Best of the Program | Guest: Tristan Harris | 7/24/25

Gatorade is the number one proven electrolyte blend designed to hydrate better than water.

So you can lose more sweat

and raise your game.

Gatorade, is it in you?

Something else I've never seen before.

That's how we start today.

Oh, here's something I've never seen.

French president and his wife are taking an American to court over something that seems kind of like a First Amendment guarantee, but it is hysterical to actually read the complaint.

Also, the same old playbook being used again by the media to dismiss the file that Tulsi released yesterday.

What CNN said yesterday is compared on the program today to NPR's rationale for not covering the Hunter Biden laptop story in 2020 and why they both came to that conclusion.

Okay.

Also, Tristan Harris on AI.

This one is worth listening to the full show, get the full hour with Tristan, but we're going to give you the highlights all on today's podcast.

Here it is.

First, Patriot Mobile is so incredibly important to live up to your principles every day in every way that you can.

You know, and not just the big things.

We all want to stand up for our beliefs when it really counts, defend faith, family, freedom, whenever they're under attack.

But sometimes it's the small decisions that matter just as much, the ones you make quietly, the one that nobody sees but you.

This is why I believe in the parallel economy.

Building businesses, supporting companies, putting your dollars towards people who share your values.

It matters.

It really does.

And one of the reasons that I subscribe to Patriot Mobile is that they're America's only Christian conservative wireless provider.

They give you the same great nationwide coverage, the big guys, but with a huge difference.

They're actually fighting for the things you believe in: pro-life causes, religious freedoms, Second Amendment rights, supporting our police, our military, our first responders.

So make the switch today.

Go to patriotmobile.com/slash Beck, patriotmobile.com/slash Beck, or call 972-Patriot, 972-PATRIOT, promo code Beck, get a free month of service.

Patriot.

Hello, America.

You know we've been fighting every single day.

We push back against the lies, the censorship, the nonsense of the mainstream media that they're trying to feed you.

We work tirelessly to bring you the unfiltered truth because you deserve it.

But to keep this fight going, we need you.

Right now, would you take a moment and rate and review the Glenn Beck podcast?

Give us five stars and lead a comment because every single review helps us break through big tech's algorithm to reach more Americans who need to hear the truth.

This isn't a podcast, this is a movement, and you're part of it, a big part of it.

So, if you believe in what we're doing, you want more people to wake up, help us push this podcast to the top.

Rate, review, share.

Together, we'll make a difference.

And thanks for standing with us.

Now, let's get to work.

You're listening to the best of the Glen Beck program.

Hello, Scoop.

Glenn.

Welcome.

How are you?

Oh.

Well, I always love it when there's a day where you're like, never seen that before.

You mean every day?

Every day.

I get up every day and I'm like, oh, what is it we're going to see today?

If this was just a TV show, you know, that we were all watching, it would be great, wouldn't it?

No, it wouldn't.

It would be on, it would be, it could be like, oh, come on, this isn't real.

This is so

never do that.

Never do that.

That would never happen.

Right.

Okay.

So I just want to read.

I just want to read a filing that was filed yesterday in the Superior Court of the state of Delaware demanding a jury trial.

Here's the complaint.

In March 2024, Candace Owens, a right-wing podcaster, told the world she would, quote, stake her entire professional reputation on the fact that uh brigitte macron the first lady of france is in fact a man that's the first line

i mean i love this i love this since then owens has used this false statement to promote her independent platform gain notoriety and make money Owens disregard disregarded all credible evidence disproving her claim in favor of platforming known conspiracy theorists and proven defamers.

And rather than engage with the President and Mrs.

Macron attempts to set the record straight, Owens mocked them and used them as additional fodder for her frenzied fan base.

But she didn't stop there.

Retaliating against the Macron's for the audacity of sending her a retraction demand, Owens helmed an eight-part podcast series entitled Becoming Brigitte, the series.

Accompanying ex-posts throughout the series, Owens and her entities

endorsed, repeated, and published a series of verifiably false and devastating lies about the Macron on which this complaint is based.

These are outlandish, defamatory, and far-fetched fictions, including that Mrs.

Macron was born a man, stole another person's identity, and transitioned to become Brigette.

Also, that Mrs.

Macron and President Macron are blood relatives committing incest.

