BLOGAugust 10, 2017

Stephen Crowder: Google Clearly Doesn’t ‘Want to Discuss Issues Anymore’

A Google software engineer lost his job this week after writing a 10-page internal memo critiquing the company’s diversity efforts.

In the memo, the engineer gathered some general observations based on research about men and women and what they can both offer to a company, suggesting some ways that tech jobs could become more friendly to women. He also objected to company programs that are only offered to employees based on race and gender.

“Of course, men and women experience bias, tech, and the workplace differently and we should be cognizant of this, but it’s far from the whole story,” he wrote in the memo.

Google CEO Sundar Pichai said in a statement that “portions of the memo violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace.”

Stephen Crowder of LouderWithCrowder.com joined Glenn on radio Thursday to share his take on Google’s decision to fire the engineer.

“Is that still hate speech?” Crowder sarcastically said of the memo. “When you read the entire memo in context … I go ‘OK, this is a guy who’s a classical liberal … and he’s writing something genuinely trying to be productive.’”

GLENN: Steven Crowder, welcome to the program. I was talking to a millennial yesterday, a very smart, well-thought out millennial who said, "You know, I don't agree with this, but I have to tell you what my feelings were when I first heard about this memo." She said, "I don't like people telling me what I can and can't do because of my genetics.

And she said, you know, "I heard the quotes, that he was saying that I can't do these things because I'm genetically predisposed to X, Y or Z." And she had a big problem with this.

Now, the good thing about this millennial is she moved past her feelings into thought, but that's not really happening, especially even in the press.

STEVEN: Yeah, well, thanks for having me, Glenn.

You're absolutely right. You know, a couple of points about the memo. I hate to use the fake news hashtag, but when CNN goes out and says, anti-diversity manifestos, they call it, like it's The Count of Monte Cristo writing on the stone wall, next to days in prison. Manifesto. Anti-diversity. And then it says anti-woman. Well, the quotes they take are where this guy essentially says, listen, Google is essentially pushing diversity, hiring for diversity's sake. And it hasn't really been that successful. We may want to -- and, by the way, I'm not saying that all men and women are the same. There's a significant overlap. Of course, there are people who would fall on both signs of the spectrum when it comes to attributes and perhaps some shortcomings.

But as a general rule, this may be why we don't have as many women in tech, and he talks about how women generally value work-life balance over status, whereas men will drive themselves into the -- they'll work themselves into the ground for status. It does say, "Yeah, you know, listen, women tend to handle stress more emotionally. It does list some characteristics that might not lend themselves well to high-stress tech situations."

But then, and here's what the media doesn't cover: On the flip side, he says, "No, I strongly believe in diversity." And I think if we want to hire more women, we might want to place emphasis on the -- on the issues where women perhaps are more valuable to the company.

For example, they're more cooperative. In general, they're more agreeable than their male counterparts. In general, they're more people-oriented. They're more empathetic.

We don't really place a strong value on those attributes that Google in these positions -- we might do better to do so.

So, listen, is that still hate speech? Do you lock this guy up with the Nazis? I don't know. Leave it up to people to decide. But when you read the entire memo in context, I can't see -- you know, Glenn, this is one of those issues where I read it, I go, okay. This is a guy who is a classical liberal. He even gets some digs in at conservatives in this memo. People read it. He's certainly not a right-winger. And he's writing something genuinely trying to be productive. Generally writing out points as to where Google may be able to improve.

And Google says, we can't -- this is hate speech. We have to fire this guy. Which tells me, if this guy can't do it, you know, you and I haven't got a shot. They're not interested in a dialogue. For the same reason we couldn't have anyone from Google or anyone on Google's side come on my program to argue this issue. They don't want to discuss issues anymore. They've gone too far around the back.

GLENN: So a couple of things: I would agree with you. And I have not been able to find somebody that can make a cogent argument on how this isn't the beginning of fascism in the Google world. The institutionalization of fascism in the Google world.

I really want to understand how silencing somebody who is really, truly making valid points. You don't have to agree with them. But bringing out a valid argument. How the best way to deal with that is to silence them and to shun them and to name-call. That's fascism.

And why this is concerning -- you know, if they were just making ashtrays, I wouldn't really care. But they're not.

STEVEN: Yeah.

GLENN: These are the people who are the gateway to information. And if they are saying, "This information isn't worthy to even be discussed at the levels in Google," are they really going to allow us schlubs who don't know anything to access that information in an equal and fair way? I don't think so. It wouldn't -- it wouldn't make any sense at all. It would be completely inconsistent.

STEVEN: Well, you're talking about a company -- my friend Owen Benjamin talked about this on the program. You're talking about a company where when you Google how to be a better man, it shows you articles written from lesbians. So they can't help you be a better man, nor do they have any interest in doing so.

