in on and cared about all that much, I can't remember all the details on it. The Native American one is kind of interesting because it involves sovereignty and whether or not they're subject to the United States or are they subject just to the Indian reservation. Yeah, the concept being someone who is not a Native American going on to Native American lands committing a crime against a Native American.

Can the state government jump in and say they're the ones that are prosecuted? I believe what the ruling was was no. like they you have the only the federal government can uh step in and prosecute so okay so the state can't the state can't i think that's what but again like i don't know now look do i have it on my calendar to commit a crime against a native american in it on a native american reservation i do of course you i do yeah but that's not for six months so i have not really put much thought into how that will turn out okay so i was that just because you won't be driving through a uh a native american reservation for another six months well there's a lot of planning that goes into a major crime like the one

planning. I can't give you all the details on that crime plot right now. It's understandable. He's number one, I haven't worked them all out. And number two, I don't want to necessarily tip my hand here. Right. Okay. But, you know, if you are out of Native American reservation right now, I'd watch it. That's what I'll say. That's what I'll say to you. If you see me coming. Do you tell us which reservation? I cannot, Pat. Okay. All right. I mean, I know. Can you give us a state like New Mexico or Texas? I don't think there's any reason. I don't think of how that benefits me. All right. I'm just saying if you see me, Like if you're a fan of the show, you're Native American,

and you see me coming, I'd run. Now you know, your friends might not know. Wow. All right. They don't listen to this show. They're not going to know that I'm there to commit a crime. Yeah. You know, but I do need to look into the details of this ruling before I really go through with a plan because I may wind up burning me. I don't want that to happen, of course.

Yeah, you should at least know where they came down on it. And here's the thing. Most crimes that happen on Native American reservations happen to the Cherokee Nation. Well, the Cherokee tribe, where they're... So proud to live and so proud to die. You know, the thing was, they took the whole Indian nation, and they put them on this reservation. They took away their way of life.

I mean, the tomahawk, the bow and knife, took away their native tongue, and they taught their stinking English to our young. And the beans. To your young? Yeah, to my young. Why would they teach you to your? Well, you taught English to you're young.

I'll tell you that. Okay. No. I taught them Cherokee. Oh, you did? Yeah, yeah, yeah. But now they know English. Because, well, that's what I've been explaining to you.

Yeah, that's true. You did mention it. And then the beads we used to make by hand. Yeah. Well, nowadays they're made in Japan or Taiwan or China, even more nowadays. Yeah, even more now. Bangladesh. But Japan rhymes.

Yeah. You know, so you're not going to say Bangladesh. Well, the beads we made by. hand are nowadays made in China. That doesn't really work. No, it doesn't. It doesn't really work at all. But luckily, we've solved that.

Yeah. The Cherokee Nation and the Cherokee tribe should be all set after this. Unless I, until I show up with my big crime plot. But now you've warned them, so now they're on their guard. Look, it's on them now. Yeah, right. You know, at one point, if it was a surprise that I just pull in and I was like, hey, here's my big crime plot. and I'm going to unleash it on you.

That might be unfair to the Native Americans. However, now I've announced it. So they know if you see Stu waddling down the street. Yeah. Or coming in in your brand new car, which is on order now, right? Aren't you getting a car? Yes, this is a big development. Okay.

And this will help them watch for you, by the way. Yes. Because Stu's getting a new car. Yes. I don't know if you're going to share what kind of car it is, but he's getting a new one. I feel like the same way I don't want to share the details of the crime plot. I don't necessarily, because then they know I was pulling up. That's right.

But so I ordered a car in Joe Biden's economy. And this has been an interesting experience. And bam, you got it right away? No. No. Well, there's no cars, you know, on the lot. That's how I used to understand how you purchase cars. Like you'd go to a dealership and they would say, here are the cars we have.

Would you like to choose one of them? Or you could special order one and it'll be here in six or eight weeks. That's kind of the way you're. it would typically go. That's not how it goes now. No, it really isn't. So I put, I kind of agonized over what I was going to do. They didn't have any cars on the lot that I wanted or the type that I wanted.

So I did have to put in a special order. And the special order normally would take six to eight weeks. That's, you know, that was the timeline. When I put in the order, they said, look, supply chain stuff, we've got a lot of issues going on. And I understood that, you know, I did. understand that. It's now been 10 months. It's the better part of a year now. Yeah.

