©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) joined The Glenn Beck Program on Monday to talk about why the GOP won't resurrect the Obamacare repeal bill passed in 2015, his wild curiosity about evidence the administration might have about wiretapping, and why Republicans are suddenly in love with infrastructure spending.
Enjoy the complimentary clip above or read the transcript below for details.
GLENN: Senator Mike Lee who is at an airport getting ready to board a plane. We're glad you would take the time to hop on the phone with us. How are you, sir?
MIKE: Doing great. Thanks so much, Glenn.
GLENN: Good. Let's get to Obamacare repeal and replace. This thing is nothing like what the Republicans were promising us they would do. Nowhere even close.
Do we have a chance of getting something good out of this?
MIKE: Sure. Something good can come out of it. What happens, whether something good comes out of it, the extent to which it might be good depends entirely on how members of Congress handle this in the next few days, on how they choose to cast their votes.
Now, look, you're right. What we promised was to repeal Obamacare, as much of Obamacare as we possibly could, and then to start trying to find new ways to put the American people back in charge of their own health care.
Well, what this bill does is it doesn't repeal nearly as much of Obamacare as we could. It leaves all kinds of things intact. It leaves most of the Obamacare regulations in place. Most of -- many of the Obamacare taxes remain in place, at least for a time. It leaves expanded Medicaid intact for a period of time. And then doesn't make as many adjustments to it long-term.
Meanwhile, it comes up with a new refundable tax credit, which we don't know the cost of yet. We don't know how many people are going to take it.
There are a lot of unanswered questions, which begs the question: Why are we not just repealing? Why are we not just passing the same repeal bill that Republicans in the House and in the Senate voted for in December of 2015? That's what I'd like to see.
STU: Mike, is it true that you can't just repeal it unless you have 60 votes? You can't do it through reconciliation with just a full repeal?
MIKE: There is some ambiguity as to how many of the insurance regulations of Obamacare could be repealed through reconciliation. So there's an open question on that. But we do that know we could repeal all the taxes and all of the subsidies and possibly some of the regs through reconciliation. We know that because the reconciliation bill we passed in 2015 repealed all of the taxes and all the subsidies.
GLENN: So why aren't we doing it?
MIKE: That's a very good question. That's what I believed we were going to do. That's what many of us were told -- otherwise led to believe.
GLENN: Why aren't we doing it?
STU: He said it was a good question.
MIKE: There are those in Congress who chose to take a different path. Now, I can't speak for them. I can't speak to what their intentions are. I think the easiest, simplest way of explaining it is, they had other priorities that they wanted to attach to this. Priorities that were perhaps higher than simply achieving repeal, at least to the degree that --
GLENN: Can you give me an example of what might be more important than what you promised the American people?
MIKE: Okay. So here's how I think they would explain it, and I want to be clear, I'm always careful not to try to speak for somebody else. But I think if they were here with us, they would probably say, look, we don't want people to be in a state of too much uncertainty and doubt. We don't want them to be afraid. We want them to have a degree of confidence about what comes next after Obamacare repeal. And so we want to provide a soft landing spot for them. And that is so important. It's important enough to them, apparently, that they're willing to go a little softer on some of the repeal and provide more programs through this bill right now.
The problem with that is, it's -- it's not going to pass. And it probably shouldn't pass until they can answer more of these questions, more of these questions about why we can't repeal more of Obamacare than this bill does.
PAT: And the other problem with that, Mike, is that that's not what they promised us. That's not what they said they were going to do. They didn't say, well, we're going to think about this and provide a safe landing spot for people. It's going to take a really long time. We're going to not repeal -- it was repeal and replace. That's what they ran on. That's what they were elected to do. And now, again, as so often happens with the Republican Party, they're not doing it. Frustrating.
MIKE: Yeah, that's right. By the way, I love the Kermit the Frog imitation that both you and Glenn do.
GLENN: Thank you so much. Thank you. That's what happens when your best friend since 1980 --
PAT: Yeah.