As a matter of fact, you mentioned fascism. You know, if you Google fascism, it says far-right ideology. You know, and then description. Description. But if you Google communism or socialism, there's no mention of the left. There's no mention of the left side of the political spectrum.

It really is -- and here's the deal: They have the right to do what they want. They have the right to fire this guy. I think we all agree on that.

GLENN: Yep.

STEVEN: What they can't do is say, we believe in diversity. We believe in difference of opinions and then fire somebody for a difference of opinion. That's the issue here, is the dishonesty. When like you've said, I've read anywhere from between 60 to 80 percent of our online interactions occur either somewhere between Google, Facebook, Twitter, or Amazon.

So when you think of how much information is controlled, it really is -- and there are a few. Listen, what's so offensive, are we really going to start firing people because someone says men and women are different? Are we at that point where it's offensive to say, hey -- and anyone who is married knows that it's true.

And, by the way, hey -- hey, men -- you can't say men and women are different. Men and women are exactly the same. Men can do everything women can do, and women can do everything men can do with the exact same results.

By the way, let's celebrate diversity.

Did I step into a time? What happened? What world did I fall into?

GLENN: And the fact that women and men are exactly the same, except they can't play the same sport. That's unfair. You're going to put women. Really? Women are going to have to compete with men on the basketball.

Well, wait. You were just saying that there wasn't a biological difference. What are you talking about?

STEVEN: Yeah. Unless it's a transgender, then just let him into the octagon to beat the living daylights out of women. That's progress.

I think, Glenn, I think that this is a real opportunity -- the pendulum swing states both ways. We've talked about that. You kind of saw that with Bush. Then the sort of anti-establishment sentiment from young people. Then it swung the other way with Barack Obama.

But the pendulum is swinging so quickly now. And I think the left has gone too far for it to swing back. I think you're seeing too many liberals. And we see this with our content, a lot of people who used to be liberal going, I just can't get on board with this. Once they read the memo, people go, "You know, it's offensive to say that men are more task-oriented. It's offensive to say women are more emotional."

It really is at a point -- and, by the way, really, what hurts people here is that they don't feel good about it. The women took a sick day at Google. They were so offended at the notion that they might find work too stressful, that they read this memo and took a sick day.

By the way, not all women are this weak, just the feminists at Google. That's important to note. I'm sure -- I'm sure your wife isn't.

My wife's reaction was so earnest. And it just hit me like a Mack Truck. She just said, "Do you have to talk about it? It makes me just so ashamed. Ugh, women who complain like that. They're just so weak. They're so obnoxious. Most women don't like to be around them. They're just draining." That's what my wife said. Isn't it ironic that a non-feminist, conservative, Christian woman finds feminists to be obnoxious in their weakness? And that's where we are.

GLENN: That's really -- but that is the progressive mantra, is weakness. Celebrate -- not celebrate diversity. Celebrate your weakness, and we will compensate. We will be your defender.

I think your -- this -- this millennial who said this, you know, I -- you know, this is the way I felt. I don't like people telling me one thing.

Well, wait. The other side is telling you that, oh, yes, you can do it, but only with special exemptions. Only with special protections. Only with special training.

No. I'm telling you if that's what you want to do, go do it. Go do it. How is that offensive to say, you don't need somebody in between you. That's just somebody sucking you dry of all of your power.

STEVEN: Right. A couple of things: You know, they say, I don't like being told what I can and can't do. And conservatives are saying, well, listen, we're not really telling you what you can and can't do. But we can all find common ground on one issue: Pullups. Right? Liberals want to lower the PT requirements in the military with pullups so that women can join more easily. And we say, hey, women biologically can do fewer pullups. So there's a great litmus test.

As far as what's offensive -- you know, offensive now isn't about intent. And we've talked about this with the Google algorithms. You know, for the most advanced tech company in the world, right? On my videos, Muslim singles and gay cruise ads are playing.

Well, we're trying to fix the algorithms. You're Google. If you can't associate proper advertisers with my -- who can?

So, I mean, we're talking about people's feelings. That is what it comes down to Google. It's not about intent. It's not about context. Leftists don't really understand context. Or they don't value context, I should say. Certainly, as a whole. Anyone can feel bad about anything. I'm feeling miserable this morning. You know why? It's stupid. But I have some nagging injuries.

So I haven't been able to go to the gym. So I've been doing these -- these water weight exercises. You know, those foam dumbbells in the pool. And I was thinking, you know, hey, good for me. I'm going out. I'm doing something.

So I go on Amazon to look to buy some, as opposed to the public pool where I've been going. And then I read the reviews, and it's nothing but 77-year-olds talking about their aquatic aerobic classes. And then all of a sudden, Amazon is tracking with advertisements and the ads, every time I'm in my browser of reverse mortgages. Or Wilford Brimley with diabetes. And I feel bad. I feel bad. It's my own doing.