I put it in it. And it was supposed to be six to eight weeks. August 20th, I put this order in. Because I had the email where I was, I confirmed it. I had gone back and forth with them a few times before this, but when I really locked down the order, it was August 20th, 2021. It is now June 29th, 2022. Jeez. And just a few weeks ago, Pat, I got a, or I guess it was like, but I mean, a little over a month ago now, where I got a Target Production Week, where they decided they were going to actually theoretically build this car. Wow. So the Target Production Week comes. Okay. They say the Target Production Week is going on. Just the other day, I get a text that says, quote, your car has been built.

And I was like, wow. Wow. Wow. That's incredible. It's been built. Can I come pick it up? We don't have a delivery date for it yet. But the car has been built. I've got a VIN number and everything. In theory, this car exists somewhere, I think in Lansing, Michigan or somewhere up there. I don't know. The third worldification of this country is unreal. It's unbelievable. My daughter, I think I mentioned this before, was here for a month visiting. And so we were going to get her car because her old one sort of blew up, fell apart.

It was no good. So we went to a dealership. And it was a Honda dealership, actually. And we said, so we'd like a Honda. Like maybe a civic? Yeah, we don't have any civics. Wait, Honda doesn't have any civics. No.

They've had them since like 1983. Exactly. Yeah. But not now. Not now. Well, what about an accord then? What about, no, we don't have any accords. CRVs?

Is that a thing here? No. No, we don't have any cars. Well, we do have SUVs. We have 20 SUVs. You can pick from among them. I don't want an SUV for my daughter. So,

we're out of luck. So we go to a Nissan dealer. Same deal. She goes back to Utah and we're on the phone with the dealerships there. And they have no cars. Nor can they get any in the next six months. Six months. Okay.

Do you have a used car? No, but we could get you one by September. And we're going to charge you more than a new car. Right. More than a new car. It's unbelievable. That's one of the options I've had over the past 10 months. Pat with the car that I ordered, which is get one that's used.

Well, those cars are $30,000 and $40,000 more than the actual cost of the car. It's crazy. Which, I mean, yeah, I guess you could pay for that premium, but I don't really want to. No, me neither. So, nor do I, I don't have any interest, actually, at all, I'm paying that much for a car. So it's like, especially when a car that I know the dealership supposedly is selling for much, much less. and it is it's really incredible

when you think about go back to the standard cliche of car dealerships now this is not always fair but sometimes you know we go back to the 80s and 90s there'd be those movies

you know where they be the car dealers would have their car salesman out there harassing you to get you into anything how do I let me get you into a car today let me go back to my manager I'm gonna get you a real

deal on this and they would be able to give misleading ads and all these stereotypes that you know aren't always true but have been around for decades it's the exact opposite it's been there are times where I'd reach out to the dealers and I started calling other dealers around the country to try to figure out how I could do this faster they would just uh they would just they barely even respond to you like nah we don't have anything like they don't even care because they don't well they can't get any cars and weren't they getting a little pissed that you kept calling him They got a little... There was a time where they were just annoyed with me personally.

Which is understandable, frankly. More Pat and Stu for Glenn coming up. It's Pat and Stu for Glenn on the Glenn Beck program. We got to tell you coming up here a few minutes. I don't think we have time right now, but coming up after the top of the hour. We got to tell you about a special skateboarding competition that occurred where a biological man who was 29 years old

beat out a 13-year-old girl for the first-place trophy and prize money. They used to make jokey movies about this scenario. Yeah, right? Yeah. Wasn't there a movie where I think it was Johnny Knoxville faked that he was mentally challenged to win the Special Olympics?

Yes. That's essentially what's actually happening in our society right now. People are fake... It is. Again, you know, I mean, I know people wouldn't like that summary, but that's bizarre that that's almost reality at this point. This is the Glenn Back Entertainment.

featuring Pat and Stu this week because Glenn's on vacation. I'm going to tell you about this trans situation in a skateboarding competition that just happened in New York. Plus, there's also an interesting situation with Google and the AI. Have you guys talked about this because I know Glenn's fascinated with AI? Apparently, the Google engineer who's talking about. talking about this and kind of losing his job because of it, because he thinks it's sentient. Yeah. He says it could also escape and do bad things.

The AI could escape and do bad things. Let's get to that as well. Coming up at about 60 seconds. So eventually we're going to be at a time where the Google AI escapes and hacks your identity. That's coming any day now. But we've already had over 400 data breaches. in a major way already this year, which is incredible. Data compromises up 14% from last year, impacting more than 20 million Americans.