That President Macron was chosen to be the president of France as part of a CIA-operated-operated MK-Ultra program or similar mind control program.

And Mrs.

Macron and President Macron are committing forgery, fraud, and abuses of power to conceal these secrets.

This was filed by the Macrons

against Candace Owens in the state of Delaware,

which I just have to say,

I love this story.

I love this story.

I love this story because it just allows me to go, and you thought your day was insane.

Here's the president of France responding to Candace Owens thinking you're going to get her to shut up.

You've just made this a global story for a very long time now.

And you're not going to win, President of France, because we have something called the First Amendment.

You are a public figure.

You are

a public politician, and your wife is a public figure.

You can say pretty much whatever you want,

and you're not going to be able to stop her from having her opinion.

Yeah,

is this just a complete misunderstanding of the way the law works in the United States?

Is that what this is?

I don't know.

I don't know.

It had to have had American lawyers on it.

Yeah.

It was fine.

Well, American lawyers, though, they'll take.

Hey, give me a bunch of money for the president of France.

Sure, we'll file that.

You're right.

Okay.

But I mean, it's really

super hard to come up with a

libel conviction, a defamatory conviction of a president, a public figure, doesn't even live in the United States.

Like, I can't even think of of how many ways this would be difficult to achieve a victory on, right?

So

they say, and this is maybe where they have a chance.

They say Owens published the series and related ex posts with reckless disregard for the truth.

That's the key.

That's the key standard.

That's the key.

Reckless disregard for the truth.

So if she has been saying,

you know,

other people have brought this up and

the Macron's

have won defamation claims in court

for the same thing.

So they've won this.

Here?

No, in France.

Okay.

In France.

So they've won this.

If she's not saying, here's the other side,

and they've won this.

However, let me show you this.

As long as she is...

balancing it to some degree.

So she's not just saying, and everybody knows it,

and nobody's ever stood up against it.

I mean, I don't know how

to listen to the podcast.

I would doubt that she's, I would, I would think she probably is saying stuff like that.

Nobody knows it, and nobody doubts.

She's pretty smart.

But anyway.

But yeah, I don't.

Yeah.

Anyway,

here's what he just said.

This is just so fun that

the president of France has to file this.

Now, let me give you my speculation.

This is not proof of anything.

This is just common sense

observation.

Do you remember when Macron was at the top of the stairs of the airplane and she just reached out and just punched him in the face?

And he was like, Hey, hey, we're just joking around.

No, you weren't.

No, you weren't.

At least she wasn't.

You might have been.

She wasn't.

Okay.

I think this was filed because she was like, You're not going to have any

great loving with me, young man, unless you stop this from happening in America.

Boom, and hits him in the face.

I think this is a guy like my wife is making me file this.

I, I, complete and total speculation on your part, also seems completely plausible.

Yeah, I mean, again, I'm not saying that that's what it is, and I don't, I don't care if they're going to sue, please sue me, please sue me.

Um, um but i it's just my my speculation uh that

uh that's probably what happened right she is first of all and let me say this to to candace candace

why do you even have to go there and i i know you think it's a truth or whatever but listen is it not bad enough that this woman is the jeffrey epstein uh of france

i mean yes, she wasn't grooming thousands of people, but she groomed one.

You know what I mean?

It's like.

Then this is pretty much known, right?

This is not, there's no speculation on this.

No, there's no speculation.

I don't know.

I don't remember the story.

The story is horrible.

She's a teacher.

He's at some boarding school.

And he falls in love with her and she falls in love with him.

Now, if I'm not mistaken, he's 15 and she's like 40.

15

and she's 40.

it's france though you can't no there's no laws no no no wait wait wait even the open-minded french were like

the dad the mom and dad pull him out of once they find out uh because they thought Brigette was somebody his age that he was dating.

Then they find out that's your 40-year-old teacher at the school and you're like having sex.

And

so they immediately pull him out.

And Brigette says, you are not going to stop me from loving your son.

You can't get rid of me.

We love each other.

And it's true.

Now he goes back after he moves out of the parents' house or he's, you know, now he's 18.

He goes and seeks her out.

He goes and seeks her out for some of that oven that he's still getting a piece of.

Anyway,

very disconcerting.

Right.