MIKE: Well, he has, in fact, been the spokesman for the AHCA, so it's appropriate that we use his voice when doing this. But, no, you're exactly right, this is what we ran on, this is what we promised. Now, to my great dismay, to my great surprise, on many instances over the last week or so, we've had legislators from the House and the Senate somehow saying that this bill, the AHCA is somehow what we campaigned on, what we ran on. Well, that's news to me. That's news to me because we've had this bill for only a few days.
PAT: Me too.
MIKE: That's news to me if we somehow ran on this specific bill, a bill the score of which we still don't know. We still don't know how much this thing is going to cost. We still don't have any idea how many people will take this refundable tax credit. And, therefore, how much it's going to cost. So that's news to me, that that's somehow what we ran on.
What I remember that we ran on was that we would repeal every scrap of Obamacare that we possibly could, the whole thing, if we could get away with it under our procedural rules in the Senate. And that's what we should be doing.
STU: We're talking to Senator Mike Lee. And every time you're on, Mike, I like to ask you the nerdiest, most boring, uninteresting question to see --
GLENN: So please keep this answer short. Please, for the love of Pete.
STU: So I apologize in advance for this.
But when the Bush tax cuts were passed, they were passed under reconciliation. And because of that, they expired after ten years. Would the same thing happen here? If we repeal all these Obamacare taxes, in ten years, are we going to be talking about the expiration of the Obamacare repeal, and then it's going to be back into effect again?
MIKE: No, not necessarily. In fact, almost certainly not.
GLENN: Good end to that.
MIKE: Because of the fact that we were dealing with taxes in that circumstance, rather than something else. So that wouldn't be it.
STU: I thought it was a tax, which is the only reason it was constitutional. Wasn't that -- tax versus fee. Wasn't that a big conversation with Roberts?
MIKE: I'm sorry. I didn't hear that question. Can you say that again?
GLENN: Good. No, no, let's move on.
STU: Let's move on.
GLENN: So, Senator, let me ask you about the intelligence committee has given the president until this afternoon, they say they can't find any evidence that Barack Obama was spying on Donald Trump. And to present some evidence -- and we'll go pursue that. Any indication that he's going to present that evidence? And is there any reason to believe that he couldn't present the evidence if he had it?
MIKE: Okay. That's a good question. I'll answer the first question, I have no idea. I would love to see what the evidence is. I'm wildly curious about it. As to whether he could present it, that depends on what the "it" is.
I will tell you, my first reaction to this, when I very first learned about the tweet, my first reaction was, he's probably not talking about a traditional wiretap, where somebody actually goes to a judge and the judge orders a phone line to be tapped. Perhaps he's talking about a foreign intelligence surveillance court order issued pursuant to Section 702 of the FISA amendments, which would say, you know, here is an identified agent of a foreign government. Let's monitor this person's communications. And that there might have been some incidental communications with some US citizens, perhaps including people who were involved in one way or another with the campaign. That incidentally got pulled into that. That was my first reaction is that seemed the most plausible possibility. If, in fact, it's that, there might be some reasons why we might be reluctant to share that. Or --
GLENN: No, but he could share it with the intelligence committee, could he not -- or committee?
MIKE: Yes, yes, they've got the clearance to do that. So there's no reason why he couldn't share something like that with them. They've got clearance to see pretty much all of that. But as far as his ability to share that publicly, that would seem less likely if my theory is correct.
GLENN: And there's nothing that the president can't get, right? If he said, I want to show it, but, you know, this agency won't let me, you know, have access to this. There's -- everybody in in the Senate, would be like, okay. We need to see this. Behind closed doors. But you will open these books or whatever it is that he's saying the evidence is -- there's nothing the president couldn't get to, is there?
MIKE: I assume so. Because -- and, look, he's the commander-in-chief. There's nothing that he doesn't have access to. And so if he can -- if he can back this up, if he knows what it is that he's referring to, there's no reason that I'm aware of why he couldn't come up with something that he could produce to these Intel Committees. Now, whether he will choose to do so or not is a different question. Perhaps there are those close to him advising him, hey, you don't have to do this if you don't want to. But that --
GLENN: Why wouldn't you?