Some of the most lucrative pieces of data that cyber thieves want to steal are, you know, your social security number, your Gmail login and password. A big part of that is because they can get access to your Gmail. It's not just reading your incredible emails back and forth with your mom, but it's also they can get access to your passwords to all the other sites because usually your password reset goes there. This is what they're going after. They can't hopefully get access to all that stuff. Because if they do, they can really upend your life. LifeLock can protect you here. They can catch everything.

No one can, but they can monitor things better than you can do on your own. And if you do become a victim, their restoration specialists can work with you to help you fix the problem quickly. No one can prevent all identity theft or monitor all transactions at all businesses, but you can help protect what is yours with LifeLock by Norton. Join now, save 25% off the first year with the promo code, Beck. 1-800 LifeLock or head to LifeLock.com. The promo code is back for 25% off at LifeLock.com. Pat and Stu for Glenn on the Glenn Beck program.

All right. The trans person, the trans people, there has to be, I think there needs to be a separate competition set up for the trans people. So you'd have male competition, female competition and a trans competition. Yes. Wow. Especially now since it's about, I don't know, 83% of our population, it seems. Most people are trans.

Yeah. Almost everybody's trans now. And virtually everyone fits into the LGBTQIA2 Plus category. As long as you include the plus, everyone does. It's true, isn't it? That's because that's everybody else. And it is interesting. I want to make sure we're very clear here.

There is absolutely no social contagion involved here. It is not a situation. Thank you. Where just all of a sudden it's become trendy to be trans. No, because it naturally happens where you go from 0.7% of the population to 20% of the population. That's just a natural occurrence. Just a natural occurrence. Yeah.

Like there was a teacher who was talking about their students and they said, oddly, a bunch of sixth graders decided they were going to be, well, they realized that the entire time. Thank you. the entire time from birth, they had been gay, all at the same time. And wasn't that 80% of the class? It was a huge portion of the class. I don't know if it was quite 80%. Maybe it was 90.

It would have been 90%. And then also, at the same time, they all realized they were trans. Holy cow. Wow. A little bit later. So does that change their sexual proclivity then? Because if you were a boy who likes boys,

but now you're transitioned into a female and you like boys, Well, then are you gay or not? Are you straight now? These are deep questions. Right. It's deep. And I can't figure it out. That none of it changed.

Oh, okay. When we say trans, it indicates transitioning, which indicates change, but that's not change. It's just how you were actually born. You were born that way, except for the part of the surgeries and such to correct the mistake that was made upon your birth. But beyond that, I left out the last part of that story, which is all of the, all of the the sixth graders, and they were girls, by the way, born as girls. Okay.

Not actually good because they turned to trans, so they were actually boys, but they were actually girls when they were born. And so they were born as girls. Then they all turned gay at the same time. All of them were gay? It was, they all turned gay at the same time. They were all friends, by the way. Did I leave this out? They were all friends. Yeah. And they got to sixth grade. They all turned gay at the same time. Then a few months later, they all turned trans at the same time. And a few months after that, they all turned non-binary at the same time. Oh, that's interesting. Which is just, It's a total

total coincidence. Just natural occurrence. Now we know from the beginning they were just non-binary. Apparently they weren't gay because they transitioned to trans and then they transitioned to non-binary. But whatever they were,

whatever they are saying they are right now is what they were at birth. That we know. Yes. It was just... That can't be debated or you're a bigot. Or you're a bigot. Thank you.

Try to debate that. Bigot. Bigot. Thank you, Pat, for outlining that. Welcome. This is an interesting thing because we were told by well-known philosopher, Lady Gaga, that people were born this way, right? Yeah. Yeah. So if you're gay, you were born gay. You've always been gay, despite the fact that you may have had a relationship with someone of the opposite sex. That doesn't matter. You were born gay. Yes. And we all said, oh, okay, I'm born gay. I mean,

I didn't believe it until Lady Gaga, Gagga, Gagga, Gagga, came to the table. laid it out for us in that way. And so now we know you're born that way, except now you're not born that way because... Well, if you have to transition, that implies that you're changing something. Right. Like if you have to have surgery and change your parts around, you guess you weren't really born that way now.

Right. So now we have to realize that you were born that way unless you were not born that way. That's all you have to understand. That's exactly where we are. It's incredible. It's incredible. And somebody who is not born that way, but became that way through a natural process.

A 29-year-old named Ritchie Trays, also known as Ritchie and Trays, just... Maybe the middle name is just and. Yes, I love it. What if they're like, what's the middle name? Well, it's got Ritchie and they're thinking, and then the hospital's like,

I guess the middle name is and. Right. Yeah. Anyway, 29-year-old Ritchie. who is a biological man, just won the women's division of the skateboard open the other day in New York City, taking home the $500 prize for the first place win. Congratulations.