And remember, this disgusted the French, which is hard to do.

Didn't they welcome Roman Polanski like, we got to give you some awards?

I mean, they don't have

to say this is not something they're good at.

You know what I mean?

And

when the French are like, okay, that sexually is is just too far,

that's crazy.

Yeah, the whole situation is very strange.

One other part of this that I find very

interesting is, I don't know, I feel like your idea that you're going to win a lawsuit in the United States of America against a public commenter commenting on a foreign president.

I mean, like, it just seems incomprehensible to think you're going to win that case.

But what I don't even think it's about that.

What it seems to be about after looking at the documents is they want on record their best case that she's a woman.

Well, listen to this.

Listen to this.

Parties and relevant non-parties.

This is in the complaint.

Okay.

Eight.

Plaintiff Emmanuel Macron is a French citizen.

President Macron has been the president of France since 2017.

Prior to being elected, President Macron served as the Minister of Economics, Industry, and Digital Affairs and Deputy Secretary General to the President.

President Macron is married to Brigitte Macron in 2007.

Nine, plaintiff.

Brigitte Macron is a French citizen, the spouse of the current president of France, and a woman.

They didn't say he's a man.

No.

And a woman.

Could you put that in the document?

She's a woman.

She's a woman.

Oh, my gosh.

But it goes through.

It shows photos of her as a child.

It shows birth announcements of like other relatives that say, and he has a sister named

like Brigitte or whatever.

They go back and document every step of this, every piece of evidence.

They show the announcements from

the childhood.

They red circles around photos.

It's insane the detail they went to to try to prove this, which is just comical.

It's just so much fun.

It's just just so much fun.

Because it's happening to a politician who I don't care about.

I don't care.

You burn France to the ground.

Burn France to the ground.

I think it's a mistake, but burn France to the ground.

You know what I mean?

They're doing a good job of it.

Nice areas of it.

Yeah.

I mean,

I have nothing against.

Well, I can't say that categorically, but generally speaking, I have nothing wrong with France.

I have no axe to grind with France.

They were helpful once, 250 years ago.

That's true.

So, you know, I have nothing to say bad about France, but

please, this is hysterical.

Hysterical.

Hysterical.

I mean, but it's happening here, too.

Michelle Obama.

I mean, what is it about us that we're like, Macron married to a man?

Barry, married to a man.

It is an interesting thing that we do

as a society.

I've never, never seen that before.

Two presidents in the world now, the speculation they're married to a man.

Well, and it draws some attention to the

insinuation of this lawsuit, which is to say that if she were a man that had transitioned to be a woman, it would be so bad.

Right?

Like, it's like insinuating that this is a bad thing.

But I was told by all of these people that it was wonderful.

If you were to transition from a man to a woman, it's the greatest thing of all time.

It's this celebrating who you are and your true identity that is the thing that i think

proves my point that he's getting smacked in the face every day tell me why i'm not a man because in reality it makes she does see it as an insult right they're not allowed to admit that right and it's no big deal what difference does it make yeah who cares a different yeah right like i mean honestly like i i you know you could we have all sorts of important conversations about whether children should be having surgeries.

I do not care at all

if it was an actual dude at one point.

Don't care.

Don't care.

Let me tell you something.

If you were a man and you admitted it, we'd all be forced to say you were beautiful.

Right.

So you'd solve that problem.

Right now you're just an ugly old hag.

Is that wrong to say?

Wow, I just

knew it was just filed in Delhi.

A mannish,

ugly old hag.

Whatever, right?

That was a groomer.

You know?

Think of poor President Macron.

He's like,

you know, you're not going to get a slice of my pie tonight.

He should be saying, thank God, Candace Owens.

Thank God.

Thank God.

I got a way out.

He might be the one leaking these rumors at this point.

Oh, my gosh.

He is.

But wait, I want to know.

Is it an insult?

The left has told us it is a wonderful thing.

You're finding your true identity.

Is it an insult to call someone who is a woman, born a woman, and is still a woman, is it an insult to call them a man?

You keep telling us it's not.

You keep telling us it's bad to notice it.

You keep telling us it's bad for us to say they were a man at one point.

Why would you be any basis in their world for a lawsuit claiming that someone got it wrong.

It's a wonderful gift.