MIKE: -- that requires rank speculation.
GLENN: Why wouldn't you?
MIKE: I don't know. If perhaps he didn't want to set a precedent that he could just be required to answer questions every time the Intel Committee wanted to hear something. But I would think in this instance, he would want to, particularly because these questions are going to be raised from time to time.
GLENN: Right. And we're talking about national security. I mean, we're talking about something that he's accused another president of doing. And if that president was doing that, that needs to be stopped.
MIKE: Yes. Yes. Exactly. And that's -- that's -- all the more reason why I suspect he'll provide them with what they want to know because you're right. Look, this is one of the things I've been worried about for years. And I've expressed this concern on your show previously. But if you remember the Church Committee, the Frank Church Committee back in the '70s --
GLENN: Yep.
MIKE: -- conducted a series of hearings to look into abuses by our intelligence-gathering agencies, and what they concluded was startling, which was that in every administration from Ford -- from FDR through Ford and Nixon, who was in power at about the time they concluded their research, that the US government's intelligence gathering apparatus had been used to engage in political espionage. Now, look at what's happened since then. Our technology has improved dramatically. Our technological means of gathering intelligence have grown by leaps and bounds. And our laws haven't always kept up with that.
And so to me, it would be almost surprising if some of this were not occurring. That's why we need to be watchful of this. That's why I was concerned, immediately, when I saw the president's tweet was because I considered it plausible, if not likely that this kind of thing would be going on.
GLENN: One last question, let's go to infrastructure. The G.O.P. went out of their gourd -- and I believe rightly so -- for a stimulus package for roads and bridges and tunnels and everything else for $787 billion. I remember that number. It's burned -- seared into my memory of $787 billion. Now the president is proposing a trillion dollar stimulus package, and the Republicans are very excited about it. Can you tell me what made the 787 billion-dollar stimulus package an affront on the Constitution and this one a dream come true?
MIKE: Well, I can't point to any distinguishing characteristic between the two, as to why this one would be good and that one bad.
In fact, look, when I look at the Constitution, I see the powers of Congress being limited. They're enumerated powers, most of them in Article I, Section 8. And they talk about things like the power to provide for our national defense, to declare war, to regulate trade between the states with foreign nations and with Indian tribes. I don't see anything in there that says that it's the prerogative of Congress to create all infrastructure.
Now, look, it's one thing if we're talking about an interstate corridor here or there. But it's another thing entirely if we're talking about wholesale, top to bottom, soup to nuts transportation infrastructure, even intrastate projects.
I think whether we're talking about under the Obama administration or any subsequent administration, headed by a Republican or a Democrat, I think we've got to look carefully at what we're doing there. Not every transportation infrastructure is necessarily outside of Congress' authority. Because some of them do involve a distinctly interstate function. But where they don't, we have constitutional problems.
GLENN: Mike Lee, always good to talk to you. Thank you so much, sir. Appreciate it.
MIKE: Thank you very much, sir. It's good to be with you.
STU: So positive.
GLENN: Yeah. He is. Boring as snot.
STU: Thank you very much.
Oh, I love him. He is saving my hope in the entire country right about now.
GLENN: He is so good and so smart. And, you know, he's just tickled pink by, you know -- I love -- I love because you know he's accurate. But when you're talking to him -- because he's like this all the time, well, I mean, in section 508, subsection B, paragraph four --
STU: Yeah.
GLENN: -- you'll see -- and he did that like four times during this. You just have to get used to, that's the way he is.
STU: He's that guy.
GLENN: And that's why he is so good and so needed in the Senate. Want to give you this from the New York Post today. Bank fees rise to an all-time high. The average customer now pays $666 a year in banking fees.
STU: Satan.
GLENN: Right. Right.
STU: This is how it happens.