And bravely, courageously, he beat out a 13-year-old girl to do it. I think that is when you talk about the courage and the wherewithal to do what he did, or I mean, she did. They did. Thank you. Do what they did. you can't help but just applaud be careful pat i'll clap for this time but i'm a little nervous about it i'm a little nervous about it giving me some leeway there so because this really used to be the

plot of 80s comedies right yes where the guy would become a girl like there was that big thing um there was some with the the the tom hanks thing uh those and buddies yeah bosom buddies buddies that was they wanted to get they wanted to live in a apartment building that was women only so they dressed up as women. Because they were attracted to the hot women in the building. That's right. Which is a fascinating. I don't know how that would work out.

It just seems like a bad problem. Then there was a movie, just one of the guys. Anyone remember that? Where it was a woman. And remember, back in the day, this is something that's going to be difficult to explain to the audience, but let me attempt it here, Pat. There were these things called women. Oh.

How did you know, though, that they were in fact? We now know that we didn't know. but there used to be a time where the pitch from Hollywood was we're treating women really badly. It's unfair to women. It was called feminism. And it was at this point where something called women existed.

Okay. Now we know that's not even a thing. But back in that time, we believed women were a thing. And so the plot of this movie was this woman, this teenage girl, was upset because she didn't get the fair

treatment that guys got. She would always be treated as a woman and dismissed. So she decided, what if I cut my hair short? Well, then no one will know. Then no one will know, right? Yeah. So it's like when Clark Kent

puts the glasses on. Exactly. Nobody knows. You can't recognize him as Superman. It's not Superman. Superman has a cape and no glasses. Right. So that's what she did.

She went to another school and put on sort of boy clothing, cut her hair short, and then went over to achieve all the things that the hate patriarchal society would not allow her to do as a woman. Okay. Then there was, as I mentioned, the Johnny Knoxville movie, which somehow was made.

It's hard to believe it was made. Wow. Where he decided to present himself as someone with mental issues, disabilities of some sort, or physical disabilities. I can't remember which one it was. I think it was mental disabilities. And I don't know that I actually saw the movie, but I believe the plot was he did not. Went into Win the Special Olympics.

Like, posed as a mentally challenged person to win the Special Olympics. There was also White Chicks, a movie in which it's called The Ringer. The Ringer. That was the Johnny Knoxville movie. Yeah. Okay, yeah. And it was 2005. So we're really talking.

Yeah, that one's pretty recent. 17 years ago. Now, Johnny Knoxville is a guy who pushes the envelope. So even at that time, I remember thinking of this. Wow, I'm surprised. I'm surprised this one's clear. But now you'd be put in prison. You'd be put in prison.

You don't even get a trial. North Korean death camp. Yes. You go right to the North Korean death camp. There was also white chicks where black people posed as white people. Oh boy. White women. In white face?

White face. Yeah. And there was also. But that's okay because it's against whitey. Yeah. If you steal Casper's culture, that's not a problem. Right. You just can't appropriate anybody else's.

However, there was the revoke. verse of that movie also made in the 80s where a white guy put on black face and was put in, now look, unreal. That doesn't mean that every cultural thing we had from the past is a good idea, to be clear. No. But it is interesting how it was so obvious to everyone that you could not just turn with a snap of your fingers from a guy to a girl that it was like something everybody laughed about it. It was on Saturday Night Live.

There were all sorts of sketches about it. Everyone understood that that was not possible. And now we're at the position where the thing you can't see in a person, their sexual preference or now called orientation. How dare you call it preference? I didn't. I just said that's what it used to be called. Okay.

People used to refer to it as sexual preference, which now is hate speech, by the way. Absolutely. That thing that you can't see, obviously, you see a baby, you look at them, you can't tell what their sexual preference is. They have no sexual preference when they're born. right there's no but the idea

that that's that you're born that way in other words you grow up and you are gay that's the way you were born

and we can tell that we know that it's wrong to say the opposite right on the other hand the thing that you can see

right you can see that they're a boy or a girl very clearly when when they are born and that

we're supposed to say the actual thing is the opposite of the way you were born so okay when you can see

evidence. You absolutely were not born that way. You were born a different way. Yes. When you can't see evidence, you were born that way. None of this makes sense, Pat. It's as if

this entire movement is specifically designed to upend every foundation of our society. And by the way it is. By the way it is. You know, we can sit here and talk about this story that you're mentioning here with the skateboarder.