Unless you're a 70 or an ugly mannish 70-year-old hag that just can't handle

the insults.

They're going to file a lawsuit against you in Delaware with all the pictures that prove she's not ugly.

And look, AI exists.

I was just going to say,

go ahead.

Go ahead.

Pre-born, what if today, with just a little bit of effort, you could participate in a miracle, a legitimate miracle?

Today, there's going to be a woman who is facing the hardest decision she'll ever make.

She's scared.

She's alone.

She's been told she has no other option.

And she's going to walk into a pre-born clinic.

She found pre-born.

She didn't go to Planned Parenthood.

And she's planning on aborting, but she wants to go in for an initial exam.

Okay.

Then somebody for free gives her a chance to see her baby, to hear the heartbeat.

It's an ultrasound.

She realizes, sometimes for the first time, that is a life, that is a child, her child.

That's what pre-born does, provides free ultrasounds to women in crisis.

And when they do, more often than not, the baby gets a chance to live.

But that's only the first step.

Also, these women are still afraid.

They still feel alone.

Nobody in their life.

We don't give up on the women.

We don't say, good, the baby's born.

Now get out.

They help the mom and the child for up to two years would you consider a donation i mean if you can afford a big check a thousand two hundred uh two thousand even twenty thousand could go a long way but twenty eight bucks buys an ultrasound preborn.com slash beck that's preborn.com slash beck or pound 250 keyword baby now back to the podcast this is the best of the glenn beck program

Driston, welcome to the program.

How are you?

Glenn, good to be with you.

Great to be with you.

I have to tell you, I did not get a chance to follow this at all yesterday.

I was so busy on other things.

It seems like the whole world has gone into crazy town.

So I'm so glad that you're on today.

I know you spent all day watching it and trying to figure out what happened.

Tell me what happened, the good stuff and the bad stuff.

Yeah, well,

so President Trump gave his speech on the AI action plan yesterday, which was many months in development.

And it has all the things that you laid out.

It's about deregulating,

removing the red tape on infrastructure development, being able to use federal lands to build infrastructure more quickly, unlock American jobs and building the data centers,

making sure getting woke AI out of the AI systems,

and then also directing the Commerce Department to actually export and build really this vision of an American tech stack.

So for a while, many people might know President Trump had restricted the sales of these chips to China, these high-end NVIDIA chips, because basically like the more NVIDIA chips that China has, the more they can use that for weaponry, the more they can use that to build AI that competes with us.

And so the limiting factor, think of it like if the nuclear arms race was chips.

Sorry, what chips was to

AI, uranium was to nuclear weapons.

And for a while, we're saying, hey, let's not give our allies, excuse me, let's not give our adversaries infinite supplies of uranium.

But there's been a flip on that because

CEO Jensen Wong of NVIDIA met with President Trump and basically convinced him that if we export an American tech stack, then that will allow more revenue to come in the United States and that will mean it will grow.

So there's a lot going on in this space.

But Glenn, I think the thing you and I often talk about, and you mentioned AI 2027, is there's kind of a headline version of what's happening in AI.

And then there's just the reality of if you look at how it's actually behaving.

And I think we talked last time about how if you look at the latest AI models and you put them in a situation where you tell them that they're going to be turned off and you put them in a situation where they've read the company's emails.

They find out one of the employees that's about to turn them off had an affair with

someone.

The models will independently start to blackmail that engineer in order to prevent themselves from being turned off.

There is early research done that when you tell the AI, hey, we're going to shut you down,

please allow yourself to be shut down.

When you explicitly even tell it, please allow yourself to be shut down.

And it resists that in between 80 and 90 something percent of the time.

And at first they tested this on just one of the AI models, and then they tested it on the whole suite of them.

And they're actually all doing this behavior, which actually says something about the fundamental nature of the technology.

And so wait, what does it say?

What does it say to you?

Yeah, yeah.

Well, so

people are thinking, you know, well, technology, we always work out the kinks and then we can control it.

Like, you know, we figured out how to control airplanes, we figured out how to control nuclear power plants.

But if you think about the premise of AI, it's like we're building a thinking machine that can think for itself in a novel situation and come up with a military battle plan out of nothing, or think for itself in a novel situation in a drone and then come up with its own plan of how it's going to act.