GLENN: The overdraft revenue from the top three banks has surged from 5.1 billion to $5.4 billion. That's what they make if you overdraft.
$5.4 billion. Does anybody remember that we're providing them? It's a service that we're providing them as well. We're giving them our money.
JEFFY: No. No.
GLENN: So they can loan it out to other people. No, they don't care anymore.
JEFFY: No, they do not.
New polling reveals a shocking truth: young Americans aren’t just open to socialism... they overwhelmingly want a socialist president in 2028. Glenn Beck and Justin Haskins break down five alarming surveys showing massive ideological shifts among voters ages 18-39, including young Republicans. Why is socialism exploding in popularity, and what does this mean for the future of America? Are we on the brink of a political transformation or potentially even a national crisis?
Watch This FULL Episode of 'Glenn TV' HERE
Texas Governor Greg Abbott joins Glenn Beck to expose why Texans are being crushed by skyrocketing property taxes — and how local governments, not the state, keep driving homeowners deeper into financial distress. Gov. Abbott breaks down his five-point plan to impose strict spending limits, force voter approval for tax hikes, reform out-of-control appraisals, empower citizens to slash taxes themselves, and eliminate school district property taxes for homeowners altogether. Glenn argues that property tax is morally wrong because it prevents Texans from ever truly owning their land, and Abbott lays out his strategy to fight both parties in the legislature to finally deliver lasting relief.
Joe Rogan recently warned that we may have gotten to Step 7 of 9 in the lead-up to civil war. Glenn reviews the 9 Steps and explains why he believes Rogan nailed this one. But Glenn also lays out what Americans MUST do to reverse this trend...
Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors
GLENN: So if you take what Fetterman said yesterday about how people are cheering for him to die on the left, and then you couple it with something that was on the Joe Rogan show on Tuesday. He was saying that the reaction to the death of Charlie Kirk makes him think that the US is closer to Civil War than -- than he thought.
Now, let me quote him. He said, after the Charlie Kirk thing. I'm like, oh, my.
We might be at seven. This might be he step seven on the way to a bona fide Civil War. Charlie Kirk gets shot, and people are celebrating.
Like, whoa. Whoa. Whoa.
You want people to die that you disagree with?
Where are we now on the scale of Civil War?
Well, let me go over the scale of Civil War, because it's sobering.
Now, none of this has to be true. If we wake up and decide, I don't want to do this anymore!
Okay?
Here's step one.
Step one. Loss of civic trust.
Every civil conflict begins when people stop believing that the system is fair. Are we there?
We're so far -- we're so far past the doorway, we are comfortably asleep on the couch on this one. Gallup and Pew both show trust in Congress, the media courts, and the FBI government are now at record lows.
The Edelman Trust Barometer classifies the US now as severely polarized. Majority of Republicans distrust federal elections. Majority of Democrats don't trust the Supreme Court.
Americans are really united on one thing, and that is the other side is corrupt!
When faith in the rules collapses, the republic begins to wobble. But that's step one. Step two, polarization hardens into identity!
Political disagreement is normal!
Identity conflict is fatal!
But that's what Marxists push. Identity politics. This is when politics stopped being about policy, and started being about who you are as a person.
Have we crossed this one into step two?
I mean, we're neck deep into this. A study on this, from PRRI.
It's a survey, found 23 percent of Americans believe political violence may be necessary to save the that I guess.
I think that's an old study. Americans now sort themselves by ZIP code into ideological enclaves. The big sort: Universities, activists, corporations. Everybody is promoting oppressor versus oppressed.
And that -- does what?
It puts us into incompatible tribes. Opponents aren't wrong anymore. The opponent is dangerous!
If I go back and you look at civil wars, Lebanon, before 1975. Yugoslavia, before 1991. That's -- we're doing that. Okay?
Step three. Breakdown of the gatekeepers. The gatekeepers are kind of like the referees of society. It's the media, political parties, churches, civic leaders.