STU: I believe it's pronounced diabetes.

It's interesting, Steven, it's a great point on the physical part of it. Because it's exactly the point he made in the memo, which is: If you look at the top 100 meter times of all time, the world record holder for women is slower than the yearly best times for high school men. I mean, there's a clear difference here. Right?

However, what that does not mean is that the all-time world record holder is not going to be a hell of a lot faster than me trying to run 100-meter. Point being, yes, on average, there are differences. But there are women in Google all the time that are outperforming men all the time. It's just a commentary on averages, and nobody is going to bother to take a look at that.

STEVEN: Sure.

GLENN: And who is it that is devaluing the basic intrinsic worth of the sexes? I'm not.

I believe that Women Are From Mars, Men Are From venus, or whichever planet it is. I believe that we are different for many different reasons. But it's important that we -- oh, my gosh -- celebrate that diversity. That we look and say, "This trait in a woman of being less about stuff is good." It's a good thing.

STEVEN: Right.

GLENN: And at the same time, the man is worried about stuff or thinking about stuff. When you put those two together, you have a nice balance. Why are we trying to destroy -- first, say that what men are is -- has no value. And what women are naturally also has no value. You have to be this thing that is not -- neither male nor female.

STEVEN: Right. And that's kind of -- you know, I want to go back to Stu real quick. I want to answer that. But I'll throw another one into the mix. We talked about 100-meter dash. You want to know something else?

Chess. There's a women's division for chess. Think about that for a second. It's not even close, if you look at the top players of all time. There is no female Bobby Fischer.

Now, women can enter the men's division in chess, and there have been some outliers. Maybe a couple cracked the top ranks throughout time, but then they have an exclusively women's division in chess, which is just significantly further behind.

Now, that does not mean that women are less intelligent. Chess is not an indicator of intelligence. But it is -- let's remove the physical. It is absolutely an indicator of how someone's brains work, how it processes information.

We can see the difference between standard people and ADHD people. We can see the difference between, you know, people who simply read differently, who have different faster reading comprehensions. It doesn't mean they're smarter. Some people are wired differently biologically.

To what you said, Glenn, you know, Christians, we have used this term for a long time, complimentarianism. You know, it goes back to Christ. Really, the first diversity celebrationist, I guess you'd say, where he said, hey, husbands, be good to your wives.

That was kind of new, the way he really placed emphasis on treating the women as the best among you. And then, women, submit to your husbands. And submit in the Biblical sense. Not submit like Muhammad. You're going to get a fresh one if you don't do exactly what I say, but submit meaning respect the authority in the household and love your husband. So this is what we've known for a long time, the truth we believe to be self-evident.

And I do think -- and you guys can tell me if you've noticed this or if you think I'm wrong, I think it's forced a lot of people to reexamine issues. They thought they were liberalized. You know, people -- I've had people go back to the same-sex marriage issue and say, "You know, I really just thought conservatives were just a bunch of anti-gay bigots." But now when I go back and I see some of the arguments, whether I agree with them or not, but I see some of the arguments where people said, "You know what, I just don't believe men and women are interchangeable. I do believe that a father is of intrinsic value and a mother is of intrinsic value. And that they are unique and not interchangeable." You know, once we said that's not the case culturally, we kind of opened the floodgates. And I've had people say, you know, I have to look back and see where we went around the bend.

GLENN: Steven Crowder from Louder with Crowder. I think you're exactly right. And I'm seeing it in not just this, but in many things. Sitting in Los Angeles with, you know, liberals who would have just thought that we were all just racist bigots for the last ten years. Actually sitting around a table and them saying, you know what, I'm actually for the Tenth Amendment. And I thought that was all racist. And now, suddenly, I find myself going, "Yeah, you know what, maybe we should have that Tenth Amendment." And then realizing, "Holy cow, wait a minute. I may have been wrong on this. I have to reevaluate a lot." That is happening.

And if we can open our arms and not say, "Yeah, told you so," and just be decent human beings with -- with the -- with the open mind and honest arguments, I think we will welcome a lot of people into the fold.

Steven Crowder, LouderwithCrowder.com. Thank you so much. We'll talk to you again, Steven. Appreciate it.

RADIO

Will Medicaid cuts KILL Americans? Glenn reveals the FACTS!

Democrats claim that the Big, Beautiful Bill will take Medicaid and Medicare away from many Americans and even “kill” people. But is any of this true? Glenn Beck and Stu Burguiere review just the facts and explain who’s actually affected by the changes.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Can I address some of the hyperbole around the big, beautiful bill, just a little bit.

If there's anything in the big, beautiful bill to worry about, it's the increase in spending.

Because the spending ourself into oblivion is an actual threat.