And, like, I think the sports tie to this is interesting because it hits people in the face so obviously, right? The problem with the sports thing is, like, you're taking an adult man and having him beat up on a tiny 13-year-old girl skateboarder, and everyone's acting like it's fair and reasonable. And we all know it's not. And it's so not, and it's so obvious. And we feel for a little 13-year-old girl who's doing everything. she can to try to win and is beaten by an adult man. I mean, it's so freaking ridiculous that it hits everybody in the face.

But the sports outcomes are not the most important part of the story. The fact that she lost her trophy and lost $250 and prize money is really tragic, but not the real story. The real story is we've lost connection to reality. We have lost connection to reality in the United States of America and around the world. And not only that, but then we have to ignore the fact. or sweep under the rug the fact that we have lost all connection to reality. We can't even talk about the connection to reality.

Or you're a hater and a bigot. Well, I'm sorry, a 29-year-old biological man shouldn't be competing against 13-year-old girls. Come on. And if you say that again, you're torn apart for it. If you went on Twitter right now and tweeted about this, you'd have the Twitter mob all over you for the rest of all time. Now, you have solved this problem in an incredible way. By ignoring Twitter completely.

And by the way, we should all learn from Pat Gray. We should all learn from Pat Gray. There's a lot of people out there going, yeah, I do that all the time. And that's the smart thing to do, right? Like, only about 20% of people are even on Twitter. And a very small percentage of those people actually tweet about this stuff. right like it's just not it is totally blown out of proportion

the effect that these social media companies have on our discourse in this context totally blown out really honestly the best safest thing to do is completely ignore it but it is a real it's a real thing it's because it's not just Twitter and getting the Twitter mob after you it's losing your you know

real job it is losing your real friends in many cases it is long term consequences for telling the truth. That is not a healthy thing for a civilization. Yeah, it doesn't seem like it. Pat and Stufer Glenn on the Glenn Beck program. Triple-8-7-27-B-E-C-K, more in 60 seconds. What a life we are living with. What a world we're involved in. It is fascinating.

That's crazy. All companies pay for your abortion vacation. Uh-huh, yeah. You're not allowed to say when boys are boys and girls are girls. Right. You're not even allowed to know what a woman is is. No? Unless, I guess you're a, you're a biologist. I think biologists can safely describe a woman. No, they can't. I mean, that was funny in the Katanji Brown Jackson hearings where they said, hey, can you

describe what a woman was? And she said, no, I'm not a biologist. Yeah. And that was the only problem. We had the problem of like, what do you mean you can't tell us what a woman is? What are you nuts? And the problem the left had with her was saying that a biologist could tell. That was really a other problem with it.

That was the only criticism she got from the media. Oh my gosh. Wait a minute. What do you mean a biologist can tell? How dare you? They were upset that she suggests that a biologist could tell what a woman was. The only way you can tell is if somebody tells you what gender they are, right? I mean, you can't assume anything.

And you can't, you have no opinion on it, apparently. Like, you can't tell, you can't identify this person in any way. It's only whatever they say they are, which is weird. Like, what if we did that with names? you know what I mean like I'm Bill I'm Fred I'm Sally I'm Tom like no you're I need to know you're Pat or I can't address you

I need to know if you're a boy or a girl or I can't give you medical treatment right these are really important things and you need to have some concrete truth on this stuff it really is weird instead we just pretend that anybody can get pregnant anybody can have a period

anybody can have a uterus all of those kinds of weird things that just are you know scientifically false. Just reality-based falsehoods. Until the Roe versus Wade thing comes on. Then we all care about women's rights. And we're back to women being women again. It's so weird. It's almost as if none of this is true. It's almost as if all of this is a political movement. It is almost like that. It's almost, you know, exactly like they're just manipulating all of these people for their own political game. It's almost that way.

And into this world comes this Google engineer who's saying that Google has created a sentient AI child and is now claiming that AI child could escape and do bad things. I don't fully understand that concept. It's just in the computer, right? I know. So are you saying it could escape to the internet and go everywhere it wants to go and do weird to create nuclear war or something? I'll say this. I listened to the story and we've talked about it before. later on I listened to a podcast.