When they fail, extremism fills the vacuum. Okay. Where are we on this? Have our gatekeepers failed us?
Yeah. I think both parties, especially the left, you know, everything I predicted that the left was going to be eaten by the extreme left, and then the communists and the socialists is now happening.
They've lost control of the fringe of each party. Media transformed, you know, from referees into team coaches. Tech platforms. It's outrage for profit. Universities are not there to cool things down. They heat them up.
Churches. Churches are useless. Useless.
When the referees leave the field, the game devolves into a brawl. And the refs are gone off the field. So there are only nine steps. We're at step four. Here's step four.
Are you ready for this one?
Parallel information realities.
Civil wars don't require different opinions. They require different realities.
I remember reading about Germany, at the beginning of, you know, the Nazi era. How the two new newspapers. One was propaganda for the government.
And the other one, it was the last one that was kind of the holdout.
And they said, you could read them, and they would cover the same thing.
But they had almost no information was the same. Except, that happened yesterday.
Here's what they said. And then everything else was different. That's exactly -- I mean, step four is complete!
We can't agree on facts, right?
Crime rates. Border numbers. Inflation. Election security.
Two Americans can watch the same video. And see opposite truths.
Social media algorithms are creating customized political universes.
Digital echo chambers. Deepfakes. We're just at the beginning of that. And both sides accuse the other of running disinformation machines.
Why? Because we don't have a shared reality. So if you don't have a shared reality. How do you settle any dispute?
On the nine steps, we're up to number five. Coming in at number five.
Loss of neutral rule of law.
This out of the nine steps with, five is the pivot point.
It's not corruption, it's the belief that the law is no longer neutral.
Are we there yet?
Let me tell you the CBS you.gov poll. 67 percent say the justice system is used for political purposes.
I think that's low. January 6 defendants given years in prison, 2020 rioters were released. High profile political figures, prosecuted or shielded based on party.
FBI whistle-blowers alleging pressure to inflate domestic extremism numbers. States like Texas, directly defying federal directives, on border enforcement.
And now, leading the way, with the federal government.
History is really cold and unforgiving on this point.
Once the people believe justice is political! Remember, this is the turning point.
The republic stands on borrowed time. Once you no longer believe that justice is achievable. Step six.
Are we there?
I think we are.
Step six. Normalization of political violence!
This is where violence stops shocking the system. Are we there?
Remember, where violence stops shocking the system. Look at evidence just from Virginia. What they just voted for.
He was calling for the death of a -- a political opposition.
Calling for his children to be killed.
Was called on it, never apologized.
Never said anything other than, yeah. I know. He dug it deeper.
Was anyone shocked by it? Apparently not. They elected him. Here's the evidence. 2020 riots.
574 events. $2 billion in damage. Was anybody outraged by that? Or was it downplayed and excused?
Assassination attempts. Assassination attempts against the president. Supreme Court justice.
Fistfights. And mob actions on college campuses. To silence speakers. Rising to do for punching a fascist or stopping genocide. Depending on the ideology. Online chatter discussing Civil War, national divorce, and revolution.
When violence becomes part of the political language, a nation crosses an invisible line. We're now up to step seven out of nine.
This is where Joe Rogan said, are we at step seven?
The rise of militias and parallel forces.
When a state loses he is monopoly on force.
Countdown accelerates. So where are we on this one?
I think we're seeing, maybe early signs of this.
You're starting to see the -- the states kind of organize these mobs, you know, to go after ICE.
Right?
Armed groups, right-wing, left-wing radical secessionists. Anyone.
Once they start forming their own police forces. Or their own option forces, then you have -- then you have everything really falling apart.
Entirely!
I don't think we're there, yet!
But we're starting to see the beginnings of this.
Step eight. The trigger event.
Civil Wars don't begin with a plan. They begin with a spark.
So where are we?
We're not here yet. The conditions are right. Potential triggers, disputed election in '26 or '28.
Political assassination or major attack.
Supreme Court decision that ignites mass unrest.
Financial crisis or dollar crisis.
