BLOG

‘Not a Game-Player’: Is This Why Trey Gowdy Is Leaving Congress?

What happened?

Rep. Trey Gowdy has announced that he won’t seek re-election in South Carolina’s 4th Congressional District.

Is he done with politics?

In Gowdy’s own words, “there is a time to come and a time to go” when it comes to politics. The former federal prosecutor said he will go back to the justice system and won’t seek office again.

“Whatever skills I may have are better utilized in a courtroom than in Congress, and I enjoy our justice system more than our political system,” Gowdy said in a statement. “As I look back on my career, it is the jobs that both seek and reward fairness that are most rewarding.”

Was this a shock?

Yes and no. Gowdy’s announcement came as a surprise, but the congressman has reportedly been tired of political games for a long time.

“I always said the reason @TGowdySC was amazing at his job was bc he disliked politics so much,” U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations and former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley said in a tweet.

Glenn’s take:

While Gowdy has been praised by his fellow Republicans, Democrats have slammed him for his role leading the Benghazi investigation.

“That dichotomy is probably why Gowdy is leaving,” Glenn said on today’s show. “He’s not a game-player.”

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: Well, House Republicans are going to have to find a new favorite prosecutor. Yesterday, Republican Trey Gowdy of South Carolina announced he's not going to run for reelection this fall. That's a bummer. He has been a representative since 2010. He was a Tea Party guy. And I think it's just Gowdy has had enough of Washington, DC.

He came in. He really gained prominence in 2012. He was chairman of the Special House Panel that investigated the attacks on Benghazi. He found a lot of fault with the then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the way she handled the crisis.

Through the Benghazi investigation, the House panel discovered Hillary's extra special private email server, which she used for government business. The email server that is one of multiple excuses Democrats use to explain away Hillary's impossible loss to Trump. That was Trey Gowdy.

Republicans in -- in Congress, like the cross-examination skills that Gowdy has brought from his background as a prosecutor. He is one of the best. He knew how to ask tough questions, precise questions, and questions that drilled down and got to the truth.

Most recently, as House Oversight Committee Chairman, Gowdy has been concerned with the integrity of the FBI's investigation into possible Russia collusion.

He is particularly concerned about the text messages between the two FBI agents, who are close to the investigation that reveal their anti-Trump bias. That FISA memo may come out as early as today.

Speculation now is that Gowdy is leaving Congress for a possible federal judgeship, which would be fantastic.

So far, his office maintains that he's just going back to his private law firm in South Carolina.

The national Republican congressional committee chairman says Trey Gowdy exemplifies the persona of a public servant. On the other hand, the Democrats said he made a mockery of the congressional oversight process. That's probably -- that dichotomy is probably why Gowdy is leaving. He's not a game-player. Yesterday, he said, I enjoy our justice system more than our political system.

And as I look back on my career, it's the jobs that seek and reward fairness that are the most rewarding.

Seeking and rewarding fairness. Yeah. That's what politicians always say they're trying to do. However, they end up just dishing out unfairness. This is why Gowdy is leaving it all behind.

EVERY Constitutional Right that Biden’s New “Red Flag” Office VIOLATES
RADIO

EVERY Constitutional Right that Biden’s New “Red Flag” Office VIOLATES

President Biden’s Department of Justice has launched a new office to train state and local authorities on how to use red flag laws to confiscate guns from people who could pose a “threat.” But what does it consider to be a threat? People have already accused this "National Extreme Risk Protection Order Resource Center" of violating the Second Amendment. But Glenn believes it may violate a handful more of the Bill of Rights. Glenn reviews how the Department of Justice has sidestepped Amendments 1-6 of the Constitution with this order, along with others.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So, you know, I thought we would look at the Constitution. A caller last hour was right on the money. When he said, you know, this center, that can take your gun away, without due process. Yeah. That's -- that's a big one. That's a big one. That's a violation of the Second Amendment. But it's also a violation of many other amendments. I want to go through the -- the -- you know, just the first ten amendments.

Okay?

First of all, do you know how the Bill of Rights came about?

Listen to what they wrote.

