Bill O’Reilly: G-20 Is Just a ‘Schmooze Fest’ and Putin Will Cave to Trump or Be ‘Subject to Tweets’

Russia has managed to put itself in the middle of just about everything these days. Whether it's in Syria or Iran, meddling in our election and now in North Korea --- Putin is a force that can't be ignored. While the left went wild about the first handshake between the two, Glenn and Bill O'Reilly talked about what exactly the G-20 is and what to look for.

"One last topic on the G20 meeting... with Putin and with everything that's happening in the United Nations, with North Korea. Where are we headed towards here, Bill?" Glenn asked on radio Friday.

"So the G20 cache nobody knows what that means. It's supposed to be fostering everybody's economy and doing deals to help everybody else, but it's really a schmooze fest. The real interesting part is the Putin, Trump meeting. And Putin's got to give Trump something today, and I have predicted on that he will come out, Putin will, and he will say you know what? We're going to scorn North Korea too," O'Reilly said.

"We don't like that. But he's got to give Trump something. Because if he doesn't, he's going to make an enemy out of Trump, and then he will be subject to tweets. I mean, you know, if you're Putin, and your economy is terrible in Russia, which it is, you don't want to be Trump's enemy, you know?"

Enjoy the complimentary clip or read the transcript for details.

GLENN: Wow. There is so much to talk about. So much has happened this week, and the good thing is we have the guy who is going to give it to us with no spin. Bill O'Reilly's look at the week's news begins right now.

Mr. Bill O'Reilly, who now is making his home at where you can listen to his daily podcast, which is always riveting because he's always exciting and up tempo and upbeat and positive. Bill, how are you?

BILL: Are you reading that, Beck, or is that from the heart?

GLENN: Well, it's not from the heart. It's more from the --

BILL: Knee.

GLENN: Lower regions.

BILL: Jeez.

GLENN: The heart of my bottom.

BILL: Oh, man, Beck, come on.

GLENN: So how are you, Bill?

BILL: So what's on your mind today?

GLENN: Well, I have a lot of things. I would like to hear your comments on's speech in Poland yesterday, which I thought I was so refreshing to hear.

BILL: Well, I agree that the message was worthy and needed to be said to the Europeans on their own soil. But I thought it was a standard -- I said this to my audience. I thought it was a standard political speech in the sense that if I were writing that speech, I would have singled out a few examples of where Europe is in trouble. For example, in Sweden, that country has accepted way too many refugees and migrants. They can't assimilate them. They are causing all kinds of trouble, a big rock music festival had to be canceled because they're afraid that it would get out of control in Sweden. These kinds of things would have made the speech more vivid. But I agree with you that the message needed to be said.

GLENN: Honestly, it was nice to hear somebody stand up for the western way of life. You say it's standard, but I haven't heard that for eight years.

BILL: Yeah, and the secular progressives hate it, that's what all of these demonstrators are about. They hate capitalism competition, free markets, freedom in general. These peoples, you know, loathe that, and they all gather together to cause trouble. It's not an antiTrump movement, it's an anticapitalist movement.

GLENN: I got a note from mine Mike Opelka who does a show on The Blaze radio, and he said in the early '90s, we debuted a play in the former Soviet Union, he and his brother wrote this play and said my brother came home from Russia with a woman he eventually married. My brother took her to a grocery store to show her where the local market was located. Within seconds, she was standing stunned began crying. She could not believe what was in front of her. The products, the variety, just the vast array of food that was available to everyday citizens.

We were talking last hour about Poland and how there were just a few years ago 4,000 items on grocery store shelves. There are now as many as 40,000 different items on grocery store shelves and how the west and the free-market system probably the best testament or monument to it is the grocery store. And people don't get it.

BILL: You know, when I was in Berlin when the wall came down, I was covering that story, and I was there, and when the people poured across into West Berlin, the first place they went to was the grocery store, and they poured into the grocery stores and what they wanted most of all -- take a guess. What food did the communist prisoners want most of all?

PAT: Hamburger Helper.

STU: Kale.

GLENN: I would say candy.

BILL: Bananas. They swarmed.

PAT: That's really uninteresting.


GLENN: I mean, let's just be honest here, Bill. Hang on. If you're a prisoner behind the iron curtain, the highest thing you're dreaming of is a banana.

BILL: I just want it to put this into perspective. Tatiana going to the grocery store is more interesting than news reporting in Berlin?

PAT: Yes. Yes.

BILL: Is that what you're me?

GLENN: I think so. I think it's more because of the way the story was told.

BILL: Oh, I see.

STU: Maybe you need to read an e-mail from a friend, maybe it will be interesting to everybody.

BILL: My friend Kurt ate a banana.


GLENN: All right. That was a great story, Bill, and I am so glad.

BILL: Yeah, thanks, Beck, I really appreciate it.

GLENN: I will take that banana story with me to the grave. It's one of the greatest moments of airtime.

All right. So let's shift gears a bit. We haven't heard your take yet on the CNN, you know, Donald Trump tweet clown show thing.

BILL: I think it is a fact now that CNN, MSNBC, the network news broadcasts along with the progressive newspapers have basically stopped covering the news in a fairway and have put together a program to try to destroy Donald Trump. Would everybody agree with that?

GLENN: Yeah, but don't they -- when will they understand that doing that is only going to strengthen Donald Trump? They're not going to -- they're not going to release something, like -- because every time they come out with something, it's always, like, well, this is -- here's a constitutional crisis for you. And everybody -- America's, like, okay. No, it's not. We get it. It's coming with the package. We got it. He tweets crazy things. Oh, what an idea.

BILL: Well, it's all about money, though.

So the two liberal cable networks have increased their audience by doing we hate Trump all the time, and there's an audience for that that comes in just to see that. So if they stop doing that, their audience goes down. So, for example, Greta Van on MSNBC did not do that and therefore her ratings were not very good, and she got replaced. So it's about money -- ideology, of course. But it's also about money. So the New York Times understands that its readership is 90 percent liberal, and we're going to give that readership what they want, rather than giving the folks the truth. And that's where it's really shifted, so it's a combination of ideology and money. And therefore -- and you're right. Trump's base, basically, don't even listen to it anymore, and they dig in to support their guy against this assault.