To the country. But that's not what anybody is talking about. What everybody seems to be talking about is the tax cuts. Which were already there. Or the tax cuts like no tax for tips. Which you would think the party of the little people. You know, the Democrats. Would all be for. But they're not.

Because they're not party of the little people anymore. And those had to be offset.

Okay. Offset. By what?

Well, by cutting spending. But cutting what spending?

Not cutting spending. Let me just say this. If I said, you know, I made $250,000 a year. And this year, we were going to spend $300,000.
Okay?

And you would say, immediately, Glenn. You can't do that.

And I would say, I've been doing that for 30 years. Okay. You might say, the bank is not going to give a loan.

But then if I came to you and said, yeah. I'm spending $300,000 a year. And my wife and I make 250 or 200,000 a year. But, you know, next year, I was going to spend $500,000.

Did you get a raise? No. I didn't get a raise. I still make 250,000 dollars a year between my wife and I.

But I'm going to spend 500 and not 300. And then somebody came in, like an accountant with some muscle.

And they said, Glenn, you cannot spend $500,000 a year!

Would it make sense if I went back to spending 300, not 200, which I had.

But 300, which I had been spending every year, would it make sense to you to -- for me to say, my children are now going to starve? My children are now going to starve.

Look at the austerity program that I am on.

My gosh, they just -- no. They didn't cut anything. They must cut thinking.

They cut the increase inning spending.

That's what they cut.

And, Stu, could you please explain Medicare.

I mean, all of the people. I know they warned us.

I didn't believe the death squads would actually go out.

And, you know, they want these people off Medicare so badly.

Or Medicaid.

They just sent out death squads. Trump is not waiting for them to die, because he's not waiting for them to get their prescriptions now he just wants them slaughtered in the street.

STU: Yeah, that's the efficiency of the Trump administration. He wants these people dead so badly, he's just killing them in the streets. Actually, no, none of that is happening.

And the Medicaid cuts as you point out, are largely cuts to future increases that have not occurred.

The biggest chunk of this is the work requirements. You've heard this, Glenn.

And, you know, I went through this. And I was like, this can't possibly be what they mean.

I said, wait a minute. When they say work requirement cuts, what does that mean?

So I dove into it a little bit. Basically, what they're saying, you, if you're an able-bodied adult, so that does not include old people, does not include people who are sick and can't work. And it also does not include people who have small children, even if they are able-bodied.

And when I say small, I mean 12 and under. So if you have a 12-year-old. You're completely exempt from this.

But able-bodied adults.

GLENN: Okay. On people in wheelchairs.

STU: No. Gosh, again, I know this is tough. Yeah, this is where it gets difficult.

GLENN: Wait. I'm having a hard time following this. What now?.

STU: So you're an able-bodied adult, that does not have small children.

GLENN: No small children.

STU: You would be required to get Medicaid, to work 20 hours a week.

Now, you might --

GLENN: Twenty hours a week.

STU: Or 80 hours a month.

GLENN: Or 80 hours a month.

That's almost half a full-time job.

STU: Now, you might say to yourself. And this is actually true.

Some people can't get jobs. Right?

I'm sure, there are people trying to get part-time jobs. And maybe can't get them.

Those people will just lose their Medicaid. Well, as you may understand.

Of course not.

Because what you have to do then is go through a process, that you're basically telling them, you're attempting to get a job. Or you're volunteering somewhere, to meet that requirement.

So basically, you have to fill out -- yeah. It's like unemployment.

You have to at least fill out some paperwork here.

GLENN: It's the exact opposite.

Let me see if I have this right.

It's the exact opposite of unemployment which we've had forever.

Which if you're looking for a job, but can't get it. You can still have unemployment.

But it's the exact opposite. Right?

Especially if you're nursing sextuplets.

STU: Again, you're not very close to the truth.

You're a little bit off on this one.

GLENN: No. Huh!

STU: By the way, Glenn, you might say to yourself, wait. How is that a Medicaid cut?

Because they're not cutting anyone's eligibility here. Unless they don't want to meet the requirement.

Of course, there's always been requirements to all of these programs.

So meeting the requirements have always been part of getting on to Medicaid.

This requirement, if you decide basically not to do it. And not participate. And not fill out the paperwork.

Then, yes. You will lose your Medicaid coverage.

What they're saying, hold on. All right.

GLENN: No. I just want to make sure I have it right.

STU: Yes.

GLENN: If you are blind, you're deaf.

STU: No. Again, no.

GLENN: You have no friends, and you can't get out of the house, and you've been on Medicaid, somehow or another, you signed up for that. But now, you don't even know, because you can't hear the news. You certainly can't fill out a form. Because you have no eyes.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: They just come in and rip your Medicaid away?

STU: No. None of what you said is accurate.

Though, it is calm considering some of the accusations -- comparisons made bit left right now.