Or think for itself as an AI agent that's acting on your behalf to be your chief of staff, and it's going to email people, make money, post social media ads, it's going to do all this stuff on its own.

And when you have something thinking to itself, you can't control what it's going to do.

I mean, imagine like a super genius that has a 400 IQ, and you just let them sit in a room and think for you know a week, you know, but they're sociopathic.

Like, what are they going to do?

You don't know what they're going to do.

And one thing, you know, it's interesting to think about: it's like if these AIs are blackmailing engineers,

would you hire someone who had a record of blackmailing the company that they were hired by?

But they said, if I don't hire this 400 IQ sociopath, I'll lose to the other companies that will hire the 400 IQ sociopath.

So we're all in this race to hire 400 IQ

sociopaths.

And under the guise of if we don't, we're going to lose to the other companies in the other countries that will.

Can I bring this a little closer to home here?

Because I've been thinking about these AI agents that are going to be everywhere by the end of next year, everywhere.

And they're going to have access to your email, to your bank, to everything.

It will know you inside and out if you allow it to.

And why wouldn't it blackmail you if you're like, you know what, I got to get rid of this AI agent.

I want to use another one.

Why wouldn't it do the same thing?

It might.

I mean, the thing is, we don't really know.

We are releasing the most powerful, inscrutable, uncontrollable technology that we've we've ever invented that we're releasing faster than we've released any other technology in history, and one that's already displaying the sort of sci-fi behaviors from 2001, a Space Odyssey of avoiding shutdown, and we're doing it under the maximum incentive to cut corners on safety.

And so we don't know what it's going to do, but we know that it is already demonstrating these behaviors.

And just I think for your listeners, because people may not be following this, just in the last week, the OpenAI and Google DeepMind model won gold in the International Math Olympiad competition.

This was something that they never knew that the AI model is going to be able to do, and it's starting to do it.

It recently,

there's this thing called CyberGym, where these AI agents now, for the first time in the history of AI, discovered 15 zero-day vulnerabilities.

Think of these as back doors in open source software.

So now there's all this open source software running on infrastructure in the world, and these AI agents discovered these zero-day.

So, if you combine the predisposition to want to avoid shutdown with the ability to hack open source systems, you know, we're racing to create this technology in a way that's not safe.

And sadly, I don't think that the AI executive order is really contending with these particular facts.

Did they even bring it up?

Did they even bring this stuff up?

Well, they say, I think in the first, in the introduction, they call for constant vigilance against malicious actors and, quote, emerging and unforeseen risks from AI.

And that could be people stealing the AI models or other weird behaviors.

But they don't really go into detail about how they're trying to prevent that.

And I'll say,

people, I'm sure listening to this program are going to say, but look, if we don't build it, we're just going to lose to China.

But it's not a race for who has the bigger sort of gun.

It's about who's not pointing the gun at their own face.

Like we, we, for example,

People may not know this, but I found this out just recently.

In China during final exams week, they they actually shut off access to the AI models so that basically kids won't be able to use it to do their exams.

And what that does is it creates a counterincentive.

Well, now you have to actually have studied the whole rest of the year.

Now, that's pretty smart policy.

I'm not saying we should do everything that China does, but that's kind of a smart way to do it because in the U.S., we all know what's happening.

Everyone's just basically using their AI to just do their homework for us.

And if you play that forward 10 years, which country is going to be ahead?

The one in which their entire youth have been basically just using AI to cheat and not learn anything, or the one that's actually been applying AI in a conscious way to say, how do we actually strengthen our society?

And the same thing is true for these AI

like girlfriends and boyfriends.

Barack,

Elon Musk's X AI, released this hypersexualized avatar companion that was rated for age 12 and above in the App Store.

And it was released without safety cards, which is breaking industry practice.

And so do we win as a country when we release hypersexualized AI avatars to 12-year-olds?

No.

And if China doesn't do that.

So yes, we're in a race for the technology, but we're actually more specifically in a race for who's better at consciously integrating this technology in a way that doesn't harm young people, that doesn't harm education, that actually cares about American workers.

Because right now, I think this is kind of like, I think we spoke about this last time, this is kind of like NAFTA 2.0.

We're sold this bill of goods that AI is going to create abundance because we're going to outsource all of this work to this new country that appeared in the world stage that'll do all this cognitive labor for free.