GLENN: One last topic on the G20 meeting from Putin or with Putin and with everything that's happening in the United Nations, with North Korea. Where are we headed towards here, Bill?

BILL: I think that the catering will be heavy on bananas at the --

GLENN: Well, he is in Germany, so I've heard they love their bananas there.

BILL: A lot of fresh fruit. All of this stuff, basically, is schmoozing. So the G20 cache nobody knows what that means. It's supposed to be fostering everybody's economy and doing deals to help everybody else, but it's really a schmooze fest. The real interesting part is the Putin, Trump meeting. And Putin's got to give Trump something today, and I have predicted on that he will come out, Putin will, and he will say you know what? We're going to scorn North Korea too. We don't like that. But he's got to give Trump something. Because if he doesn't, he's going to make an enemy out of Trump, and then he will be subject to tweets. I mean, you know, if you're Putin, and your economy is terrible in Russia, which it is, you don't want to be Trump's enemy, you know? So I expect Putin to give him at least verbally something today. But the conference itself is just a schmooze fest and, you know, they all have agendas, and they try to get a little here and there kind of deals and stuff like that, so that's what it's all about.

GLENN: Back with Do you have to say it this way? Or can you say it like all human beings?

BILL: It doesn't matter, really. It's how you feel it, Beck. And right now, I don't think you're feeling it at all.

GLENN: You know, I am thinking of bananas right now. As I think of bananas, Okay. I get it. where you can see his gear and his books and everything else and also get his take on the news every single day, and he's launching his own TV show at, and we'll continue our conversation with him here in just a second.

PAT: Glenn Beck Program. Pat, Stu, Bill O'Reilly's with us. Glenn just had a family issue he has to resolve for a few minutes, so he should be back any minute now.

BILL: Okay. Sure. So, Bill, what are your thoughts on the GOP seemingly caving in now and just almost admitting that they're going to bring the Democrats in on this, and we're going to go from a Democrat light bill, which is was with the Republicans anyway, to a full on Democrat-inspired bill, they're just going to fix ObamaCare?

BILL: Well, I think that's a message to the Republicans who are being obstinate about compromising and being the senate majority leader and saying okay. Look, if you're not going to compromise with us to get free market back into the health care system, then you're going to have to deal with Chuck Schumer and the guys to socialize it up, and we're going to have something worse, so that's the play.

You know, look, it's a very complicated thing, obviously. A lot of people are confused about it, and I think the big thing is that the Republicans have got to get something on the board. And if they don't, they risk losing the senate in 2018. Because they -- the people are waiting for some kind of accomplishment. We need a tax cut, we need new health care.

PAT: We've got nothing.

BILL: The jobs report today. We had a very good jobs report. Trump should be running around screaming about that. I think Trump's free marketplace philosophy. But, you know, we've got to get -- we as a country have to get stuff passed. And right now, it's not happening.

STU: As a general philosophy, Bill, do you think it's good to take these baby steps?

BILL: You have to because the constituencies so vary and when you have ObamaCare saying we're not going to

issue any policies to Americans, well, what's going to happen is that there are going to be a lot of people who are not going to be able to buy health insurance, and then you're really in trouble. So you have to basically stabilize first and then build on that.

PAT: Why is it, though, and maybe it's just the way it feels to me. But it seems like it's always when we have the -- we have the executive branch, Republicans have the executive. They have the Senate, they have the house. When Democrats are in that position, they never take baby steps. They get ObamaCare done. When the Republicans are in the majority and have the White House, we have to do baby steps. Why is that?

BILL: The Democratic party is run now by the progressive left which has intimidated moderate Democrats, all from one Joe Manchin from West Virginia. He seems to be the only one who will look at things and come up with a problem-solving idea. So whatever it is, it's either Democratic hierarchy, the Democrats are afraid of their leadership. The Republicans are not. They're not afraid of Ryan or of McConnell. So very conservative Republicans say, look, we're just not going to go along with it because we want X, Y, Z. There isn't the fear that there is in the Democratic side. Democrats vote block. I mean, can you believe that Kate's law might go down in the Senate? A law that is so badly needed and would protect all Americans and even immigrants and illegal aliens. Everybody would be protected, and the Democratic party is going to vote and block against it in the Senate? It's insane. But they are fearful because if they go against the hierarchy, they'll cut their money off. Okay? The packs control all the money for people going for reelection in the senate and the house, and then they'll launch a primary. You know, if you're a moderate Democrat, the progressive leadership will put somebody up against you, a far left person up against you and if you understand them, and these people are scared to death of that. So that's why the Democratic party votes and block, whereas Republicans don't.

STU: I mean, the border's a good example of this too because it's a constant let down when they get into power. Health care feels that way as well, and I think what's frustrating about a lot of people, Bill is that a lot of the people now who are saying we can't get a full repeal. We can't have a much more aggressive free market health care plan. We have to settle for this because we have a bunch of varying constituencies, which I understand. That's a very valid point. However, these same people when they knew Barack Obama would veto it did vote for stronger things. They acted as if they wanted those things when they knew it wouldn't pass, and that I think is what makes people so cynical about politics.

BILL: Well, people are furious on both parties. They're angry that our leadership in Washington is basically blunting, and whether you like Trump or not, Trump basically rises above that and says, look, we're going to do X, Y, Z on immigration, so what happens? Well, people don't come here now. I mean, a series of articles, even in the liberal press where Central Americans and Mexicans are saying I'm not even going to bother, it's too expensive and dangerous to do it and if I get caught, I'm going to get shipped right back. So the crossings on the southern border way down. Way down. Not because of any legislation. Not because of a wall because that wall hasn't been built yet. It's because of the perception that Trump is going to send us back. So that's the kind of leadership that is appealing to many Americans and why Trump won. But the gridlock in Washington, my god, they don't get anything done. You can't get Kate's law done? You can't get that? It is. It's infuriating. Money dictates what these people do.

STU: How do you expect the G20 negotiations to affect the global banana trade?

BILL: I think the banana trade after this show, the Glenn Beck show.

PAT: It's going to be huge; right?

BILL: He was insincere about bananas.


PAT: He was kind of insincere.

BILL: It's going to skyrocket. There's a lot of potassium involved, and we know that. Now, the global warming people don't like potassium because it can impact, you know, and make things a little warmer. But I still think the banana trade is going to go through the roof as this program spans the globe.