But, yeah.

So if you are an able-bodied adult that decides, you know what, I don't feel like filling out the paperwork, or I don't feel like going to job interviews, or I don't feel like volunteering, then yes. You could lose -- but that's what they're saying the cuts are.

They think 317 billion dollars worth of people will not bother doing those things. For whatever reason. Maybe because they had more money than they said. Maybe because they're lazy.

Maybe because -- I'm sure there's some case where some -- I don't know.

I can't think of the case.

GLENN: Blind person.

STU: Because the ailments are covered here.

But, yes. Maybe it's some particular skin color. Then they would reject you.

I don't know.

And it's not just that. There are other cuts. For example, some of the cuts are, they're eliminate duplicate Medicaid enrollment.

If you happen to have Medicaid.

GLENN: I can't double-dip.

STU: In two different states. They're going to try to stop you from having it in two states.

And instead, make you have it one state. Uh-huh.

GLENN: Hold on just one second.

I have two legs. I have two arms. I have two eyes. I have two nostrils. I have two ears.

I can't have two Medicaid coverages. It's insane!

STU: I know.

It's really, really brutal.

GLENN: I have two kidneys. I can only have one kidney now, you know, repaired?

STU: Now --

GLENN: Is that what you're saying?

STU: That's not what I'm saying. But, yes. I'm sure that's what's being reported out there by Dana Bash.

Another one, I will give you here, Glenn. They talked about immigrants.

You know, immigrants getting on their Medicaid cut. Now, this is tough. What this bill does, I want you to hold on to your hat here, Glenn.

GLENN: Okay.

STU: If you have green card holders and other certain immigrants, some will lose their coverage. Or actually, sorry, eligibility will -- retain for those people.

Certain other immigrants may lose their coverage. The current law says, all who are lawfully present.

That will kick in after a -- how many year waiting period?

Let me guess, it's a five-year waiting period.

So it will be the next president who has to deal with this, when future Congress will just put it right back in. And it's not a savings at all.

And then you have Medicaid death checks. They're going to require --

GLENN: They're checking on whether your debt? Look at this! It's crazy.

STU: It's brutal. It really is.

GLENN: You're going to kick all of the immigrants off in five years.

STU: No.

GLENN: And then you're checking to see if old people are dead!

When will you leave these people alone?

STU: I know. So, anyway, we can go through this stuff all day. But as you point out, most of this stuff is not at all, what the left is saying it is.

It's not the desperate Medicaid cuts that are going to ruin everybody's lives. A lot of them are just really common sense stuff, making sure you don't have them in two states. I don't know what the positive argument is for that. But they'll make it.

GLENN: Well, they don't have one. That's why they don't make it about that.

RADIO

Liz Wheeler BLASTS Pam Bondi’s Epstein deception

The Department of Justice and FBI are now claiming that there NEVER was any Epstein client list and nobody else needs to be charged. But what about Attorney General Pam Bondi’s previous claim that the list was on her desk?! BlazeTV host Liz Wheeler, who had been given one of Bondi’s ill-fated “Epstein Files” binders, joins Glenn Beck to discuss how the MAGA movement should react to the claims made by Bondi, Kash Patel, and Dan Bongino.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Liz Wheeler. Liz wrote to me early today. Let me see if I can -- may I quote you here, Liz?

LIZ: Yes, you may. Thanks for having me, Glenn.

GLENN: Okay. Yeah. You bet. She said, give me one good reason why I shouldn't scream for Pam Bondi to be fired today? And this was at 5 o'clock in the morning. And I said, I'm sleepy. But I don't think I can.

I don't think I can give you a reason not to -- not to call for her firing today. But I want you to explain, why do you feel this way?

LIZ: It's not something that I say lightly. I didn't say it immediately after the White House, Epstein binder debacle. And I want to very prudently and judiciously make this case to you today and to make this case to President Trump too. Because Pam Bondi has become a liability to her administration, despite her loyalty in other areas. So let's start with the announcement from the Department of Justice last night.

A lot of us have a lot of questions about this announcement. It just doesn't ring true with a lot of us. We see a lot of evidence before our eyes that contradicts what we're being told without evidence to believe by the FBI and the Department of Justice. And it grates on us.

Because like you mentioned, we are friends with Kash Patel and Dan Bongino.

They're the good guys. We trust them.

And yet, we have to use our critical thinking faculties and look at the evidence before our eyes.

So it smells fishy. You'll notice it says nothing about whether Jeffrey Epstein was an intelligence asset.

Which, as you mentioned, Alex Acosta, the attorney who cut the sweetheart deal originally with Epstein. Said he was, before Accosta's emails mysteriously disappeared. So we have questions about that.

There are also outstanding, important questions about Kash Patel and Dan Bongino's definitive pronouncement, that Epstein killed himself.