This is at the top of the page. Resolved. Resolved by the Senate and the House of representatives of the United States of America. In Congress, assembled. Two-thirds of both houses concurring. That the following articles be proposed to the legislatures of several states, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States. So here's a group of people. Imagine this. Two-thirds, say, we believe these things should be done. But we have to send them to all of the states to ratify, and they need two-thirds to be able to pass it in their states. And then we will need two-thirds of all the states to agree. Okay?

Wow. What a process! And what are they trying to do, get themselves a raise? Give themselves more power? No.

The exact opposite. Here's what they say. The amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which articles when ratified by three-fourths of the legislatures to be valid in all intents and purposes, as part of said Constitution.

Articles, in addition to, and amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, ratified by the legislature of several states.

They're saying here, that the -- after the convention, a number of states, having at the time, adopted the Constitution.

This is in the little preamble here. Expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse its power.

So the guys in the government said, I am afraid people will abuse the power and misunderstand the Constitution.

So, quote, further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added. And as extending the ground of public confidence, in the government. Will best ensure the -- the benefit ends of the institution.

So they're saying, look, nobody trusts the government right now.

Does that sound familiar. Nobody trusts the government right now.

So we want to pass several amendments right here, that will protect the rights. And make sure that the hands are tied of the federal government.

They're saying, these are restrictive clauses. And by telling the people, we will never do these things.

Confidence will be gained. I contend, our -- our problem is, we're no longer unified on these ten articles. We no longer care about them. We no longer learn them. Teach them. Know them.

So here's article one. Amendment number one. Congress shall make no law, respecting an establishment of religion.

I contend, we are violating that right now. Because what we are celebrating is a religion.

It has a cult following. It has nothing to do with science.

Or even common sense. It has a tribunal. That will excommunicate you from society. If you don't get involved. It has rituals. It has laws, that you just must accept on faith. I know that's pushing it. But I think they're doing that. They are also breaking the second part of the First Amendment. Prohibiting the free exercise of religion. They did that during COVID. Abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. And the right of the people to peacefully assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. They don't want you standing up. They don't want you standing up. They will do everything they can to make sure you are sitting down. Enough of this Christian nationalist stuff. Enough that. Don't dismiss it. It's real. It's very, very small. But it's real.

So don't call yourself a Christian nationalist. Don't allow yourself to fall into that trap. You might be a Christian. But you are also a constitutionalist. You believe in the Constitution of the United States, and the articles of the Constitution of the Bill of Rights. You believe in all of that stuff. That's all you want.

Article II, a well-regulated militia being necessary to a free state. The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

That's the one that everyone should look to, on this particular new center from the Department of Justice. They -- well-regulated militia. Would that make sense? Would it make sense, that the people couldn't have guns? And the federal government would have a huge army? No. In fact, we never had a standing army. We were the soldiers. We would be called up to arms. So you would have your own arms. And then when there was war, you would be called up in a militia. Okay? But you had the right to protect yourself with a gun as well. No. That was for fishing or hunting. Or one of those things. No. It wasn't. No, it wasn't. Article three. I think we can skip over. Well, no. Actually, not. No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war. But in a manor to be prescribed by law. So article three, I think you could make the case. I don't think you would win. But you could make the case, that our government is quartered. Soldiers are quartered in our house. Because they are in a public/private partnership. With Amazon. And everybody else.

They are -- they are gaining access to our papers. To our letters. To our emails. To our phone calls.

That's what the government was doing, that made this article important.

The king would say. You know what, find out what those guys are doing over there.

And, you know what, just go into their house. You live there. I will quarter you into their house. So you can spy on them.

Well, it's just in a different way. But that's what's happening. Fourth Amendment. The right of people to be secure in their persons. Do you feel secure in your person?

Houses. Paper. Effects. Against all unreasonable search and seizures. Shall not be violated. It's violated all the time.

We've talked about this many times. How many people have been driving down the street. And they have money in their car. And they were going to buy another car. They will buy it in cash. And they're stopped. Their cash is taken. No due process. I think you're a drug lord. Wait. What?

No warrants shall issue. But upon probable cause. This is a general warrant. This is why they -- this is why this is in here. In article four. No warrants shall be -- no warrants shall issue. But upon probable cause. General warrants, used to be, you know, there's something going on with that guy. Go find out.