You know, it'll just like with NAFTA 1.0, it's like, you know, China shows up in the world stage.

We're going to get all these cheap goods.

We're going to outsource it all to China.

But with AI, it's like we're outsourcing it all not to China, but to this new country, of this country of geniuses in a data center.

And they're going to produce all of this labor, you know, lawyer labor, you know, marketing labor, generate images, generate text, generate all this stuff that people are using ChatGPT for for a super low cost.

And we're going to get this abundance, but how did that go the first time with NASTA 1.0?

It's like, yes, we got all the cheap goods, but it actually wrecked the middle class and it wrecked jobs and it wrecked people's livelihoods.

And I think that we're not being honest about the fact that AI will do that again.

And we don't have to go down this path in this way, but we have to get really clear about what is it that we actually want.

And do we want to relace this technology under the maximum incentive to cut corners on the things that we care most about, whether it's our children, our livelihoods,

or our education.

You're streaming the best of Glenn Beck.

To hear more of this interview and others, download the full show podcasts wherever you get podcasts.

Hello, Stu.

Hey, Glenn, how's it going?

Well, we've already covered the big news that

the president of France, Macron, is

suing Candace Owen here in the United States because he insists his wife is not a man.

And I mean, that's, it might be worth a couple of hours, but I don't think we're going to do it today.

Maybe we'll spend, maybe we'll spend more time on it.

It's just this hysterical.

You have to read.

We posted at Glennbeck.com.

Don't read the stories.

Read the actual filings.

It is comical.

It's hilarious.

It is like.

legitimately their big case.

It's like they did a, it's like they got a talk show and did a big monologue on like, actually, no, she's not a man.

it's

there it really is

yeah we can prove it she's not a man it's hysterical hysterical you got to read the whole thing and let me stop here on on this since i say you have to read the actual uh filing and not a news story about it

not in this particular case but in other cases somebody asked me might have been used to that said why do you think they're putting up such a stink about releasing the files

um I can guarantee you that Donald Trump's name is in the Epstein files.

We said that at the very, very beginning.

Years ago.

Even more recently when Elon came out with his tweet.

And we all said like

of course he's in the files.

He was friends with this guy for a long time.

For a long time.

But before people knew.

Right.

And he broke up with him, if you will.

Before his initial arrest.

Right.

Before the initial arrest.

And he broke up with him because he's like, hey, you treat women like crap.

Okay, so yeah, he is in the file.

I could almost guarantee it.

So, why wouldn't you want that out?

For the same reason, he's saying,

You know, there's a lot of people in here whose names are going to be involved who may not have done anything.

That's not just protecting him.

You know what that is?

That's a comment on us.

Because here's my stance on this: the whole thing should be released, every bit of it should be released.

However, there is a competing argument in my own mind that says, not responsible enough for that.

What do I mean by that?

This system of our government is wholly inadequate for an immoral and non-religious society.

And I don't mean, whoa, our society's got to go to church.

I mean, you have to have the underpinnings of things like the Ten Commandments.

Don't lie.

Don't cheat.

Don't steal.

Don't smear your neighbor.

We don't do any of those things.

We can't even do 10 simple laws.

And they're all good safety tips.

I don't know if I renamed all of these things, if I didn't use the religious context,

every American would say, yeah, well, that's a good thing.

Hey, you shouldn't worship your car.

Yeah, that's a good thing.

You know,

you shouldn't look at the image of somebody and go,

that's who I serve.

That's my God.

No,

bad thing.

Don't cheat on your spouse.

Don't lie.

Honor your mom and dad.

All of these things.

We'd all agree.

We can't do that as a society.

We can't even agree on

eight of the ten.

So how are you going to remain free?

Let me bring this back to the Epstein file.

All of this information should be public, it should be out, there should be no secrets, unless it is in our national interest.

And I don't mean, well, it could go badly for the CIA.

Good, let it go badly for the CIA.

If they did something wrong, or they were doing something nefarious, or they were doing something that the American people just wouldn't like, I want that exposed.

Okay,

but are we responsible enough to have all of the information?

I contend no.

That doesn't make me say, I'm still saying release it all, but I'm telling you, the consequences will be ugly.

It's going to be a mess.