I'm sorry. I don't think the video that they released proves definitively that they were stating that case.

GLENN: Why?

LIZ: Because it does not show what's happening in the cell. It just shows the cell door. We don't actually see him kill himself.

GLENN: Right. But we know that nobody came in.

LIZ: Through that door.

GLENN: Where are they going to go true, the little bars? Little drag la? A little bat.

LIZ: I don't know what the internal cell looks like. I don't know what they have. I don't know if they have fire escape routes. I don't know if they have adjoining doors. I don't know if they have emergency exits. I don't know if that video was doctored or not.

I don't know enough about that, to simply take that one piece of evidence.

GLENN: Okay. So that's a good point.

Just show us the room. Show us what's inside the room.

LIZ: Yes. We need more evidence.

GLENN: That's reasonable.

LIZ: One piece of evidence.

It's not enough.

GLENN: Yeah.

LIZ: The other thing, I wonder with Kash Patel and Dan Bongino are relying too much on the FBI's prior investigation to the FBI of old is a reliable narrator. I don't know who conducted those investigations, or if it was done soundly. I doubt it was done soundly.

GLENN: So may I just interject here.

LIZ: Yes.

GLENN: I talked to Dan Bongino a few weeks ago about this off-air. And, Glenn, we are turning over every stone. We are going to get to the bottom of it.

We are -- so, I mean, he led me to believe that, and I believed him. And I still do.

That he was using new resources. Opening the investigation in -- in a new way. Following it closely.

And I do believe Dan Bongino is one of the good guys.

LIZ: I do too. And I've been told the same thing by high-ranking officials in the FBI. Who I trust. They're trustworthy people.

I do think, that it might not be possible at this point, to piece together everything, because we know there have been reports of evidence, destruction.

So my issue with that definitive statement was the definitive nature of it.

This 100 percent happened this way. Epstein killed himself. Instead of saving, we don't have enough evidence to piece this together, or the evidence we have points to this.

All that being said, though, I want to talk about what happened last night.

Because this brings to us attorney general Pam Bondi, who just months ago said she had the Epstein client list on her desk.

When I went back to look at that video, the clip of her on Fox News, again, this morning, to make sure that there was not context that I was lacking, that there was not bungled phraseology, maybe nerves being on the air.

I went back and listened to it. She said definitively, she had the Epstein client list on her desk.

Now, fast forward to yesterday, she says that it doesn't exist, that they don't have it.

That is a really big problem. If I'm president today --

GLENN: Okay. Let me play this, from Bondi. This is back in February. Here is the actual statement she made.

Listen.

VOICE: The DOJ may be releasing the list of Epstein's clients. Will that really happen?

VOICE: It's sitting on my desk right now, to review.

That's been a directive by President Trump. I'm reviewing that. I'm reviewing JFK files. MLK files. That's all in the process of being reviewed, because that was done at the directive of the president from all of these agencies.

VOICE: So have you seen anything, that you said, oh, my gosh?

VOICE: Not yet.

VOICE: Okay. Well, we'll check back with you.

GLENN: Okay. So now let me take you back to Kash Patel. Because something similar was said to me. Here he is. Cut 12.

So who has Jeffrey Epstein's?

VOICE: Black book? FBI.

GLENN: But who?

VOICE: Oh, that's under direct control of the director of the FBI. Just like the manifesto from the Nashville school shooting. The Catholic school. We still haven't seen that, right?

It's not the Nashville police or PD saying, we don't want this out. The FBI airmailed into that operation and said, this is not getting out. Because they do that because this is another government gangster operation.

All these local law enforcement communities get funding from the DOJ and FBI from local programs. And if you don't cooperate, you're not getting your million dollars for this.

That's a lot of money from these local districts. That's how they play the game. That's why you don't have a black book.

GLENN: Because the black book, it's not just sitting. That's Hoover power times ten.

VOICE: And to me, that's a thing I think President Trump should run on. On day one, roll out the black book.

And not just that, on day one, all the text messages and communications we were told were deleted. On day one, play the rest of the video of the pipe bomber.

You know, he needs -- one of the reforms I talk about in government gangsters.

Is you need a central node to be continuously declassifying. This is another thing they do. They overclassify.

They are not telling you -- as a former number two in the IC, they overclassify 50 percent of the stuff there to protect the Deep State.

Oh, no.

You can't see that. Nothing to see here.

Gina was a master at it. Of doing it. And we haven't seen half of the Russiagate report we wrote. Still under lock and key.

On how the ICA was originally constructed. We went -- we put 10,000 man-hours against John Brennan's team that did it.

And we found out why they came up with their bogus conclusions. We couldn't sell it with the world.

Because we couldn't talk about it. And the government cancers came in and buried it.