And they could search for anything. Anywhere. No. No general warrants.

You have to know, and tell the judge, I'm going in, for this document, or this particular item. And I believe it's here!

Great. So the judge will say, you can go there, in their house. And look for it. But no general warrants. You can't occasion you can't go in and just try to find something. No person shall be held to answer for capital. Otherwise, infamous crime, unless the presentment or indictment of a grand jury. Except in cases, arriving in the land or Naval forces, or in the militia when in actual service in time of war, or public danger. Nor shall any person be subject to the same offense twice, to be put in jeopardy of life or limb.

Nor shall he be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. Nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property. Without due process of law.

Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

Those are being violated, but in particular, with this new center, where they can take -- come into your house, and take your guns without due process.

Clear violation of the Bill of Rights. Clear. So you have three of them now. That have been broken just for this one law. Don't tell me I love democracy. Don't tell me you love freedom. Don't tell me you're trying to save the republic, and you love the Constitution if you're violating this many. And we're only halfway through. You're in direct violation of the Bill of Rights.

Article six, in all criminal prosecution. The accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial. Has that happened with those who are still waiting for trial for January 6th?

How is it they can -- they have to wait so long?

But Donald Trump has to be done by this summer?

Why is that? Are all men created equal?

Are we -- are we -- are we looking at the people of January 6th?

With the same blind justice eyes, as Donald Trump? No. Of course, we're not.

Violation of the Constitution by an impartial jury of the state and district, wherein the crime shall have been committed.

In partial jury. If you can't get an impartial jury. What do you do?

You can't get an impartial jury, you ask for a change of venue, where you can get an impartial jury. You don't have an impartial jury pool in Washington, DC. You don't. And to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. To be confronted with the witnesses against him. To have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor and have the assistance of council for his defense.

In this new center that they have announced, you don't get the due process.

You don't get to face the witness. You don't know the cause of accusation.

You have nothing.

On your side.

New York Court Hands Trump a HUGE Victory Over $454 Million Bond
RADIO

New York Court Hands Trump a HUGE Victory Over $454 Million Bond

A New York court has issued a massive ruling in the state’s fraud case against former president Donald Trump. New York Attorney General Letitia James had threatened to seize Trump’s assets in New York City if he didn’t post a $454 million bond. But the court has lowered the necessary bond payment to $175 million and given him 10 more days to post it. Plus, in a big win for ALL New York business owners, the judge has allowed Trump to continue running his businesses in NYC. Glenn and Stu review the ruling and explain why it’s a huge win.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Welcome to the Glenn Beck Program. We have some breaking news. It looks like the judge -- the panel of judges, has actually done Donald Trump a little bit of a favor here.

STU: I would say, it's -- it's a favor. I don't know if it's the right way of saying it. A massive amount of decrease in the amount of money he needed to come up with. If you remember it was $464 million. He claimed he could not come up with that amount for a bond. Went to court. Tried to overturn that. And they have reduced it significantly to $175 million.

So over a 60 percent reduction in that number. Now, of course, 175 million to my taste, is still excessive and ridiculous for what's gone on here.

GLENN: Completely excessive and ridiculous. Nothing ever like this.

STU: No.

GLENN: And as you -- as we've noted, many, many times, I did a whole show on this, on Stu Does America, where you go through the ways that this rule has been used historically. And there are no parallels, at all, to what has happened with Donald Trump. It's quite clearly and quite obviously a personal persecution, whether you like Trump or not. And so -- but this is a big difference, because he can probably come up with $175 million instead of the 464. So huge deal.

A massive victory for Donald Trump in this case. And I'm curious to see. Because Latisha James has gone through the ritual of posting over and over again the amount owed by Donald Trump, like bragging about it. Because it keeps going up, as Andy McCarthy mentioned. Was 100-some-odd-thousand dollars a day, and she just keeps mentioning it. I wonder if she will continue that process now that it's gone down by over 60 percent. We will see. Because she's been bragging about this for, you know, weeks and weeks. And now takes a massive hit. And I think a blatantly obvious one. Right?

I think anyone who looks at this, can fairly tell, this is ridiculous from the beginning. And now a big slap in the face, for this original ruling.