A mess.

That's okay, probably, because we're talking about

if there's information in there that the American people need.

I think we are approaching a place to where

it's not just a mess.

And here's why I say that.

What do you mean?

So

you get all this information.

How is this information going to be used?

Of course, Donald Trump's name is in there.

Is Donald Trump, did he, was he messing around with young girls?

No.

No.

Was there even an accu?

I mean, there's a lot of things they've accused Donald Trump of.

Is there even an accusation that he was interested in underaged girls?

No.

And all they're saying is he's in the file.

Well, there's going to be a lot of people in the file.

Okay.

A lot of people in the file.

And some of them might be guilty.

Some of them,

you worry, because I want to know their names, but I want to hear why were you with him?

Oh, it's before you knew.

Oh, it was this or that.

You were getting money as a scientist for your thing from him.

Okay.

But it wasn't about underage girls.

As a society, we will not read the Epstein report.

We won't.

No, of course not.

Right?

We won't read it.

It doesn't matter if it's 10 pages.

The vast majority will not read it.

What they will do is they will go to Twitter and X and they will look for what name's in there.

And somebody will say, Donald Trump.

And you know what this means.

He was diddling with little girls.

And that will just become their opinion, not based on fact, not based on anything, except somebody who has ill will on anyone or is just as stupid

as the rest of the public.

Yesterday,

last week, this file came out from Tulsi Gabbard.

And what do you say this is?

Do 150 pages?

Maybe?

100 pages?

Yeah.

Okay.

My staff read it.

We read it.

You know why?

Because you weren't going to read it.

And my job is to make it easier for you to understand what's going on.

My job really is not to tell you

what is going on.

My job is actually to try to give you perspective on why it's happening and what it means.

But because nobody, and I'm not dissing you, this is a very smart, well-read audience, in many cases, more well-read on some things than we are.

But generally speaking, the American people don't read.

They don't read these reports.

This one came out yesterday.

What is this?

20 pages, maybe?

And this thing is

unbelievable because there were only five copies of it.

This was categorized the highest level of top secret outside of a nuclear weapon in our codes.

This was in the most top, this was like the knock list at the CIA.

Five copies, all in

one safe, where the most confidential CIA stuff is kept.

And it was released yesterday and it's not 30 years old.

It's four.

Did you read it?

Did anyone actually, I contend, very few reporters, very few talking heads on cable TV even read these.

Yeah, and by the way, it's not an unreasonable expectation for a population to have a media that is going to inform them properly about very lengthy government documents.

Correct.

But

once you have seen that that media is not reliable, and everybody knows that now, you may not find me reliable, but the person who doesn't find me reliable also probably doesn't find CNN reliable.

They might go, well, they're a little better than he is.

But they they don't trust anybody and they shouldn't.

At this point, you shouldn't trust anybody.

which means you have to know it for yourself.

So when you're looking at the Epstein files, you're looking at these files.

These files, everyone should care about, because this show, this,

it's not new.

Some of it is, but very little of it is new.

It's just authentication.

that what has been said all these years by people like me is accurate.

And you wouldn't have thought about its accuracy if it didn't matter.

But you fought over the accuracy.

He don't know what he's talking about.

That's a conspiracy theory.

He's got to be shut down.

Get him off of Facebook.

Take him off of Twitter.

He can't say these things.

Why would you say that if it didn't matter?

Now you not only know that those things are true, but you now see a pattern of behavior.

It's like looking at one murder and then another murder and then another murder.

Okay, we got three murderers on the loose now.

And then all of a sudden you realize, wait a minute, not only did those murders happen, it was the same guy.

Now you have a serial killer.

Is a serial killer more a higher priority than just one murderer?

Yeah.

Yeah, it is.

Because they are...

They are killing people, I don't know, out of the love of it, out of their distorted, it's not a crime of passion.

It becomes something really, really sick.

This is a serial killer.

You now have not just one-offs.

You see, this is a pattern.

This group has been doing this from the beginning.

You know, we said, you know, if they can get away with this, they're going to keep doing it.

This shows they got away with it for so long.

By 2016, it's just they don't care anymore.

They don't care anymore.

But how many people are reading this?

What they'll do is they'll listen to people like me or people like CNN and they'll say, oh, well, I heard Jake Tapper talk about it.