All of these things, there needs to be a continuing central power whether it's the White House or off-site that says, every request that comes in.
Just right out the door. As long as it's not awe major threat to national security.

VOICE: Liz, they're both very clear.

It existed. But Pam Bondi did not say, she had any names in it.

She kind of made me feel like she hadn't really looked at it.

Kash Patel gave me the impression, he had seen it. Or at least he knew about it.

So how do we go from here?

VOICE: Yes. Listen.

People care deeply about the Epstein files because there was a grisly crime that we know for a fact that was committed.

Epstein was convicted of that.

It wasn't speculative. He was convicted of that. People feel that there's evidence of a cover-up. Not -- we're not inventing a conspiracy. There's evidence of a cover-up of this crime.

Pam Bondi as attorney general has exacerbated this trust. And it gives me no pleasure to say this. Because I like to give the benefit of the doubt to people that are on our side.

But going back to that day in the White House, this February. I haven't told this part of the story before.

Attorney General Pam Bondi, when we met with her. We weren't at the White House to meet with her. We just met with her while she was there.

Pam Bondi bragged to us about making that cover sheet on the binder, the one that read the most transparent administration in history.

She said, she had made it. She had printed it. She was proud of it. She placed it on that binder.

Glenn, to call that a severe lack of judgment would be the understatement of the year. There is no way, in my mind, and I've tried every way to Sunday, to square that behavior with the announcement that we got last night with the Department of Justice.

Pam Bondi told us at the time, she said, I've requested the Epstein files, the files in the binder, were the ones given to me. Nothing was in them, she told us at the time. Then a whistle-blower told her, she told us. And said the FDNY was hiding other files. That's the story she had told us, that there's been a Deep State cover-up. So at the time, after we were given these binders, we waited. Right? You give your side the benefit of the doubt. Maybe Pam Bondi will come up with the goods, even though the rollout was botched to say the least.

But she -- this is another thing I have not discussed publicly before. She said, she had not seen the FDNY documents at the time that she was telling us about them.

I asked her directly that day in the White House. When she said, a whistle-blower told us about these truckloads of FDNY documents. I said, have you seen them? She said no, she sent the request and they're brining them to her.

So contextualizing all of this, suddenly this seems like unforgivable behavior.

How could she give the American people -- not just me. I don't care about how this impacts me. How can she give the American people those binders that contain nothing, while at the same time, bragging about the cover sheet that she made.

The most transparent administration in history. And tell us that the FDNY had the real goods, that the binder was just proof of a Deep State cover-up. That was the real story she told us. Only now to say, sorry, there's actually nothing.

So it leaves us with this situation. What are the options? The options are, well, was she herself set up by some Deep State FBI officials trying to make a fool of her? It's possible, maybe even probable.

GLENN: Possible.

LIZ: But here's the thing, if you're smart, if you're savvy, if you're sharp enough to be Attorney General of the United States, you verify such information.

You don't assume its veracity and publicize it for clicks. And that's what she did.

So then we get to the point, that we think, okay. Well, what does this say about her judgment?

Is she just click thirsty? Is she wanting to be a Fox News star? Did she get out over her skis, trying to make news, being a mega champion with those binders, that maybe she had not verified the contents of, and she definitely hadn't verified the contents of the FDNY truckload. You can't square this announcement with the binders. With the binders in February, unless you allow for the idea that Pam Bondi could be operating in a way that is unacceptable, when on Fox News. Said she had a client list on her desk to review, when she hadn't looked at the documents.

And was just saying that to be a television star. I say this. In somewhat sorrowfully. If I'm President Trump, I would not tolerate this behavior anymore. She's become a liability to the administration. I think the administration is probably just now coming to the realization of how much goodwill this whole debacle has cost them with their voters.

And Pam Bondi is not worth it. She's a liability. It's time to move on.

RADIO

The INCREDIBLE TRUE Story of Benjamin Franklin

Was Benjamin Franklin the greatest and most modern Founding Father? This July 4th week, “The Greatest American” author Mark Skousen joins Glenn Beck to tell the incredible and true story of Benjamin Franklin.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Dr. Mark Skousen, friend of the program, friend of mine. America's economist.

He is -- he has written a new book on the greatest American and the greatest American, he says is Ben Franklin. And I tend to agree with him. He's at least in the top five greatest Americans. Welcome to the program, Mark. How are you?

MARK: I'm doing well. We're out here in the Mediterranean Sea right now on a cruise, but isn't it great technology that even Ben Franklin would love?

GLENN: You know, I don't think people really understand the genius of Ben Franklin. I mean, there's this great article in the times of London.

I don't remember when. But he was going back to London. He was going to challenge the king.

And he was going back. And they said, don't let his boat come in to dock.

Because he's been working with electricity, and he has a ray gun, and he will vaporize, you know, all of London.