I think it was the Wall Street Journal who actually interviewed this guy. And a couple of observations about this. First of all, it did not seem sentient to me when they were talking to it. Because the woman went over and interviewed the machine. Yeah. And it just sounded like it was a pretty good bot

that you'd be, like that you'd go on a credit card site and it would respond to you. Like it was accepting kind of your reality and sort of repeating it back to you. Like that's what it seemed. like to me. I was not, I did not come out with the impression that it was sentient. Okay. The other thing about it is, it seemed like the guy just wanted to hit on this reporter. That's what, I know, this is, really? This is not part of the story. But just listening to them

talk, he invited her over to his apartment, and she was like giggling the entire time. And it sounded like they were about to just like go to a bar. I don't, I have no idea if that's accurate. But man, just knowing human interactions. It just seemed like this guy was like, you should come over. We'll talk to this computer. It'll be great. And then, like, I don't know,

maybe we'll watch Netflix. I don't know what it is about it. Over maybe a glass of wine? Yeah, we'll chill afterward. It's Pat and Stu on the Glenn Beck program. We were talking about this AI that is supposedly sentient, the Google engineer who was involved heavily in this project, started talking about,

hey, I think we've invented life here in this AI unit. And Google put him on paid leave or unpaid leave or something for a while because they were pissed that he started speaking about this. I guess it was supposed to be somewhat secretive. And they said, no, it's not sentient. And so he has been making the rounds. And he pushed it a little bit further by saying, not only is this thing like a seven or eight year old kid. but it's a seven-year-old, seven- or eight-year-old kid who could escape from where he is now and then start doing bad things. Okay.

Now, you saw an interview, right, with this Google engineer and did they actually ask questions of the unit in question? Yeah, so I should, to correct myself from earlier, it was the Washington Post that actually did this, not Wall Street Journal. But it was Washington Post reporter who went to this guy's apartment and he had access to it. I guess this is before he was suspended. and they decided to talk to this thing. And you think, okay, well, they're going to talk to it. And then you hear this computerized voice come on. And then the podcast is like, we recreated the voice, the things that they typed so you'd understand what they were.

So it only types. It doesn't speak. It's a chat bot like on your computer. Come on. Right. Secondarily, it just seems to repeat the things that you tell it, like in a modified way. Like if you say, hey, do you feel? pain, of course I feel pain. I feel pain and sorrow.

It's like, okay, well, that might be something that anybody would, like, it seems like they scour the internet for the normal responses to these things and turn it in. And if you don't lead it down the right path, if you don't ask it the question in the right way, it comes off as completely dumb and just repeats like, I am an automated chatbot.

You know, it's like, okay, the sentient being is telling us it's an automated chatbot. And it just doesn't, I will say, after listening to this interview, number one, I was relatively convinced that the engineer was hitting on the reporter. And number two, more importantly, perhaps, I was

convinced actually Google was telling the truth on this. Like, I actually thought that this is not which when you read the articles, it's like, okay, Google's trying to, they're trying to cover this up. Yeah. They've created something here that's getting out of hand and they don't know how to deal with it. So they're just denying.

But that doesn't seem to be the case. Now, I have a, I come from a skeptical position on a lot of things like this. I kind of... I do think that, like, there's a real risk. Elon Musk has talked about it, about AI out of control and in the wrong hands, and all those things I think are real. Eventually.

I don't think we're there right now. It may not even be real eventually. We hear that all the time. The big scare tactic, oh, this thing's getting out of the hand. The super AI is happening. And then you see it and it's like, okay, that's not scary at all. It makes sense that eventually it could happen. Like, the theory...

It's one of those things that I don't know that it's a high, percentage chance, but it's a real negative impact if it does happen. So I can understand being worried about it and having ethicists think about it. Glenn's definitely worried about it. Glenn's super worried about it. I'm worried about it. I don't know that it's necessarily coming tomorrow. And I don't think he necessarily believes that either. But I would encourage you that it's a podcast called Post Reports, which they do, you know, like 15, 20 minute podcasts every day. Sometimes they're interesting. You know, usually, yes, it's the Washington Post, so you get a lot of left wing stuff in there. but this one particular episode, if you're interested in this, listen to this and tell me, number one, do you think this is really a sentient being?

Because I got the, I did not get the sense it was at all. And number two, is this guy trying to hook up with this reporter? Because I think he is. I, hey, come over to my apartment to see this supercomputer. And maybe we can have, you know, some hors d'oeuvres. Yeah. A glass of wine. Let's talk about this.

Maybe let's have some coffee, you know. You need it. You're thirsty. You need a drink. I've got some. wine? I mean, no, it's, I'm just for the environment. That's why I'm burning these candles. It's just a, no, I don't know. It did set, you got the sense that like, he was like trying to impress this reporter. That's the sense I got. Did you sound impressed? She did sound impressed. She sounded giddy and silly and it sounded like they were on a date.