GLENN: I'm wondering if he could come up with the 171.

STU: I would think so.

You know, he claimed -- one filing. To have $400 million in cash. Now, he had to come up with a bond for the E. Jean Carroll thing, which was 90-something million, which would suck some of that out.

Whether he could do that, probably all himself. However, when you have that sort of money. You can also -- when you have that sort of cash laying around. You can usually get someone to loan you that. With the cash as collateral very easily.

Regardless of the process he goes through. You would think, he would be able to get this.

Again --

GLENN: If you could find a bank.

STU: Yeah. Although, you know, this -- I'm of the view.

And I've mentioned this before. This is just my own speculation. Is that Donald Trump could have come up with the $464 million.

He correctly argues, that is completely unfair.

And I think, you know, given time, he could come up with that sort of money.

But why not play this out? Why not push this as far as you can? It will take a long time, until you, actually, start seizing property. As Andy laid out a little earlier. And why not use that time, to the best of your ability, to fight this off. Because I think he's very likely to win. I think he's very likely to win in an appeal. Or at least have this reduced to maybe a dollar fine. Or 10,000-dollar fine. Or and that would be saw so what aligned with reality. I think he eventually wins this. The longer he can play this out, without having to give up resources. The better.

GLENN: You know, the one thing that is good from all of this. And I'm trying to look at the bright side on everything, as much as I can. And I can usually never find it. Because that bright side has been snuffed out long ago.

Anyway, the bright side on this. In some ways, is I don't think people really understood, what it was like, back in the Jim Crow days.

I don't think white people really understood, where -- what -- it was like, where there's not a chance you're getting a fair trial.

Not a chance.

And, kids, don't trust the police. We don't -- we don't understand that.

And now, this injustice is being served, on so many Americans. From the FBI to the Justice Department. To the -- to the court system, in Donald Trump's case. And it does give you a view on how important justice is. The kind of justice that many of us have taken for granted. Our whole lives. You know, that's -- that's all right. The courts will figure it out.

STU: Yeah. And how many times have we said lately, that the courts are the only thing standing between us and chaos? They've been probably the shining, you know, light when it comes to justice lately. As we've seen in the Supreme Court many times, to think of where this is going. And how close we are. To that precipice. We really are on the precipice of disaster, when it comes to this. I'm just -- I'm glad to see though, that at least, there's something. Like even -- even in these cases. Even with someone, like Donald Trump. Who they're obviously trying to take out. The system does have a way of -- of coming through at the end. And I think, you know, might be -- might need to go all the way to the Supreme Court. But it does seem to play out, the right way, a lot of times. I don't know. Maybe the system holds together. It doesn't feel like it will. But it has so far.

The BIGGEST Reason Why Glenn is AGAINST the TikTok Bill
RADIO

The BIGGEST Reason Why Glenn is AGAINST the TikTok Bill

Congress is debating a bill that would force the Chinese company that owns TikTok to either divest from the app or face a TikTok ban in America. But is this bill a good idea, or is it a Trojan Horse that would give the government the power to go after American companies as well? Glenn reviews what’s really in the bill and why he’s siding with its opponents. Plus, he reviews the debate he hosted between Rep. Chip Roy, who co-sponsored it, and Rep. Thomas Massie, who opposes it, and reveals his biggest takeaway from all of this.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: If you miss last night's Wednesday night show, you missed a lot.
We talked about TikTok.

And I know I'm in the minority. But I'm -- I wasn't sure where I stood, until last night.

I had two people, I invited two guests on. That have opposite views. But are usually on the same side.

And I both -- I respect their commitment. Both of them. To the Constitution.

One of them is Chip Roy. The congressman from Texas.

And the other is Thomas Massie.

Thomas from Kentucky, he is -- he is Libertarian.

And always concerned about things like the Patriot Act. Et cetera, et cetera.

But so is Chip Roy, but Chip is also very concerned about our security, and China. He knows what we're facing. I agree with both of them on why this is an important issue.

So last night, I had them debate each other, go back and forth. And, man, it was so refreshing, to see three people talk about something that we disagree on, but nobody became disagreeable. I mean, we were like, yeah. Okay.

I really see your point on this one. It was really. It's something that we just don't have enough of. And last night, they debated it.