STU: You really could do a monolog about anything, huh?

BILL: Any topic, I can do five about it. Whatever you want.

STU: Will you come back on the other side, Bill? I would love to get your take on Chris Christie. What his future could possibly be. (888) 727-Beck. Bill O'Reilly is with us. Glenn is going to be back here in just a couple of minutes to talk about Chris Christie, who may be the least popular governor in American history, according to polling.

PAT: At least who hasn't committed a major felony; right?

STU: Yeah, that's the way it's going to turn out.

PAT: Pretty amazing.

STU: Back with Bill here in just a minute. (888) 727-Beck is our phone number.

GLENN: Back with the one and only legend Bill O'Reilly.

PAT: What? Oh, sorry. I didn't hear.

GLENN: I said legend.

PAT: Yes.

GLENN: In his own mind. Bill O'Reilly from I don't appreciate the fact that he was on my program just a few minutes ago saying I didn't take the seizure of bananas by the oppressed as a riveting, riveting story and somehow I was belittling bananas, the banana industry and the need, desire, and just crave and want of bananas by the oppressed.

PAT: You did take umbrage to that?

GLENN: I did. Bill O'Reilly, welcome back to the program. I heard you talk about the border wall just a second ago. Do you think that the border wall is still going to happen?

BILL: Somewhat. It's not going to be a full border wall, but they will put in, you know, a high-tech situation in various sectors that they believe --

GLENN: Without any movement on this now with the trouble that he is having, does this happen as something that he can run on and say see? I told you I was building a wall, and I have broken ground on a lot of the wall, or is this -- I need a -- I need these guys, you know, in the senate to help me to get started.

BILL: No, I don't think so. Just today over in Europe he said once again that Mexico's going to pay for the wall. He's going to do something. He can do it by executive order.

PAT: But there won't be a big, beautiful 40-foot wall with a beautiful door in it.

BILL: No, for example, where you live, you're not going to have a wall there. It's very hard to get through and all of that. You don't need it. But, you know, in places like Arizona where, you know, there's a lot of trouble, then you'll see, you know, the thing go up. So it's more of a symbolic thing than anything else.

STU: That's quite an admission, though. We're not even six months into this thing, and it's his signature issue, and it doesn't seem like anyone actually believes he's going to build this thing at this point. Not even Ann Coulter.

BILL: Well, the signature issue is really the economy. That's really what it's all about. So if the economy gets better and people are making more money, and they feel more secure, they're going to give him a pass on some of the other things, as long as the intent is there, and that's what's going on.

GLENN: Okay. Let me switch gears and talk about a couple of other things. First of all, the beached whale story that happened over the weekend. Oh, no, I confused that with the other story. Chris Christie in New Jersey.

PAT: Why do you confuse that with the Chris Christie story?

GLENN: I don't know.

PAT: That's weird.

GLENN: He is the most unpopular governor in America now. And that's saying something. There's only three people -- is he number three at the bottom?

STU: He's number four right now the least popular governor as far as polling has ever shown. And that is ahead of him -- first of all, he's at 15 percent. That was taken before the beach incident. So I would assume that's going to drop. Only governor ahead of him 2016 Frank in Alaska, at 14 percent. He named his daughter to be senator, so that was not a popular move. 2008, rod went to 8 percent. Obviously, he's in prison.

GLENN: Yeah, went to prison.

STU: And 2005 also criminal charges against Bob Taft in Ohio, he's at 7 percent.

GLENN: So what happened with Chris Christie?

BILL: Well, Christie's play is this. He know he's not going to do public service ever again. This is what I believe. All right? So he's out of the public service business. So what business does he want to get into besides importing bananas? He wants to get into the media business; right? That's what he wants to do. Now, there have been all kinds of rumors in the New York area that he wants to do sports radio, radio talk, that kind of thing. So what better way to get his name out there as a controversial guy than to go to his lavish beach home as the state of New Jersey provides their governors when all the other beaches are closed because the state couldn't pass a budget. So he's the only one on the beach, and then he allows himself to be photographed in a lounge chair with his grin on his face. He knows what he's doing. Gendering controversy, get his name out there, so he will get some kind of media play.

STU: But that's not a guy --

GLENN: I'm not excited to tune into the guy who just gave his state the shaft. It's not, like, oh, man, I can't wait to hear what he has to say.

BILL: He could go to sports. He could go to news too on the radio. I don't think he could do TV.

JEFFY: Are you fat shaming?

BILL: He'll get a sampling, Beck. He will. People around here will tune him in.

GLENN: I think you're right. On politics, radio is so heavily right and Chris Christie has almost zero credibility with the right, which is amazing because he went from --

BILL: He'll go in, and he'll shake it, you know? So he's got -- that's what he's angling for, and I think he's going to get some kind of media contract.

STU: For fat TV host better male, this is a place for them at the Blaze.

GLENN: Yeah, we're all fat here.

BILL: Maybe you want to use the word zoftig. Fat is a little blunt.

STU: Zoftig? I've never heard that.

BILL: It's a German-based word. I picked it up when I was in Berlin.

GLENN: Bananas.

BILL: Maybe rotund.

GLENN: Rotund I know. Zoftig is not a pretty word. Let's switch gears to the baby in England. 11 months old. National health care, they want to pull the plug, we're waiting for the English version of the Supreme Court to give the ruling. The baby has already been accepted to a hospital here in New York. The Vatican has offered to take the baby at the Bambino hospital. In fact, the Pope yesterday said they will issue the family a Vatican passport so the baby can be taken out of the hospital and make them Vatican citizens. What do you think is about this story?

BILL: Well, I think the British authorities would be insane not to allow the Vatican to take the baby and treat the baby and, you know, Trump has weighed in and said we'll take the baby here in the USA, and there will be enough people, of course, to donate money to pay the bills and stuff like that. So if the British government says, no, we're going to allow the baby to die, that's going to be an enormously big story that's going to be really bad for the UK. So I don't believe they'll do it. But I would like to see them cooperate with the Vatican on that. On a life issue like that.

GLENN: What's amazing -- if you haven't followed this story, go to Charlie's I think this is a battle more than for western life, this is a battle, Bill, that is a bellwether on our humanity as the west.

