Ben Shapiro: ‘Nikki Haley at the UN Is Basically My Spirit Animal’

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikky Haley, once again, proved why she’s a woman you just don’t mess with. As the U.N. General Assembly defiled the U.S.’s sovereign right to declare Jerusalem the capital of Israel and its decision to move the U.S.

Embassy to the recognized capital, 128 U.N. members, unashamed, voted against the move on Thursday. Fortunately, their decision has no impact on the matter but our favorite ambassador made note of who voted against it threatening to strip aid from those who did so. On Friday’s episode of “The Glenn Beck Radio Program,” Ben Shapiro filled in for Glenn and celebrated Nikki Haley’s courage in the face of adversity. He also suggested that we pull funding from a useless organization whose ideals are the antithesis of U.S. interests.

Watch above. 

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

BEN: This is Ben Shapiro in for Glenn Beck. Glenn is on vacation. A well-earned vacation. And it's an honor to sit behind the microphone for the Glenn Beck Program. A lot of news here as the year wanes. Still, a lot going on out there.

And The news begins today with Nikki Haley just going off at the UN. She did this yesterday. And as I said at the time, Nikki Haley at the UN is basically my spirit animal. It's just spectacular. So the UN votes yesterday, 128 to nine, for the proposition that the United States ought to be condemned from moving our own embassy to Jerusalem and Israel.

Now, there are some Americans who think that this is a terrible idea. Not only is it a terrible idea, but President Trump's threats to retaliate against countries that vote against us in the UN, those are bullying.

John Brennan, the former DIA, director of intelligence agencies, under Barack Obama, he came out and he said it was dictatorial for President Trump and Nikki Haley to threaten funding for countries that don't our way in the UN, which is sort of amazing. Since we are the ones with a sovereign right to put our embassy wherever we damn well please.

But one of the amazing things about how the left has responded to the international community condemning Trump is that they hate Trump so much, they dislike Israel as a general matter so much, that they're fine with the international community pandemic.

It's always been weird to me how so many folks on the left are interested in what the international community has to say, as though the Europeans actually have any moral leverage with which to shame us. Or the UN, which is filled with dictatorial, tyrannical countries that oppress their own citizens. Like we're supposed to sit around listening and waiting for their moral guidance. It's the United States that has saved civilization time and time again. It's the United States that has ensured that morality prevails in war after war over the last century and a half.

It's the United States that has stood up when standing needed to be done, and yet there are the people on the left in the United States who think we should look for our cues to places like Germany. Germany voted against the United States, putting its embassy in Jerusalem, as though the Germans have anything to say about it.

And the Germans should just sit down and shut up when it comes to Israel overall. But the Germans should certainly sit down and shut up when it comes to the US putting our embassy where we please.

If they don't like it, we can always remove our -- our bases from Germany. I mean, this notion that the international community owes us nothing and that they shouldn't follow our lead, if the international community followed the United States' lead, the world would be a much better place. If the opposite occurred, the world would be a much worse place.

Here's Nikkei Haley yesterday, at the United Nations, going off on all these countries that were voting against the United States and trying to shame the United States into moving its embassy back to Tel Aviv in Israel.

VOICE: The United States is by far the single largest contributor to the United Nations and its agencies. When a nation is singled out for attack in this organization, that nation is disrespected. What's more, that nation is asked to pay for the privilege of being disrespected. The United States will remember this day in which it was singled out for attack in the general assembly for the very act of exercising our right as a sovereign nation. We will remember it when we are called upon to once again make the world's largest contribution to the United Nations. And it will remember it when so many countries come calling on us, as they so often do, to pay even more, and to use our influence for their benefit.

BEN: Yes. Yes, Nikki Haley. Nikki Haley is just fantastic over at the United Nations.

And naturally, you're seeing the usual suspects suggest that there will be violence over Jerusalem.

Now, what's funny is that Hamas yesterday announced that there would be days of blood over this. Which, for Hamas, the terrorist group that occupies the Gaza strip, for Hamas, that's basically any day ending in Y. Any day ending ending in Y is a day of blood for Hamas, which is a terror group that has sought to murder Jews and dissenters in like quantities for the last 20 years, minimum. They were founded in 1998, I believe. And as part of their founding document, the Hamas charter specifically talks about the murder of Jews everywhere, not just in Israel, but the murder of Jews everywhere.

And why exactly why they would riot after a resolution that went in their favor is beyond me, right? The UNGA votes in favor of Hamas and Islamic jihad and the Palestinian authority in this resolution. And they're threatening to riot anyway. And then they suggest that Israel is the one that's breaching the peace? They suggest that Israel is the group here participating in extortion, or the United States is participating in distortion.

The entire Palestinian strategy in the Middle East has been extortion for nigh on 50 years at this point. Give us what we want, or we will murder your children. That's pretty much definitionally extortion.

Also, worth pointing out. They're saying there's going to be another day of rage. This would make literally the eighth day of rage, inside the Palestinian Occupy territories in the last year. Since last year.

So over the course of a year, they have eight days of rage. As I say, they don't really need a reason. The toilet doesn't flush properly. Day of rage.

Actually, I wish that were true. I wish if their toilet didn't flush properly, there would be a day of rage because then maybe they would spend their money on fixing the toilet, instead of terror tunnels.

But a Jew in Israel sneezes, day of rage.