Massey was against, and Chip Roy was for.
In fact, he sponsored the TikTok banning bill.

STU: What was the result of this?

Was there a unanimous decision? A split decision at the end?

How did this come out?

GLENN: No. Yeah. They both stayed in their position.

And I was looking for help. Because I -- you know, I -- I read the bill.

We went over a lot of it, last night. Line by line.

And there's some disturbing things in there.

For instance, let me just go through some of this. This is the protecting Americans from foreign adversary controlled applications act.

Wow.

If you look at section two, under foreign adversary controlled application. It shows, that it's not just a phone app. It's individual websites could also be seized. That makes sense.

But supporters of this bill, point out, that it's just foreign adversary apps.

And the website.

That it doesn't. That it specifically points out, foreign adversary controlled, all throughout the bill.

Well, that's a little vague.

Because when you say, they're controlled by a foreign adversary.

We have been accused of being for -- of, you know, controlled by Russia.

Israel.

Who else have we been. Well, they're controlled by a foreign adversary.

STU: Yeah. Whoever is convenient at the time. In theory, there's only the four -- that are labeled in this bill. Which are North Korea. China. Russia. And Iran.

So Israel wouldn't apply. But Russia would.

GLENN: So risen to what they said about Donald Trump. When he went to North Korea. He's being controlled by a foreign -- he's in with North Korea and Russia.

When Tucker went to Russia, how many people said, he's just a pawn for Putin?

Well, does that mean that Tucker Carlson, if the president -- because he's the one who decides. If the president decides, that you're being controlled by a foreign adversary. Does that mean Tucker Carlson can just go away?

STU: I mean, really direct example of this, would be Truth Social. Right?

They claim that Donald Trump is a Russian asset. And has been a Russian asset since the 1980s.

GLENN: Yes. Correct.

STU: And he basically owns a very large chunk of Truth Social. And that's one of the things that made me nervous about the bill.

Is that one section that tries to define what a foreign adversary. Where it obviously like, if the Chinese government were to own a company.

Okay. That makes sense.

If a Chinese foreign national owns a company, and they answer to the Chinese Communist Party.

That would make sense. And be obvious.

But there's a third section.

And maybe you guys went over this last night. That kind of hits a person who is a US citizen, that is, quote, unquote, controlled by a foreign entity. Right?

GLENN: Yes. Controlled.

Yes.

If -- I'm quoting. If determined by the president, to be a -- a present threat, to the national security of the United States.

A threat to the national security.

What does -- what does that mean?

And a threat to national security, just in the last year, we've heard election deniers are a threat to our democracy.

Vaccine deniers, Christian nationalists, climate deniers. All of these are a threat to national security.

So in the end, when it says, you -- you -- you're hostile to what?

We're -- people who believe in the Constitution are called hostile to the government. We're trying to overthrow the government. No, we're not. We're trying to stop you from overthrowing the government. We believe in the Constitution! So you're a foreign adversary.

Okay.

Now, there's the -- there's a term called the covered company. That doesn't include an entity, that operates a website. Desktop application. Mobile application. Or augmented or immersive technology application.

Whose primary purpose is to allow users to post reviews, product reviews, business reviews, or travel information and reviews. Now, is Yelp in the middle of a sale to Communist China?

Who had the juice, to put this in?

One of the cosponsors was Chip Roy. And I said, Chip, who put that in?

He said, I don't have any idea. But one of the cosponsors, and I think there were 20 of them.

Had somebody call up and say, hey, I want this language in there. So what website is worried about their product reviews and travel information. Being deemed a threat to the United States of America. Because it's not just, you know, an entity controlled.

It's an entity controlled by a -- a country, that we're at war with. And they are a threat, to our national security.

So, I mean, is the yelp review a threat to our national security? And if so, that is a little frightening.

STU: That does really pop up some interesting questions, right?

Obviously, who put this in? Is interesting.

I don't know what it means exactly. Like, I don't --

GLENN: Exactly.

I want to know. What I wanted to know, last night was, why was somebody so concerned about their review site, that they wanted it written in?

Because we've been told, this is only for sites like ByteDance. TikTok. Okay.

And when you see, and we showed it last night. Who really owns, ByteDance and TikTok.