BILL: Well, it certainly goes right into euthanasia and abortion debate. But, you know, clear-thinking human beings will say, look, if the baby is going to be treated, let the process play out, you know? Why would you want to abort the process?

So, yeah, you're right. I mean, these crazy, insane choice people -- not everybody is at that level who just say euthanasia, fine. State of Oregon totally out of control, no limits on abortion. You can do whatever you want for any reason. Nothing stopping the fetus, the unborn. We reach a point in a moral conversation where you can't defend these kinds of actions. And the UK could not defend not allowing that baby every opportunity and its family.

GLENN: So, Bill, this is the Slate magazine came out immediately and said the right's going to make this into death panels and. And that's what this is. This is a death panel.

BILL: Right. It's a ruling that the baby doesn't have the right to treatment.

GLENN: To eat up more resources.

BILL: Yeah, to treatment. Even though the baby is now -- has an opportunity to go away from the UK so that they don't have to deal with the situation any longer. So that's why I'm saying the British aren't stupid. They're not going to do that.

GLENN: Let's just noodle this out for a second if you have socialized medicine, and you're going to have to ration medicine, which they are. They're so far in debt with their nationalized medicine over in Great Britain, it's killing them. And they have to ration the care. So if you're rationing the care, you have to make this decisions that says this is not worth the investment because the odds of survival are so low. What makes that -- argue from the logical point of view to a liberal that says, well, yeah, but why should this baby have a chance? Because they have wealth or access to money. But nobody else's baby has that chance. We have to even the playing field and everybody has to have a fair shake.

BILL: Well, when you're talking about life and death, there is in a matter of a comparative matter. Of whether you can save the baby or elongate the baby's life, you do it. And economics shouldn't enter into it. I don't believe in socialized medicine. I lived in England for a year. I know that there's a back up. I know in Canada, for example, you have to wait for a complicated surgery, which is why thousands of Canadians come to the United States for it. So that kind of the government makes calls the shots on life and death. That is not compatible with my he view of life, and I would think most people in America would say the same thing. They don't want the government to say who lives and dies because of money.

GLENN: Did you read the pope's actual statement?

BILL: I did not read it.

GLENN: You should, Bill, as a Catholic, I would be interested to hear what you have to say. Because he didn't say -- he said, you know, this is a very complicated matter -- which it's really not. It's not complex. The money's there. The baby has been offered treatment elsewhere. It's not complex at all. But he was not John Paul, who would have come out and had come out and said, you know, that big state making and decisions for families is not right and the family needs to be empowered and all life is sacred. He didn't use any of that language. He said it's a complicated matter. He understood and we shouldn't reject the state being involved. Basically saying, you know, we need to understand that parents sometimes have a hard time with these decisions and shouldn't be left alone. It was a really treading the line kind of statement.

BILL: All right. Yes, ma'am, the offer, so that's number one, and he is a different guy. He's not doctrinaire. He tries to get as many people as possible into his outlook or his point of view, and he doesn't like to make judgments about certain things because then he believes that alienates people and cuts off the conversation. So I'm a big actions speak louder than words guy, and I applaud what the Vatican is doing, I hope the UK takes their offer and sends the family to Rome and let the life process play out there, and that would be a huge win for not only the family and the baby, but for the cause of life. And so that's what I hope happens.

GLENN: is the website where you can hear Bill every single day. You launch maybe this fall with a new TV show?

BILL: We're not sure yet what we're going to do with the TV thing. It's complicated.

GLENN: I know.

BILL: But we're certainly going to upgrade the And I love how you say you said it this time as opposed to the beginning of the interview when I didn't feel the sincerity.

GLENN: No. Bill I didn't. When I say, I mean it. When I say, I don't feel it. It's not the same.

BILL: I want you to read Legends & Lies: The Civil War.

GLENN: And there's nothing like Legends & Lies: The Civil War.

BILL: That's right. I know you're a history buff and like to learn.

GLENN: I was in a bookstore, and it's shameful how many books he has. But they're all great. Great for your kids as well. History at Bill O'Reilly. Thanks, Bill, talk to you next week.

BILL: All right. We'll talk to you.

Congress must STOP THE SPENDING before it's too late

Congress must STOP THE SPENDING before it's too late

JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon warned at the Barclays Global Financial Services Conference that the U.S. is "spending money like drunken sailors around the world and that an economic "soft landing" is probably not coming. Glenn reviews the real state of the economy and insists that Congress must stop the spending before it's too late. He also argues that every presidential candidate needs to be asked what they would do to curb inflation. Is any candidate willing to dramatically downsize the government? Glenn and Stu discuss.

How is it 'EXTREME' to STOP reckless government spending of YOUR money?!

How is it 'EXTREME' to STOP reckless government spending of YOUR money?!

Real median household income just had its worst decline since 2010 — and the true numbers are much worse than the government is suggesting. But instead of curbing spending to fix inflation, the Biden administration wants Congress to continue spending at its current levels to avoid a government shutdown. And some in the media are branding the House Freedom Caucus and other conservative groups as "extremists" and "terrorists" for demanding LESS spending. Glenn defines "extremist" and "terrorist" and explains why continuing this reckless government spending (which added $2 TRILLION to our national debt) will only hurt American families MORE.


Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Stu, define the word extreme. What does it say?

STU: Extreme. Reaching a high or the highest degree, furthest from the center or a given point.

There you go.

GLENN: All right. Give me extremist.

STU: Extremist.

A person who holds extreme or fanatical, political, or religious views. Especially one who resorts to or advocates an extreme reaction.

GLENN: Okay. Hang on. Extreme, political, or religious views.

STU: Uh-huh. Especially one who resorts to or advocates extreme action.

GLENN: They have any examples of that?

I would like to know what an extreme action is. Is that terrorist?

Look up the word 'terrorist.'

STU: Terrorist: a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians in the pursuit of political aims.

GLENN: Unlawful violence.

Or --

STU: Or? And intimidation, is the way they phrase it. especially against civilians.

In the pursuit of political aims.

GLENN: Okay.

Here's why I want to bring these up.

And I just -- I want you to remember, if you believe this, I do. Words matter.

If you can change people's words and their language, you can change everything.

That's why they have replaced so much of our language, and we all are just saying. First, let me give you the lay of the land.

What you're facing.

The last time America saw a drop in household income. As large as we did in this last year, Barack Obama was president.