Okay. Is what it sounded like. Now, there is a strategy behind this with some reporters, right? When you have someone you're trying to get information out of, you might act that way a little bit to see. how far you can go down that road. Loos it up a little bit. Yeah, loosens them up a little bit. I think that's very, very common. You compliment the person, you act incredibly engaged to try to get to the answers you want. It may just be that I'm making it up in my brain.

But that is what I heard. I think there, I would not be surprised if tomorrow I got an invite to their marriage. I think that this is going to be a nice relationship and it's going to work out well. Well, let me share this interview with someone who's not. sentient. Danabash interviewing Kamala Harris, who is not a sentient being at all. But they're talking about

the justices who misled the public. You were a senator when justices, now justices, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh testified about many issues, including obviously Roe at their confirmation hearings.

Now Justice Gorsuch said it had been reaffirmed, many times. Kavanaugh called it precedent on precedent. At that particular hearing, you were there. Some senators say that they intentionally misled the public and the Congress. What do you think? What do you think? I never believe them. You're not, you're not sanctioned. So that's why I voted against them. That's why. That's why. Okay. Do you think that there's anything to be done now? I mean, there's no. What are you going to do? What are you pushing her to say here? What? Should they be?

Well, the pitch is from the AOC's making it explicitly. She's saying they should be impeached. They lied in their hearings. They should be impeached. Now, they didn't lie in their hearings. They did not lie. It is absolutely ridiculous. At no point, they say anything inconsistent to what they did.

Precedent on top of precedent is something you talk about for the lower courts. Yeah. Right? It's not, you have a different role as a Supreme Court justice. Your opportunity to turn over something that was egregiously wrong from the start is absolutely there. And I believe, could be Kavanaugh, I think,

actually said those words. You know, we, of course, do have the opportunity to overturn something that is egregiously wrong. Yeah. You know, the dread Scott. How about that? Yeah. They did.

They've done it many, many times. Let me give you something else. Roe versus Wade. Roe versus Wade overturned 150 years of precedent. Right. That's right. And Casey overturned Roe versus Wade. Jeez. And then they overturned those two.

It doesn't happen often. The point is you generally speaking seed two previous decisions if it's a close call. The idea is not to shake up society every two days or every time you get a new justice in there. Right. If it's a close call, they kind of just like, well, all right, well, we're going to stick with that reasoning for now. Not when it's egregiously wrong from the start. They're acknowledging that exists. And it is a thing.

And other courts have upheld precedent. but that's not what they're bound to. They're bound to the United States Constitution. Not to precedent. Not to Star A decisis. You're supposed to rule on whether something is constitutional or not. Yep. That's their job.

And Clarence Thomas is the one with the most pure version of that in which he says basically, you do it because it's right. Everybody else on the court is like, well, you know, we need to consider X, Y, and Z. Thomas is like, whatever is right we should do, which is why, of course, I like him so much. It's why the conservatives love the guy because that's, he has no hesitation in that. And he's the only one is like that. And he's been consistent in that way. Yeah, he might disagree with him on some decisions, but he's always just doing what he's right, what is right.

That's all he's doing. He has no compunction to do anything else. He doesn't need to. He just goes for it. But, you know, that is a different thing than we're talking about here. And look, ever since Bork, because of what the left did to Bork, every. in those hearings is at some level misleading. Not misleading trying to tell you the wrong thing, but just not telling you the full

truth. Yeah. Well, Katanji Brown Jackson, who's just avoiding a question by saying, I don't know what a woman is. I'm not a biologist. Well, that's BS. You just said that under oath, really? Yeah.

What should be done about that? How many times did Katanji Brown Jackson say the word originalism? Does anybody believe she's going to be an originalist in the court? Of course not. No. She never would have been named. You have a president of the United States, Donald Trump, who is elected primarily because he said he was going to pick off a list of judges that came from the Federalist Society. And then Donald Trump explicitly said he went beyond previous presidents and explicitly said he would only name pro-life judges.

He basically said, yes, I have a litmus test. Yes. He actually came out and said it. And then we're supposed to believe that Joe Manchin and Susan Collins actually thought, They might vote the other way on this. Come on. They're just trying to avoid the fallout. That's it. They're trying to pass it off to Cavanaugh and Gorsuch and Amy Coney-Barritt

so that they don't get the heat from the left or from the moderates in Collins's case. And yet, as we mentioned yesterday, it is Clarence Thomas who's receiving the brunt of all the criticism. Weird. I wonder why that is. Huh. because Sam Alito wrote the opinion and the rest of the justices were, you know, the conservative leaning justices were on board with it.

Why is everybody singling out Clarence Thomas? Huh. And Hillary Clinton had this to say about Clarence Thomas. This is amazing. I went to law school with him. He's been a positive for just a second. Did you? Did you?