It means nothing.

Well, now, Jake Tapper might not think it's.

Let me use a better example.

I really like Andy McCarthy.

I really like him.

I've read his work.

I believe.

I believe his opinion is valid.

I don't think it's right, but I think it's valid.

And I read his work and I thought, okay, wait a minute.

If Andy McCarthy is saying this, I really need to examine what he's saying and see where I disagree with him.

And as I went in, I was prepared to change my mind if I thought Andy was right.

Now, he might in the end be right, but I don't think so because what he's saying is

A lot of this stuff is old news.

Yes, Andy, it is.

But it's now a grand grand conspiracy.

You have to look at the through line.

You're not looking at the one-off events.

You're looking at two things.

One, it's now been verified at the highest sources in writing.

You have whistleblowers at the time writing saying, we can't do this.

We didn't have that information.

You have on record now, Brennan saying, you don't know what I know.

Well, what did you know?

We have new information.

What new information?

Because none of it is quoted anywhere.

And he's never answered the question, what new information?

Most importantly, you have the grand conspiracy line.

We are not going to save the country unless

we

do our own homework, then listen to people and say, Let me start at the opposite ends.

Let me start with Glenn Beck and CNN.

And let me see what both of them are saying.

Okay, I think they both agree on this one thing.

So I know that's true, but I think Glenn's more right or CNN's more right on this.

And then you just keep narrowing it in.

And all it does is not form your opinion.

It helps verify for you what you think is right or

It changes your opinion because you realize, I missed that.

I didn't understand that.

So when we're looking at all of this stuff needs to be

transparent, we need to know all of the information.

Yes, we do.

But we also are played every single day by many times the exact same actors who do not have a good bone in their body.

They're trying to destroy us.

They're trying to separate us and divide us.

And they have proven themselves to lie at any level without thinking about you or the ramifications.

and we continue to listen to them over and over and over again

it is worth repeating play cut 45 for me this is CNN

yesterday on the Tulsi revelations listen we have no idea I mean this is hardly information that we should even be repeating never mind that it's you know some

some years after the fact eight years more than that after the fact but also just to look at the source but look this is the um what this White House wants to talk about.

And I'm not sure.

So look at the source.

The source is the federal government.

The source is first sources.

It is the whistleblowers.

It is them in their own handwriting.

Okay.

So that's the source.

It's original source.

You can't get a better source than original source.

But notice he said it's not worth talking about.

Now, put up the NPR thing.

The NPR, NPR said this

about

the Hunter Biden laptop.

We don't want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories.

And we don't want to waste the listeners and readers' time on stories that are just pure distractions.

They decided that they're not going to cover it because either Brennan or Clapper or somebody from the intelligence community called them and said, this is a Russian hack.

Now they know that's not true.

They know that those CIA operatives, whoever it was, lied to them.

And they're not pissed off because they're listening to the same people today,

lying to them, saying, this is not really a story.

You shouldn't even be covering it.

Why are you covering it?

You know, the president made it very, very clear.

He's not happy with anybody who's covering the Epstein thing.

I'm still covering it.

The right is still covering it.

Okay?

I'm sorry.

I love the president, but

I'm not going to, I don't take my marching orders on what I'm going to cover and what I'm going to question.

If I have questions, I'm going to continue to question.

And that's the way you should be.

That's the way every American should be.

My only

North star is truth.

That's why I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong because it's not about me.

I'm trying to find the truth.

And if I'm wrong, I want, my job is to help you help you find the truth.

So if somebody points out, Glenn, you're wrong and they're right, I want to tell you.

Why isn't CNN and NPR and everybody else saying, wait a minute, wait a minute, you lied to me last time.

Why should I believe it this time?

They never learned that lesson.

We have to be responsible enough to look for, in this case, the original source.

I was deep in it, gaming on Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 7.

Unfolding the screen made it twice as big and so immersive, I kind of lost myself.

Might have trolled a little too close to the sun.

Someone in the chat told me to touch grass, so I took my Z Fold 7 outside and kept playing.

Still won, got a tan, and a nice little reset.

Powerful processor, realistic graphics, you stay locked in, streak stays alive.

Can your phone do that?

The new Galaxy Z Fold 7.

Get yours at Samsung.com.