The change, according to the Census Bureau, the change in real median household income, it fell 2.3 percent.

That's the worst decline since 2010.

That means, what you actually are bringing home.

You know, they say, oh, jobs. We're creating all new great union jobs.

And pay is going up. But what you're actually taking home, is down by 2.3.

And that's before taxes.

If you calculate the taxes. And the subsidies, hand it out.

So not only what they take, but what they give.

Household income fell 8.8 percent.


Real median earnings, of all workers, which includes part-time and full-time workers. Declined 2.2.

Median workers of those who worked full-time fell 1.3.

Now, they're wondering why Biden's numbers are so low.

Like, it's -- like it's, I don't know.

Like, it's a Cheshire cat, whose stripes are only appearing in a tree once in a while.

It's really easy.

People are getting poorer. Because inflation is eating away at your income.

Family household income fell even more than the median. Dropping 2.9 percent.

Older Americans saw an income decline of 2.1, worse than the 1.4 decline for people under 65. So families and the elder have suffered the most.
Native born incomes. You're born here in the United States. You fell 2.5 percent.

But if you weren't born here in the United States, you edged up .2 percent.

Region that was hit hardest. What a surprise. The Midwest.

Incomes fell by a stunning 4.7 percent.

In the northeast, median households fell 3.8.

In the West 3.2. And in the south, income trickled down to buy -- I'm sorry. By .1 percent.

Why is that?

Why is that?

Why is the South doing so well?

Weather? Maybe taxes.

Governments kind of doing what's right for the people. Maybe.

Not so crazy. All the time.


Now I want to talk you to about extremists.

I want to talk you to about extreme extremists.

And terrorists.

The House Freedom Caucus and conservative groups held a press conference Tuesday, appointing opposing any deal to continue government spending, at its current levels, hurries before the House reconvened after a week long reassess. To tackle the task of keeping the government open. Past September 30th.

The White House, eager to stave off a shutdown.

Has proposed a clean extension of the current spending levels.

So you know, the spending levels, that we're spending right now, this year, we were supposed to be a trillion dollars over what we had.

So we were going to add a trillion dollars to the debt.

But somehow or another, we spent an additional trillion dollars.

So we are $2 trillion, adding to the debt. That's the current spending.

Do you find that reasonable?

Let me take you back. Why is your income going down?

Why are these things happening?

Why is it that you're looking at the grocery store. And you're saying. You're looking at the price of eggs. And milk.

And you're saying, what the -- now, gas, you can kind of understand. Because that goes up and down.

But all of the stuff in the grocery store.

How come the paper towels and the toilet paper are smaller? I mean, they're even cutting them now so they're not as wide.

So it's not as big. But it's also not as wide. How come that's going down. And yet, the price is going up.

How come I'm getting less for my dollars packaging. I'm not giving the same product I had.

And I'm paying more money.

Because your that are isn't worth as much.

That's why. When people talk about. You're going to understand hyperinflation.

At some point, you're going to understand hyperinflation. And we don't want to learn that lesson.

That's what Venezuela went through. And nobody wants to talk about this.

Nobody wants to think about it. Oh, I know there's somebody in their car right now. Going, I don't want to think about that.

You must think about this.

You must!

Because if you don't, it's guaranteed to happen.

What causes that?

Out of control spending.

So the White House doesn't want a shutdown. But they'll just continue, with a clean -- a clean bill. Exact same spending levels.

Well, with the addition of $40,000 in Ukrainian aid. Some disaster relief. Some border funding.

You know, but other than that, it will be clean.


So you're $2 trillion in debt more this year.

And we're another 2 trillion next year.


All in four years.

I'm sorry. All in two years.

The more money they spend, the higher the inflation. The less your dollar is worth.

Now, in story after story, the Republicans who are standing up and saying, no more. We cannot continue this.

We're not going to have a gun held to our head.

We have time right now, to work out a budget.

But that's not what's happening.

The budget is being made behind closed doors.

And then what do those leaders, McConnell, Schumer, McCarthy. Jeffries. What do those leaders do?

Those leaders, who think they know better than everyone else, that you elected, you sent them to Congress.

They get the blame.

But are they to blame on this?

Because they don't have a choice.

Now, they're called terrorists. They're called extremists.

And an extremist, is the furthest from the center.

How many people do you know, that are actually fighting for in budget, to actually -- you know, pencil put to paper. And work this out?

How many people do you know, that are saying, pass it in the middle of the night, and no one read it?

Do you know anybody. Left or right. Do you know anyone?

Because I don't.

Do you know anybody who says, we can continue -- besides the current administration.

We can spend like it's -- it's raining money.

Just keep spending the bomb trillion dollars a year. It should be $3 trillion a year.

Do you know anyone that thinks our current level of spending is good?

I don't. Do you?

If you do feel that way, I want to hear how you got there. I really do.

I'm not going to make you feel stupid or anything else.

I just want to know, how you got to that thinking.

And it would be refreshing to hear. Because I don't meet those people.

I don't know who those people are. I think those people are the ones furthest from the center.

And then, what do they do?

Well, they try to intimidate people.

They are currently telling our congresspeople, you elected to do this job.

Those four people are telling the 431 exactly what they have to do. You have to pass this right now.

This is coming, in two weeks.

You have to pass this right now. We've already worked it out. No amendments. No reading it.

Just pass it right now.

Or you're going to get the blame for the government shutting down.

Now, you're on the road, you're going some place important.

You love your car. You got to get to the place.

But your car starts to overheat.

And your car blows a tire. Two tires.

Now, you could keep going. But you could blow the engine.

And you'll destroy the rims. So you won't have a lot left, when you get there.

Nobody wants to stop the car. Nobody wants to wait for the tow truck.

Nobody -- everybody wants to go to wherever it was, you were going.

Everybody. But who is the unreasonable one?

The one that says, I don't see any -- I don't see any problem. Keep going. Keep going.

Or the rest of the family, who is like, no. We're not going to have anything left, Dad.

I mean -- I mean, as much as I would like a new car, can we afford a new car?

No. Then maybe we should stop. Even the kids know. Stop.

Stop the car. This is dangerous. And it's going to put us in a very bad situation. And if we do it, we may never be able to make another trip.

Who is the extremist here?

I don't want to shut down the government. But, quite honestly, if you want to save America, it is better for them to do absolutely nothing. Than put us another $2 trillion, in debt!