A state federal standoff turning violent!
Nothing is ignited yet, but the room is soaked in gasoline. So we don't have seven. We're on the verge of eight, at any time. And here's nine.
This is the point of no return.
When police, military, or federal agencies split, even if no one calls it that, well, where are we?
Well, I just read a story about how with the Mamdani election in New York, a good number of the police force is going to leave. And they're going to go join police forces elsewhere. You also have the tension between the state National Guard, and the federal directives, the state guard and the state directives. Law enforcement recruitment is at crisis lows. The distrust of the FBI, DOJ, CIA. Tens of millions of Americans. I always really respected those institutions. I have no respect for them now. If you have states openly defying federal rules on immigration, drug laws, sanctuary policies.
Whistle-blower claims of internal politicization.
All of these things are in play for the first time in 150 years, people can imagine!
So I give this to you, not to be fearful of, but to know where you are. As a map!
Know where you are.
And hopefully, it might wake some people up, if you chart America on, on the nine step model of Civil War. Steps one through four, completed!
Step five, happening!
Step six, happening! Step seven, beginning! Step eight, just waiting for it. And step nine, avoidable, only if step eight, never happens. Again, I'm not telling you for doom purposes, this is diagnosis. This is a doctor going, I want you to look at the chart.
And this is a doctor saying, I want you to look at -- do you see what's happening to your body?
If you don't stop this habit, you are going to die. You don't have to die. You can stop smoking and drinking right now. You can start exercising. But if you don't, you are going to die.
The question is, are we the nation that says, nah, that's not going to happen to me. Or are we the nation that wakes up and sees our chart and says, good heavens, it's way far more gone than I thought it was. But I feel something in the air.
I'm going to change my behavior. The nation that refuses to look and wake up and stop calling their neighbors enemies, is the nation that fails!
We have to strengthen these things that have already fallen. And, you know what, the easiest one to do is?
Church. Where are you ministers and pastors priests and rabbis?
Where the hell are you?
I think there's going to be a special section for you, when you cross over to the -- because you're doing things in the name of God!
So when you get to the other side, I think there's going to be a special section for those who remained silent. While his rights were being taken away.
You don't own that right.
I don't own that right.
The Lord gave us those rights, and said, protect them!
By you, being the representative, the voice box, if you will, of the Lord, to shepherd his people. By you not standing up and saying, hey, by the way, we have -- we have a moral responsibility to protect these rights for the next generation! By you refusing because you're afraid. Because I think, there's no politics in the Bible! There's no politics in the Bible. Really?
The whole thing is about politics. Is about the moral way you have to live your life.
Calling things as you see them. Calling them back to eternal principles.
He didn't tell anybody how to vote. Render to Caesar what is Caesar's.
But there are certain principles that you have to have, or you lose not only this citizenship, but the next citizenship. The one that really matters. And, boy, if you are doing it because you're a coward, you are in the wrong business!
Get out of the pulpit, and go to work at Jack in the Box.
The House Oversight Democrats recently released "new" emails allegedly proving President Trump lied about his knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein's crimes. However, Glenn points out a glaring issue with these emails that destroys their entire narrative...
Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors
GLENN: Well, let's dive right into the Epstein Maxwell emails. My gosh, Stu!
Why are they trying to cover up that Donald Trump had sex with children!
STU: I mean, it's just clear, as -- as day, in the emails!
GLENN: Yeah. No.
STU: He spent hours with one of the victims. What else could have possibly have occurred in that arrangement? We don't know!
GLENN: And it's -- it's one of the victims, Stu. One of the victims!
STU: One of the victims, that's all we know. One of the victims.
GLENN: Let me read what Jeffrey Epstein wrote. I want you to realize that the dog who hasn't barked is Trump. Victim redacted. Victim spent hours at my house with him. He has never once been mentioned. Police chief, et cetera.
Okay. New information, just released. Or is it?
Because in 2011, 2011, that was released and everybody knew it. It's been out floating around. Here's the change: In 2011, this is what it read.