I mean, he was -- he was the Elon Musk of his day, but he was almost more magical, because people didn't understand it.

Back then. What did you find in writing this book about Ben Franklin, that you think most people just don't know?

MARK: Well, this is the thing. So when I wrote the greatest American, I thought to myself, everybody -- lots of books have been written on his biography.

So what I did was I came up with 80 chapters on how he is the most modern of all the Founders. And how he could talk about the modern issues of today, whether it's trade or taxes or inflation or war. Discrimination. Inequality.

I have a chapter on each one of these, in the greatest American.

And, you know, he was a Jack-of-all-trades.
And the master of all, on top of it!

So one of the things I thought would be really cool, if you put my book, on every coffee table in America, and people came in to visit, they would look at this book. And there might be an argument, as you say, as to who is the greatest American. Whether it's George Washington or Elon Musk, or what have you.

GLENN: Whatever.

MARK: When they see the picture of Ben Franklin, they sit there and nod their head. And say, wow. This is the guy I want to sit down with and talk to.

And have a beer with.

Because if you sat with some of the other Founders, they would get in an argument with you. Or they would refuse to answer the question. Or what have you.

But Franklin was willing to talk to a janitor, as well as the king of France. And that's pretty unique.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah. He could.

He was an amazing guy. So tell me, in your research of him, you know, you always hear that, oh, Ben Franklin was a notorious womanizer, and everything else.

And he abandoned his wife. Deborah? Was that her name?

MARK: Yes. Deborah. That's correct.

GLENN: Did that -- what's true, or what's not true about that?

MARK: So he certainly was the most liberal-minded when it came to the sexual revolution.

That's why I say, he's the most modern of the Founders. Because he was not prudish like John and Abigail Adams, who thought he was a reprobate. And sinner. And not a churchgoer. And stuff like that.

GLENN: Right.

MARK: So, yes. He was -- the ladies loved him. And he loved the ladies.

There's no question about that, that he was a bit of a playboy. And, in fact, he even admits in his autobiography, of having an illegitimate child, William. But then he settled down. He married Deborah. And, yes, Deborah and him, they did separate because -- and it was really more her fault than his, because when he went to London as a London agent, she had extreme aversion to going out on this -- the seas. It was a dangerous time period.

So it's kind of like people don't like to fly on airplanes today. So they did grow apart. There's no question about that.

But they maintained their -- their love for each other.

And, as a matter of fact, when Franklin died, he's buried right next to Deborah. So I think that's an indication of their -- their love and so forth. But they were very different personalities. She was very focused on -- on more of the home issues. She was not a public intellectual.

She would not feel comfortable in the same conversations that Franklin would have with scientists.

And with public thinkers, and stuff like that. So they definitely differed in their personality.

GLENN: The -- the story about his son William is one of the saddest chapters.

I mean, you know, Thomas Paine kind of looked at him as a father figure. And he -- you know, Ben Franklin did have a son, William, as you said. And they -- they had a really bad falling out.

Can you quickly tell that story?

MARK: Yeah. So I have a chapter on that very issue. Because who were his enemies, and he did have a number of enemies, including John Adams, at one point. But in the case of William, he, Franklin, arranged for William to be the governor of New Jersey. And he maintained his loyalty. He was a loyalist. Billy was throughout the American Revolution!

And at the end of the American Revolution, or during the American Revolution, Franklin writes his son and he said, it's one thing to -- we can differ on various issues.

But when you actually raise money, raise armaments to attack me, this was beyond the pale.

This is not something that you should have done. And then at the end of his letter, he says, this is a disagreeable subject!

I drop it. So you can feel that emotion, that anger.

And, yes. He removed him from -- from his will.

So there -- there -- Franklin got along with almost everyone.

And I have a whole chapter on how to deal in the greatest American. How to deal with enemies and be how to make your enemies, your friends.

But this was one example where he just couldn't cross over and forgive him. For what the -- for what we had done.

GLENN: I don't think --

CHIP: Just like you are saying.

GLENN: I think I would have a hard time doing that too if my son was raising funds and military against me. It would be kind of hard to forgive.

Mark, thank you so much for your work. It's always good to talk to you.

The name of the book is by Mark Skousen. And it is called The Greatest American. It's all about Ben Franklin. If you don't know anything about Ben Franklin, you will fall in love with him. You will absolutely fall in love with him. Mark Skousen is the author. The name of the book again, The Greatest American.

Glenn's Show Prep

Stephen Crowder: Google Clearly Doesn’t ‘Want to Discuss Issues Anymore’

Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell's Connections to Intel Agencies

Will Medicaid cuts KILL Americans? Glenn reveals the FACTS!

Transcript

Liz Wheeler BLASTS Pam Bondi’s Epstein deception

Transcript

The INCREDIBLE TRUE Story of Benjamin Franklin

Transcript