Remember, if I pay you, what was it? A dollar a second. That's $31 million, by the end of the year.

And it only takes you to get to a trillion dollars. If I pay you for every second of every day, of every year, it only takes you 32 billion years. No, million years. 32 million years.

32 million years.

Okay. Don't -- I'm thinking, that maybe we shouldn't spend that money. Because I don't know how we'll ever earn that money.

And I would like something left for my children.

Did RINO Texas politicians ACTUALLY impeach an elected Attorney General with ZERO evidence?

Did RINO Texas politicians ACTUALLY impeach an elected Attorney General with ZERO evidence?

Something is very wrong in Texas, Glenn says, and if it's happening there, what could happen in YOUR state? The Texas state legislature is holding an impeachment trial for Attorney General Ken Paxton. But is this a legitimate trial or a RINO Republican hit-job? Texas Scorecard Managing Editor Brandon Waltens has been keeping an eye on the trial and he joins Glenn to explain how shockingly LITTLE evidence - if any - Paxton's accusers have brought.


Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I'm going to talk you to a little bit about what's happening in Texas. But I'm talking you to about this, because if it's happening in Texas, God only knows what's happening in your state.

I wanted to bring somebody on, who really watches this for a living. His name is Brandon Waltons. He does the Texas scorecard. And every day, he does, you know, headlines. Of what's about to go. And he watches us every weekday at 5:00. YouTube X, and podcast platforms. There is an impeachment going on of probably the strongest attorney general in the nation.

The one here in Texas Ken Paxton.

He's been on this show several times. I know Ken.

But I don't have a horse in this race. If he's guilty of a crime, he should be punished.

But it is really beginning to look, and I stayed off this story, until the testimony was out.

And I have to tell you, something is very wrong in Texas.

And Texans better pay attention to this. Brandon, welcome.

BRANDON: Thank you so much for having me, Glenn.

GLENN: So overall, can you quickly just say, you know, what this is supposedly about? And then let's talk about the actual witnesses?

BRANDON: Yeah. So how did we get here?

Essentially, three years ago, we had this group of employees at the office of attorney general, who accused Ken Paxton of wrongdoing, of abusing his office to help a friend, essentially. And they went to the FBI. They recorded him.

And that sort of set into motion, what we now have three years later. This impeachment process, which many of those impeachment charges are based off of.

Back in May, over Memorial Day weekend. Well, a lot of people were maybe grilling out or at the lake, whatever.

The House met on a Saturday.

They voted to impeach Ken Paxton. Based on testimony that wasn't sworn testimony. Ken Paxton wasn't made aware of their investigation, until it came out. Forty-eight hours before the vote.

And the House members themselves weren't able to actually look at their testimonies. They had to rely on the word of the House investigators.

GLENN: And, Ken, if I'm not mistaken, wasn't allowed to respond in his own defense.

BRANDON: Right. Right. And so you had a lot of these sorts of things, that people will look at this, like, this is odd.

Well, just like DC, you know, the House does the impeachment, goes over to the Senate to determine whether or not they would convict, which would actually remove him from office. So for the last few months, there has been a lot of talk, from those pushing the impeachment. Who are saying, wait until you see this testimony.

Wait until you see the evidence. You will be blown away by what we have.

And yet, this trial happened last week.

And so far. And we're more than halfway through this.

The testimony has really, really been weak.

GLENN: I would say, a little beyond weak.

There's no evidence of a crime. I mean, this is -- let me just read something. This was the third whistle-blower.

The concern began, when Paxton advocated for the AG's office to open investigation, into Nate Paul.

That see his friend and donor. Alleged mistreatment by the FBI. And Texas DPS. During a raid.

Paul's contention was that the Fed did him dirty by illegally altering his search warrants, after the fact to expand their scope, just to get him.

His technical experts theorized that there was altered meta data in the digital versions, that proved the documents had been changed.

Maxwell quickly developed the opinion, that the whistle-blower, the opinion that Nate Paul was a criminal, that we should not be associated with. Accordingly, he had dragged his feet.

And ultimately refused to open a formal investigation, into the alleged FBI and TBS misconduct. Paxton, convinced of the idea, that the FBI was untrustworthy. Well, that's farfetched.

He eventually hired outside counsel, to help explore and adjudicate Paul's claims, an act that would eventually become a primary catalyst for the whistle-blower complaints.

Now, did anything come of that outside investigation?

BRANDON: No. And the thing is, when you see these people testify, I mean, numerous of these former employees of the office of the attorney general has talked about how insane, literally that's what one of these people said. It would be insane to investigate the FBI.

Essentially, they trust them whole-heartedly. That there would been nothing. I mean, literally, one of them was asked, is there anything that maybe happened over the last two, three, four years, that might change your trust in the FBI?

They said no. Of course, that's in odds with Texas voters. I mean, Republican primary voters.

We have a poll after the Mar-a-Lago raid.
Shows that 73 percent of Texas primary voters have a negative opinion of the FBI.

GLENN: What a shock.

So I'm reading this. And my first thought was. And I dismissed it out of hand.

And I don't even know why it came at me.

But I'm reading all of the testimony. And I'm thinking to myself, this is George Bush. This is -- this is the George Bush wing of the party, that is -- that trusts the FBI. Is denying that there's a problem in America.

The problem is the Republican voters. All of that crap.

And then I continue to read on. And it looks like the whistle-blowers do have a relationship with George P. Bush. Is there anything to this, that this is a Bush ambush?

BRANDON: You know, there's been a couple moments during the testimony of the past week, where the Bush family has been invoked. And it looks like perhaps they were somehow involved in this.

One of those things, that when the whistle-blowers went to the FBI and reported Paxton.

And, by the way, without even asking him or talking to him beforehand, and then they also said they had no evidence when they went.

But when they were preparing to go to the FBI, on that same day, George P. Bush was reactivating his law license.

He would eventually challenge Ken Paxton and the Republican primary last year.

GLENN: Lose.

BRANDON: Lost in the runoff.

And then you also have the case, where Johnnie Sutton, who was a Bush lawyer. Somebody who was a US attorney under Bush, and very close to the Bush family.

He's been representing some of these whistle-blowers for the last three years, and hasn't sent them a bill. Hasn't been paid, essentially they're representing them pro bono.