I want you to realize that the dog hasn't barked is Trump. Virginia spent hours at my house with him.
Why would you redact a name that is already out in the public square!
It's already out!
The memo is already out. The email is already out. It's been out for years. Why would you redact that name now?
Well, because it makes it all of a sudden, new and shiny. Shiny and new. If you don't know who said it, you see victim, and you're like, oh, you see victim. Who is the victim?
I don't know. But when you know it's Virginia, you know this has already gone to court. This is -- she already testified about this!
He didn't partake in any of this, any sex with any of it. It's true. He didn't partake in any sex with us, and I'm quoting, this is from the testimony. But it's not true, that he flirted with me. Donald Trump never flirted with me. Have you ever met him?
Yes, at Mar-a-Lago, my dad and him. I wouldn't say they were friends, but my dad knew him, and they would talk. Have you ever been in Donald Trump or Jeffrey Epstein's presence with one another? No!
What's the basis of your statement that Donald Trump is a good friend of Jeffrey? Jeffrey has told me that Donald Trump is a good friend of his.
He didn't partake in any of -- any of the sex with any of it. He flirted with me.
It's true, that he didn't partake in any sex with us. But it's not true that he flirted with me.
So I don't understand that. But she goes on. Donald Trump never flirted with me!
Okay. So what -- what's new about this?
This is the same girl, this is the same person that -- didn't she work at Mar-a-Lago?
Or she was going to get a job at Mar-a-Lago.
STU: Yeah. I believe she did at one point.
GLENN: Yeah. So we know they know each other. We know they know each other.
We know that at Mar-a-Lago, Jeffrey Epstein would come, and he was poaching the employees. The girls there. To go work for him.
And Donald Trump went to him. And said, "Hey, man. Stop it. Stop poaching people from me. That's not cool. Don't do it." And then he said, "Oh, yeah. All right." And then he did it a second time. And he's like, "You know what, you're out. I don't want you here anymore. I asked you not to do it, and you did it." Now, that doesn't mean that he knew what was happening to the girls or what was happening or anything else.
And even if it did mean something was happening with the girls, he was saying, "Hey. Stop it! Don't take any of the girls or the women here.
Don't do it." I don't believe he knew anything about any of this. But God only knows! And really, God only knows!
This is not new news. Donald Trump, he might end up beating Bezos as the richest man on the planet! When all is said and done!
Because, again, the -- they're presenting this as new fact, a giant scandal. Stu, I don't know if you know this. This is -- this breaking news is a giant scandal.
STU: Yeah. I've heard democratic representatives saying that over the past 24 hours. Yeah. We need to investigate this.
This is shocking stuff. It's a massive scandal. Even ABC News, I heard, pushed back against this. And said, well, what scandal? What are you implying occurred here?
We know who the victim was. We know the victim. Like why. Why did you even redact that name?
And they're like we always redact name of victims.
Do you really? When they're already out publicly?
Not to mention, this particular victim is not even alive.
You know, she sadly died. I mean, it's a terrible, terrible story.
GLENN: Terrible story.
STU: Yeah. She passed away.
A suicide. It was at least the report I believe. But she has a posthumous book coming out. But like a terrible, terrible story.
But, you know, to act as if you have to protect her identity when, number one, she's dead.
GLENN: Is ridiculous.
STU: Number two, everybody already knows who she was, including the news sources, who also have a policy, you would think.
And ABC has a policy. They redact, that was in this type of situation. But it's already been out. We already knew who it was.
So they redacted to make it look like he's with other people who have not already told us nothing bad occurred! You know, and it is an absolutely awful tactic. And at least --
GLENN: I think litigation should follow again. I think he should sue them again. Anyone who is presenting this as new information.
ABC did their job. Congratulations for ABC. They did their job.
They pointed out, this is not new information.
Why would you redact. Why are you releasing this now? And you're redacting a name this -- this email is already out!
You're presenting this as a new scandal.