How that's built. It is absolutely insane.

So they could sell it to another entity. And get around all of it.

This is crazy. Here's the lasting segment.

And where I ended up. This is from last night's Blaze TV, Glenn Beck Wednesday night special.

We are at war.

We are a nation at war.

We're at war, with other countries.

We're at war with China. And the Communist Party. Absolutely.

We are fighting a proxy war, which could very well become a -- a hot war. With Russia.

And could become a world war.

The way things are stacking up.

But we're also at war, with big tech.

We're at war with Communism and fascism in our own country, being taught to our own children at our own schools. We're at war with our own intelligence community and Justice Department.

And it's not just our Justice Department and Intel. It's the five eyes all over the world. We are at war with the corporate oligarchs, the politicians and the elites all over the world from the UN to the WEF.

To hell, I don't even know. Is it chamber of commerce any good anymore?

But most important, we are at war, with ourselves. We don't know who we are anymore. We're losing our country, because we lost our values. And when you lose your values, I lose history. Because it has no meaning, anymore.

What were you really fighting for? And is that worth it?

And because we lost our values, we lost our history. You lose your history. You lose your traditions. You lose your traditions, you lose your family.

And in the end, you lose yourself. I honestly think, that's where we are. We're damn close to that, if not already passed it.

You're not going to repair this country. By giving more power, to a government, that only seeks more power.

You've got to empower the people. Somehow or another, we need to as people, care what is happening to our children.

And I say this, with the understanding of what I told you at the beginning.

Even my own family rolls their eyes at me. I know.

I know. I keep coming back to the Founders, without a religious and moral people, this system is wholly inadequate. We're not those people anymore. It doesn't mean we can't be.

But right now, there are remnants of those people. Because we're fighting this war on every single front.

I'm against the TikTok ban. I -- I so trust Chip Roy. I love Chip. And I trust him. He's a constitutionalist. He's a Texan from 1853. I mean, don't mess with the Texan.

But I don't trust the people around him.

And a government that is seeking more and more power, and more and more control, and isn't already in bed, with giant corporate tech. And China.

And a government that doesn't seem to care about its people over oligarchs and, you know, the rich, the corporations, the lawyers. I can't give any more power.

And I won't give any more power to a president, that doesn't defend the Constitution, at all costs.

And I haven't seen them in quite a while.

So that's where I came down.

I don't know where you'll come down on this.

But I think this is a very important question.

Again, because this is all the stuff they said about the Patriot Act. Oh, it will never be used against you.

And I said, all they have to do is change the definition of extremist. And they could absolutely turn this on you.

Yes, but they won't.

They have! They have.

STU: Yeah, it's a fascinating one. They've done it many times, right?

And, you know, I don't know. You look at this, and you say, well.

For example, the foreign adversary thing you were talked about earlier. A US citizen that is, quote, unquote, controlled by and for an adversary. You can see there would be all sorts of problems with that, and you could rewrite that.

You could change that, pull that out of the bill.

But if you do that, it's not effective, right?

Because then China could just pay, you know, $100 million to some US citizen to run their thing.

And I'm sure there would be no way to track whether it was still controlled by the Chinese government.

At the end of the day, it's not going to be effective. And I don't know. When it comes down to a decision that is close, I just don't want to give the government any more power.

GLENN: Amen.

And I have to tell you, controlled by a foreign adversary, China. Well, I could make that case. And we made it yesterday, in Congress.

You can make that case, about the Biden family, and the White House.

It's -- it's a -- it's being controlled by a hostile, foreign power. And they're doing its bidding.

What the New $1.2 TRILLION Spending Bill Funds with YOUR Tax Dollars
RADIO

What the New $1.2 TRILLION Spending Bill Funds with YOUR Tax Dollars

The House has passed a $1.2 trillion spending bill to fund the government through September. But with only a day to review its text, do they even know what they passed? Glenn reviews some of the insane spending in this bill, including money for JORDAN’S border, transgender underwear for kids, and a whole bunch of earmarks and public private partnerships. So, will the Senate Republicans stand strong?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Article one, section eight, again? It's --

STU: First of all, I want to say that Lear Capital, a good sponsor for this particular segment. Yes, section eight, powers of Congress.