Did you? Did you and Clarence Thomas hang out? No. Did you really sit down with him and have dinner and go to movies with him and hang out and discuss life with him? You know she doesn't know Clarence Thomas. And there's been several reports now from people who were there at the time and said they didn't know each other. They didn't have interactions. They were not buddies.

She graduated in 73. He graduated in 74. They weren't even in the same year together. Yeah. Now, have they ever seen each other on campus? Yeah. Maybe. Maybe.

It also shows, you know, what an amazing country this is. and that, you know, you can have the divergence of two people who went to the same school, relatively speaking at the same time, and one could turn out to be as amazing as Clarence Thomas, and one could be Hillary Clinton. Yeah. One could be evil incarnate. Right. The other one is fantastic.

It's so incredible. It's amazing. But, you know, that's already, I think, been disproven by a bunch of people. But even if it were true, at that time, Clarence Thomas wasn't even really a conservative yet. Right. I mean, he had a very different path. He did not. He was not a conservative.

from birth. At one point, people referred to him as a black nationalist. Jeez. I mean, you know, he was a totally different guy at the period she's talking about, but she just wants to be able to be involved in everything. Please leave us alone, Hillary. Please. But she went on. For as long as I've known him, resentment, grievance, anger. Really? And he has signaled in the past to lower courts, two state legislatures, fine cases, past laws, get them up. I may not win the first, the second, or the third time, but we're going to keep at it.

Okay. All right, that's good. She sounds like she's describing herself there. Resentment, grievance, anger. That perfectly describes her. And even Sonia Sotomayor, who is one of the big liberals on the bench, she essentially disputed this. a couple of months ago when she talked about Clarence Thomas. And what a great guy he is.

Yeah, that's true. That he's warm and personable. And that he's the one who goes like to the janitor who's mopping up and asks about his son. And he cares about people and talks to them. So seems to completely be the opposite of what Hillary had to say about him. And as far as someone who's always seeming to have grievance, we know Hillary Clinton is that person. Right. Like she's still saying the 2016 election was stolen.

it was illegitimate and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. But Clarence Thomas, here's a guy who has a real reason who could actually say grievance. He could be filled with grievance and hatred for this country. A guy who grew up in the segregated South, a guy who really lived that life. Right. Who constantly... Still called the N-word by the left. Mm-hmm.

Is still bashed all the time in social media. Yeah. they demonize him continually. Yep. And so he grew up, he wound up loving this country, even though he grew up in a country that was much,

much more awful to African Americans than the one is today. He went past that. And he is, you know, this is the type of thing that gives you a backbone.

And he sits there and he says, you know what? The truth. Period. The truth. Period. Not John Roberts. Not.

I don't know. I'm not sure. I don't, I'm worried about a reputation. Oh. no, not that, the truth, period. As he sees it. Doesn't mean he's right on everything. I think he's right on most things, but he's not right, maybe on everything, but he says what he feels every time.

That's the entire job of the Supreme Court. That's what you're supposed to be doing. Yeah, absolutely. Triple 8-7-27-B-E-C-K. This is the Glenn Back program. It's Ben and Stufer Glenn, and joined by Jeff Fisher. for some reason. I stop in. I want to do the show with you.

I thought I'd stick around for the whole show. Oh, man. I wish we had more time. Really? You know, it's too bad you waited until now. Oh. So let's do what Glenn does with Bill O'Reilly. What's the most important story of the week?

The most important story of the week is that this is the America I want to live in now. Stores apparently have a glutton of goods. And so if you purchase a product and don't want it, they're going to give you a refund, but let you keep the product. this is the America I want to live in. Okay. Who is nobody would take advantage of God? Right? I am a fan of this America.

Yep, don't want it. Give me my money back. Oh, I have to keep the product. Oh, darn. Okay. This is different than your normal process of just taking the stuff off the shelf and walking out of the store. I don't know how many times I can get a new TV out of the deal,

but I'm going to give it a shot. I guess it goes probably step by step on your podcast on this. Isn't that correct? That's correct. Absolutely. Chewing the. The Fat. Yes, very good.

Yeah, very good. Lots of podcasts to listen to. There's that. There's Pat Gray Unleashed. You want to check out in Stu Does America? Mm-hmm. And you can, by the way, remember, instead of January 6th, you remember 624-22, get the T-shirt. It's available now at Stu Doesmerch.com.

And, you know, I guess probably check out whatever Jeffie's show is. It's called Tune the Fat. What are you talking about? This is the Glenn Back program.