So that's just another piece of the puzzle, people are looking at and saying, hmm, it looks like someone else. Some outside force is involved here.

GLENN: I -- honestly, the people who brought this impeachment the way they brought it. Should be impeached themselves.

I don't -- you know, the one thing I do hear about Paxton, is he's just a freight train.

And he's not good at playing the game. And making friends and influencing people, whatever. Well, neither is John Adams. And I'm not comparing him to John Adams.

I'm just saying, temperament-wise, John Adams is not a popular guy. But you do not bend the rules to get rid of somebody, if he is -- if he is a criminal. If he did something criminal, then I am for his impeachment.

But if this is just because he has made the right friends.

Or a Bush wants him out.

Or whatever it is. The people involved in this, because it's been so shady, the way they did this.

I think they should be impeached.

BRANDON: Certainly, there's been a lot of anger. Especially among Republican voters.

You know, it's one thing where we see what's happening with the president. Where we see Democrats going after. Using the justice system.

It's another one, here in Texas. And you have Democrats. And establishment Republicans, going along with it.

GLENN: It's really bad. Really, really bad.

Anything to the thought that this happened the week that Paxton said, you know, hey.

Why -- why is our speaker of the House giving, you know, chairmanship to the Democrats?

We don't need friends like this.

And then it was later that week, that the impeachment thing happened.

Was there any connection?

BRANDON: Well, I think absolutely, there has been a divide.

Dave, the establishment guy, that runs the House, who puts Democrats in power.

He has been at odds, with not only Ken Paxton, but the conservative grassroots, who have repeatedly elected Paxton.

So certainly, there's no coincidence there.
There's certainly been a lot of bad blood between the establishment and Ken Paxton.

It just shows why they worked so hard, to try to essentially overturn the election and get him out of office.

GLENN: And quickly, what do your sources tell you, how will this fare? How will this turn out?

BRANDON: Yeah. So they need two-thirds, to permanently remove him from office.

That vote is supposed to take place, maybe Friday and Saturday, and later this week. You know, it's a little tough. You have to do aftermath. The senators are under gag orders.

I would say, especially after people testifying that they essentially had no evidence, which is what we repeatedly saw this week.

I hear a lot of the senators are getting very, very frustrated that House members put them in this situation that they have to sit through this.

And I think that ultimately, that will be something that they will be considering there, when they make those decisions.

GLENN: But you will get all the Democrats. So how many Republicans do you need?

BRANDON: I think you need ten. Ten, if I recall.

GLENN: Ten weasels.

All right. I hope not.

Thank you so much for reporting on this.

And bringing us the story. I appreciate it.

BRANDON: Absolutely.

GLENN: You bet. Brandon Waltons. He's Texas scorecard. You can find Texas scorecard. Wherever you get to your podcast. And YouTube and X every day at 5 o'clock.

STU: And just one quick thing. In case you missed the show yesterday.

It sort of rolls off the tongue. To say, oh. This was brought without any evidence.

Those remember the words of the people, who brought the accusations.

GLENN: Yeah. We have no evidence.

STU: They were asked specifically, do you have any evidence, when you were brought this case? And the guy said no.

GLENN: The most credible said, no. It's just my feeling.

STU: Right. We thought we had some legal activities we brought to their attention.

Did you have any evidence? No.

Glenn SHREDS Democrats' claims that there's 'NO EVIDENCE' to impeach Joe Biden

Glenn SHREDS Democrats' claims that there's 'NO EVIDENCE' to impeach Joe Biden

Democrats and media outlets are insisting that Republicans in the House of Representatives have NO EVIDENCE to impeach President Biden on. But this couldn't be further from the truth. Glenn breaks down the evidence that already exists — before the impeachment inquiry has even begun — and also explains how this investigation would differ from the impeachment inquiries against former president Donald Trump. There's so much evidence of the Biden family's corruption, Glenn says, that either his entire family was somehow making millions behind Joe Biden's back or he has lied to the American people.


Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Speaker Kevin McCarthy opened up an impeachment inquiry into President Biden. Working to appease far right lawmakers who have threatened to oust him if he fails to -- to accede to their demands for deep spending cuts that would force a government shutdown at the end of the month. So the New York Times is saying they're only -- McCarthy is only doing the inquiry because of the spending bill.

Now, that is a possibility. I want you to know. Because McCarthy has said on Fox about a month ago, that, you know, if we don't get a bill, we don't get a spending bill, I mean, we're going to have to cut and shut down everything, including any kind of inquiry or impeachment hearing.

Oh, I get it. Uh-huh. Yeah.

I'm not playing that game. Uh-uh.

You want to shut down the impeachment inquiry? Because you have to shut down the government?

You don't have to do that. But you don't scare me. I don't care. I don't care. I don't expect you to actually do anything anyway. So what do I have to lose? These are empty threats from empty suits. For those of us who aren't playing a game, who actually believe that I don't care who it is, I don't if it's Donald Trump or if it was Joe Biden, I don't care if it was Ronald Reagan, if they break the law they should be impeached or in prison. If they break the law. Not witch hunts. Not witch hunts. And not small little laws that are, you know, like honestly, Bill Clinton, he should have paid some price for perjury.

Now, at the time, I thought, he should be impeached because he lied to the American people.

How much money, did we spend, how much time did we waste on that?

But I -- honestly, I think Hillary missed the biggest chance in the world. You know, she should have just thrown his suitcases out on the lawn of the -- well, that would probably be -- and he's president. So she couldn't.

She should have just packed up a suitcase, left the White House.

And said, I fully support him as president of the United States. But we have our issues with our marriage, and he lied to me. She would have been the most popular person in the world.

But she didn't.

This isn't that. What this impeachment is, all about, and this is not an impeachment proceeding. This is an impeachment investigation.

So now, federal investigators can -- the -- the -- Congress, has the ability for warrants to look into all of it. Where they are boxed in. Now they have the full authority to look into anything they want to look into. That's important. Because we're not just going on some hunt at the impeach with a metal detector.

We know specifically what we're looking for. When you're going in, and taking Donald Trump, what they did was, they found the guy, and then they said, let's find a crime.

This is, there is a crime, going on here.

Now, is the president directly involved?

Well, I don't know how you say he's not.

How do you possibly say that?