Congress shall have powers to delay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense, general welfare of the United States. And all duties, imposts and excises should be uniform throughout the United States.

GLENN: Okay. So can you find the grooming, binding, and tucking clause? In --

STU: Grooming, binding, and tucking. I'm searching for those words, Glenn. I'm not seeing them in Section 8.

Is it possible, it was in another --

GLENN: What would the Founders, probably old-timey speak. What would the founders put in the Constitution. If our teenagers would want to bind their breasts and tuck their wiener. What would that be under?

STU: That's the one that was in invisible ink on the back.

GLENN: Oh, where you need the special Ben Franklin glasses!

STU: Exactly, yes. You nailed it.

GLENN: Right. Okay.

Well, you know, I -- I have to tell you, you know, when we have -- what is it, 400,000?

Let me just go through what we have. We have $500 million, appropriated for the Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

I don't even -- I don't even know what that is. Oh, okay. Wait. Wait.

For operation maintenance, defense-wide for the government of Jordan, to support the armed forces of Jordan and to enhance security around its borders. You know, it bothers me that they say there's no real spending for borders. Because there's lots.

There's $500 million, for Jordan to protect its borders. Of the amounts appropriated of this act. Under the operation of defense. Defense Secretary, cooperation agency.

$380 million, on top of the 500, will be available -- oh, boy. We're being tough.

Only until September 30th. This offer expires. It will be available to reimburse Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Tunisia, and HEP Ehemen for the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year of 2016 for enhanced border security. Which, not less than 150 million will be for Jordan.

So they get -- Jordan gets the -- let's see. They get the 500 million. To protect their borders.

Then they can dip back in, and get another 150 million. To protect their borders.

So I think this is good. You know, I don't -- I don't -- I don't have a problem with it. Now, there is a -- there is a couple of things.

There are a couple of things, that are a little odd in this. For instance, the money for the -- for the brooming, binding, and tucking.

They're going to give an awful lot of money, for new underpants for kids. That get their underpants from LGBTQ organizations.

Which, I know my kids have often gotten their underpants from LGBTQ organizations. Because there's a lot of LGBTQ kids out there, without underpants.

Because, you know, that's -- well, that's just the way America is right now. Underpantless. And so, you have a problem? You greedy capitalist pig. Spending -- spending this money, for underpants. For kids that don't have underpants. And I don't mean just regular underpants. These are special underpants. They make the weenie go away. They make the breasts go away.

What's next?

You people. You just want to see kids without underpants. Oh, no. Wait. Sorry.

Those have lately just been the teachers. In the schools, that are dreaming about little kids without underpants. So that's good.

I don't know. I think this -- I think this is really going to do -- this is going to do well.

I'm -- I'm pretty sure. I'm pretty sure. Anybody have a problem with it, Stu? Got a problem?

STU: I have a minor problem with it, Glenn. It did go far enough. Why are we stopping at $1.2 trillion?

That's basically couchcution money, you know, where is the real spending?

GLENN: Wait. Wait. Wait. Don't forget. This is the second bill. The other bill, that goes with this. The companion piece.

They broke it down. They broke it down.

STU: Okay. Well, there were 12 funding bills total.

And this one, they're getting to the nitty-gritty here.

We've seen a drastic change in the Congress, since they changed leadership. Wow. It's been massive. I've seen. The spending is just -- totally changing. They're really doing a great job.

And look, there are limitations on this.

I get it. They're the minority party overall, in the government. What can Republicans do? Eh. You know, not all that much. Unless they want to force the government to shut down, which they do not want to do. So they will keep doing this, and spending at levels that Democrats are comfortable with.

And they think they only need about 100 Republicans to vote for this. About ten to 15 Democrats will probably vote against it.

Which leaves about -- you need about 100. And they shouldn't have no problem getting over that 100 barrier in the House. Again, things go on as normal. No problems here.

Whatever problems you think there are, with spending. You're wrong.

Ius let them spend as much money, on what they want. On whatever they want. I was reading the list of winners on this bill, Glenn.

And they're -- they're just great. You know, listen to some of this.

This is -- this is -- and this is from punch bowl. Earmarks are back in a big way. Senator Jerry Moran HEP got 17.5 million for the Eisenhower Library.