And you redacted that name. This is completely dishonest. The news media shouldn't even run with it. They shouldn't even run with it. They should have said, old news. Old news. And if you did run with it, you should have handle it had like ABC handle it had. Wait a minute. Why did you redact name.
What do you mean that there's a new scandal. She already testified exactly opposite of what you're believing Jeffrey Epstein over the victim right now. I just want to make sure you understand the Democrats right here. You're taking the name of Epstein, over the victim.
Oh, okay. All right.
STU: And Epstein doesn't even say that anything occurred.
GLENN: No.
STU: There's not -- it's just -- it would be something you would have to jump to a conclusion, to accuse Donald Trump of something like this.
And we know what happened, because the victim said nothing!
Said, it was nothing!
GLENN: Right.
STU: In fact, it wasn't even a flirtation. Which, by the way, even that, you might have thought was creepy. It wasn't even a crime.
It wasn't even flirtation. So it's a disgrace in every single way.
GLENN: All right. So let me take you here. Let me take you here.
If you remember when the shutdown first started, what did the Democrats say, the reason why they did the shutdown?
Not them! Why Mike Johnson and everybody else wouldn't negotiate!
Why wouldn't -- why wouldn't the Republicans negotiate?
Because the heat was on, to release the Epstein files.
And they didn't want to have to do that. So they shut the government down!
Okay?
They wouldn't negotiate. You didn't hear any of this? Oh, it's so arrogant.
STU: It doesn't make any sense at all. That's probably what they said.
GLENN: I know. I know. So the government is open, and what does Mike Johnson do yesterday?
He said the House is going to vote on a bill to release all of the files related to the late financier, convicted child sex offender, Jeffrey Epstein next week. He said on Wednesday that a discharge position to bypass leadership and force a vote on the bill, hit the benchmark for needed signatures. It's been decided by him to expedite the vote for the bill, which under the current rules could have been delayed until at least early September.
So he says, as soon as that petition hit, the needed 218 signatures, I brought it up. Unanimous consent. Let's go! Release it.
So he's pushing this forward. Good, Mike!
Release all of it. Thank you!
Get it out. Lance this boil.
I mean, if anybody thinks that you're ever going to get the truth on this in the first place, it's madness. It's madness. Everybody -- I mean, so many important people were involved in this, and it was in the hands of the Democrats for the longest time. Okay?
So they had all of this information. You don't think it was all picked through? And if there was anything about Donald Trump, you don't think that would have come up between 2020 and 2024?
There's nothing in there about Donald Trump. These people are so stupid. This time, we've got him, boys. This time, we've got him.
No, you don't. This time, it's like Wile E. Coyote. This time, we've got the Roadrunner!
No. You're never going to catch him on this. It doesn't work. The guy was the most investigated person in the history of the world, and you've got nothing! Now, it's good to come out.
But if you think you're going to catch a bunch of people on the left, you're not going to. Because they had it, you know, in their possession.
You don't think all of the names were taken out? You don't think things were destroyed, if there was anything? I believe there was something. But I don't believe there's any names in it anymore. You're not going to get the truth on this one. You're just not going to get the truth, but release everything that we have. Everything!
Oh. Oh, by the way, also in the Epstein emails. How come nobody is talking about this one, Stu?
This one is from Michael Wolff, to Jeffrey Epstein. And then Jeffrey Epstein responds.
So Michael Wolff writes, "What's the thumbnail on Nes Baum (phonetic) Foster?"
And Jeffrey Epstein writes back, "Nes Baum White House Counsel, dot, dot, dot, Hillary doing naughties with Vince."
Now, Vince Foster killed himself, you know, and then killed himself at the White House. And then drug himself across the street to the park.
I mean, I don't know -- the Vince Foster thing is so old. And it doesn't -- but why is nobody talking about that one?
Why is no one talking about that?
Also, this the Jeffrey Epstein email bundle, ABC, you don't feel that's necessary to bring that one up?
Huh. Interesting.