We've looked into the business ventures.

Now, I don't say us. The Congress has looked into it.

We've had several whistle-blowers. Investigations have shown that Joe Biden lied. This is the first one.

Well, he's just -- he doesn't know. He lied over and over again, when he said, I have no knowledge of my son's business deals. More specifically, I've never discussed it with my son, ever.

Okay. We know that's a lie. Because now we have eyewitnesses, from -- even the head of Burisma holdings. The Ukrainian energy company.

According to the intelligence, according to eyewitnesses.

He was involved, in -- what was it?

Under 100 meetings. They were saying, under 100 meetings.

He would just pop in with business associates. In the middle of a business deal.

STU: Let's just be safe. Under 1 million meetings.

We can be safe under that one, I think.

GLENN: Yeah. Apparently, Joe can he say key.

He's the guy with Burisma. He has 17 audio recordings of conversations with the Bidens. Two of which purportedly involve vice president Joe Biden.

So that would be a problem.

The WhatsApp message, included in the testimony by the IRS whistle-blower, further indicate Joe's involvement in hunter's business affairs. One message sent to Chinese businessman, Henry Zhao.

Hunter threatened to use his father's political power to exhort unfulfilled promises and assurances from Zhao.

I'm sitting here with my father. And we would like to understand why the commitment made, has not been fulfilled.

Hunter also said, he had an ability to forever hold a grudge. That you will regret. The man sitting next to me, and every person he knows will make your life a living hell. If you don't meet our demands.

Now, maybe, maybe that was Hunter, you know, in a drug rage. And he wasn't sitting next to his dad. That was a possibility.

STU: And they're denying it's even real.

So like, this is a perfect thing to investigate.

We need to find the answer. Obviously, if that's reason, and he was in the room, that's a massive problem.

GLENN: Wouldn't you want that?

Because this is easy. All you have to do is just geotrack the message.

And I believe we know it was in the House. It came from the House.

But they won't tell us if Joe Biden was there.

That's, again, easy. Why wouldn't. If you were innocent. And you weren't there. Why wouldn't you say, yeah. I was over here.

I was at the other house. I was on the beach.

I was at the White House. Why wouldn't you say that?

STU: Easily provable.

GLENN: Easily provable.

GLENN: But still, even if he wasn't in the same house, doesn't mean, he'll be sitting next to each other.

But it's smoke.

Then you have Devon Archer, who testified to at least 24 times that Joe spoke with his son's business associates.

And this has credibility, because the White House changed the narrative after that testimony.

I never discussed any business dealings.

Now I've never been in business with my son.

That's a huge difference.

Also, the vice president used his office to coordinate with Hunter Biden's business partners about hunter's role in Burisma.

There's an FD1023. That's for confidential sources.

Containing Intel from a, quote, highly credible, confidential human source, that is offering further evidence that the then vice president was instrumental in the firing of Ukrainian prosecutor, investigating Burisma.

And he was paid $10 million, the Bidens were for his role in firing the prosecutor.

Okay. We know he fired the prosecutor. We know he lied on videotape to a panel. What?

At the foreign affairs council, or whatever it is. And he was talking about it and saying, look, you know, Barack knew. And Barack was with me.

This guy had to go.

No, that's not true. The White House now has had to produce the records that showed the White House wanted Shokin, said he was fine.

State Department said he was fine.

The EU all said he was doing a great job.

So he lied.


Then a review of bank records conducted by the House oversight committee, confirmed that at least -- at least nine Biden family members, including children, received millions in diluted payments from foreign companies.

Before, during, and shortly after Joe's vice presidency.

What are the Biden children?

I mean, the children, children.

What are they getting?

And what are they providing?

When they say, there is no evidence, there's lots of evidence. No. That doesn't mean that -- I mean, I believe this is so -- I talked to Megyn Kelly yesterday. I said, Megyn, you're an attorney, I'm not.

If I looked at this, I would say, this is an open-and-shut case just on what we have.

And she said, oh, my gosh, yes.

Then you have the testimony of the IRS whistle-blowers. Federal prosecutors concealed critical documents from tax investigators probing Hunter Biden while officials from the Justice Department sought to undermine the IRS' investigative efforts.

One of the whistle blowers had previously alleged in May, that his investigative team had been removed from the Biden tax probe, at the behest of the DOJ. In addition to the alleged interference in the IRS tax probe, the DOJ also sought to give legal immunity to Hunter regarding charges filed against him earlier this year. It was a Delaware judge who said, I'm sorry. Have you ever done a deal like this, ever before, DOJ?


Not that we can recall.

So you have the lies. Okay.

That's one thing.

Then you have the Biden family. Not just Hunter. They're just trying to make this about Hunter. You have nine family members, having as many as 22 offshore accounts. Some of them held by children. Funneling millions of dollars. We need to know, what those offshore accounts do.

You have now, I think the number is 250.

200 -- I mean, I can't even keep up with it.

Where the treasury was alerted by banks, saying, this is money laundering.

And it was all tied to those offshore accounts, that went to the Biden family.

Now, if grandpa didn't know this, is the whole family in this? And the only one that is clean, is grandpa?

And if that's true, how come the DOJ is doing everything they can to thwart any investigation?

I don't know. Guys, I just this is -- you know, I lied about sex.

This certainly isn't about a perfect phone call. In fact, that perfect phone call, which he was impeached for. Was regarding this. This was the Trump phone call.

What the hell was happening with Burisma?

All kinds of criminal activity was going on.

Do you have any information on that? That's what that was all about. Everything you know about Ukraine is a lie.

Everything you think you know about Ukraine is a lie. The American people need to know, one, are our highest officials and our highest offices up for sale? Can you buy it? Can you buy it?

I hope to God, the people of America say no. Or we become, I don't know. A third world country. We become Venezuela.

That's the number one thing.

The second thing, that you really need to know, is -- is our Justice Department, is our IRS. Is everything just a weapon now of the guy who possibly sold his office?

Can we trust anyone in the White House?

Anyone in the Justice Department?


Is there anyone there?

All of this needs to be decided. And it is really important that we come to an answer, even if Joe Biden walked out today and was hit by a bus.

This needs to be investigated. And needs to be cleared.

Because we must send a message. This will not stand.

If it was done, I don't want any kangaroo courts.

I want equal and blind justice. For all.