Senator Lindsey Graham got 11.2 million for health. Retiring senator Joe Manchin was a winner. He and Shelly Moore Capito locked in 15 million for the Charleston Area Medical Center, and 15 million for Marshal University. Senator John HEP Boosman procured 15 million for Lion College and the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff.

Tammy Baldwin was a quiet earmark champ. Inserting dozens of earmarks, across numerous bills.

This is great!

Look at all the winners we have from our government.

GLENN: This is great. Look at the winners. And, yeah. I want to talk about some of the private/public partnerships. The Garden State, I'm sorry, equality, education fund inc. from New Jersey.

They get the underpants. $400,000 of underpants. $850,000 is allocated for the LGBTQ senior housing in Massachusetts for services for older LGBTQ.

It might be a different kind of underpants for them, and the senior housing. I'm not really sure. Up to $500 million appropriated for the -- the defense security.

Let's see. Then you -- then you have all kinds of money. Did you see the -- did you see the Twitter, or the guy on X, yesterday?

I just tweeted this. Who was giving the actual breakdown. Put it through ChatGPT. And said, break this down.

Tell me what we're, actually, spending here. What's -- where is all of this money going?

Well, he -- it did -- it did really -- it did pretty well. Quite honestly.

If you look at the -- if you look at the bill, you can figure out, who is making what.

And I have to tell you, there are agencies, that I don't even know. I didn't even know existed.

That are getting billions of dollars. Billions of dollars.

If you look at what USA ID is getting. Do you know what USAIK is?

USAID is an arm of the CIA. That's all it is. And it's giving money all over the world.

And not for anything that you actually think is right. But for what the CIA thinks is right.

Anybody who votes for this bill, first of all, it came out, what? At 215 last night. 2:15 a.m. they're supposed to vote on it, today or tomorrow.

You can't do this. They've known about this forever. And they've gone out, in advance, and said to all of the senators and the House members. Look, what do you want?

What is it going to take for you to pass this bill?

They must know what was in the bill. What is it going to take for you?

Well, I need $15 million, for Lindsey Graham library.

Okay. But but you'll support it then. Sure. Sure, I will.

You have to call your senator and your House rep and say, absolutely not. We're going to go through the bill with Thomas Massie here in just a second.

But everybody I trust in Congress and the Senate, has written me in the last, you know, six hours that said, Glenn. Can't. Can't. Can't do it. Can't do it.

This is -- let me give you the quote from one of them.

He said, he was really mad. You could tell who this was. This was him super, super mad. He was going off the rails.

Glenn, we're going to hell in a handbag. Yeah. Can you imagine?

I think you can tell, which senator that might be. Because he was very upset last night.

Going to hell in a handbag. It is -- it is really, we're at the last chance, to save our -- our country.

If you look at all the things that are happening. If we don't turn this thing around, by fall, sorry, bang. Sorry. I hate to say it. But you're just not going to come back from all of this. The attorney general in New York now just made their first move to take Trump's assets. Looks like they're going after his golf course in Westchester.

So they are taking property away from people now. Congratulations. Confratlations on that.

By the way, speaking of the CIA, the FBI, you know, is going to get another -- a brand-new. What is it, a $200 million building in this bill? That's what I'm thinking. You know what. Maybe it's a building. Maybe that's a toxic building. Maybe we need to get him a new 200 million-dollar palace, for them to operate their -- their operations against the citizens of the United States.

The CIA now has been confronted by -- by the weaponization of the government committee. As they're looking into Hunter Biden. The CIA is -- is refusing to verify. But you can trust these guys.

Two witnesses have come out, from their -- they're federal investigators. So they've believe out from the Justice Department. And they've said, yeah. We were stopped for looking into the Hunter Biden thing by the CIA. They told us, we couldn't talk to this person, this person, or this person.

So they were thwarting our investigation. Oh, the CIA was. Oh, okay.

You were looking into a crime, uh-huh. And it was of Joe Biden's kids. Okay.

And you were thwarted and told, no. You can't look at these things. All right.

I don't know about you. Maybe, you know what, maybe the CIA just needs a bigger building. Maybe that's what we should do.