That's -- I want to go through the history briefly of Jerusalem, just so that folks understand that the supposed violence that's going to occur, because of President Trump, has nothing to do with President Trump. The supposed violence that is going to occur because Israel is in charge of Israel is not because Israel is in charge of Jerusalem. Jerusalem has long been a point of contention for Muslims.

In 1929, before there was a state of Israel, before there was even a glimmer of a notion of a state of Palestine that would come anywhere close to Jerusalem, in 1929, while -- while the area was called Palestine, but it was a British mandate Palestine, there were riots by Arabs against Jews in 1929. Right?

Again, long before the United States had any position on this because Israel didn't exist. Why?

Because Jews made the provocative move of bringing chairs for the elderly and the infirmed to the Western wall for prayer purposes.

In October 1928, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem decided to build on top of the Temple Mount, and purposefully led mules through the Western Wall area, excreting in the holy area, despite the Jews, Which led to a Jewish march to the wall, in August 1929, a non-violent march.


The next day, Muslims marched to the wall, to show their sovereignty, even though the western wall isn't even holy to Muslims. And the day after that, the Arab stabbed a Jew to death in the city. By August 23rd of 1929, Muslims were rioting across Jerusalem. Seventeen Jews murdered. A hospital attacked in Hebron. Hebron. Arabs massacred more than 60 Jews.

Here's the British Shah report: Again, the reason I'm doing this is because I want to show you that when people say that violence is being caused by Trump or violence is being caused by America's policy on Jerusalem, or violence is being caused by the Israeli's because of Jerusalem, it's just nonsense.

Again, this is 1929. No, Israel didn't exist yet. No Jewish occupation of Jerusalem, that doesn't exist yet. No United States policy.

No US embassy there. All right. The British Shah report described what happened. Quote, Arabs in Hebron made the most ferocious attack on the Jewish ghetto and on isolated Jewish houses lying outside the crowded quarters of the town.

More than 60 Jews, including many women and children, were murdered. More than 50 were wounded.

There were also anti-Jewish riots in the '20s and in the 1930s. In 1948, Israel's existence was supposed to create a peaceful barrier with regard to Jerusalem. Instead, if you had cautioned in the 1947 UN partition plan, Jerusalem was supposed to be an international city.

Instead, Arabs cut off all roads to Jerusalem, preventing Jews from reaching the city, and blockaded the Jews who were living inside. Thousands of Israelis had to be sacrificed or killed, trying to to reach their brethren in Jerusalem.

The outcome was a split of the city, between West Jerusalem, which is under Jewish rule, and did not include the western wall or any of the Old Testament areas, really, and east Jerusalem, controlled by Jordan.

While it was under Muslim rule, Jews were not allowed to visit Jewish holy sites.

Under Jewish rule, Muslims always have been. Muslims actually used gravestones from the Jewish cementary, the Mount of Olive. Which, if you've ever been to Israel, overlooks the Western Wall and the Temple Mount. They used those gravestones to pave their roads.

And, by the way, between 1948 and 1967, during that period, while East Jerusalem, all the holy sites were controlled by Jordanians, the Palestine liberation authority, which is the Palestinian authority, the Asar Arafat group, (?) which is run by Hamas. It was formed in 1964, while Jerusalem was not occupied by the Jews, at least the old city. They openly said what their goal was. The destruction of the state of Israel. Before Israel controlled Jerusalem. In 1967, (?) and not only did they grant Muslims access to holy sights, they actually handed full control of the Temple Mount over to the Islamic with a. A huge mistake (?) on the temperature mount. You're talking about intolerance in Jerusalem. You're talking about repercussions for rule in Jerusalem.

The fact is, just on a moral basis on who who will allow (?) the Jews should be in charge over there.

In 1993, Israel agreed to negotiate with those terrorists and the Palestinian Authority over a future (?) the PA said it would acknowledge -- (?) and cease violence. Which it never has. It never made any statement about transferring Jerusalem to Muslim rule. Despite that fact, the number of terrorist attacks on Israel dramatically increased in the aftermath of that.

In 2000, (?) Yasser Arafat of the Temple Mount itself. The Muslims reject it. Then they started with the violence that ended with the murder of hundreds of Jews. Again, (?) a leader of the Palestinian Authority and a man who works with Hamas, international control of Jerusalem's old city, including the holy sites. (?) it will be 50 years before there will be another Israeli prime minister that will offer you what I'm offering you now. Omar (?) from Judea and summary I can't. Launched another round of violence. So when people are saying that Trump is to blame (?) Nikki Haley is to blame. When they say this sort of nonsense, they're just historically inaccurate. What they're saying is not historically accurate. As we continue, I want to talk about the European response. (?) why it makes no sense whatsoever. I'm Ben Shapiro in for Glenn Beck.

"They Basically Let Him Get Shot”: Secret Service Vet Dan Bongino Demands Firings After Trump Attack

"They Basically Let Him Get Shot”: Secret Service Vet Dan Bongino Demands Firings After Trump Attack

Former Secret Service agent Dan Bongino joins Glenn as a guest to review the latest insane revelations about the security failures at the July 13th Trump rally: “They just let the line of sight threat exist…they basically let him get shot.” Bongino and Glenn review some of the basic questions that Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle failed to answer during her congressional hearing: Why didn’t she have a timeline of the day’s events? Why did the failed assassin have a drone, but the Secret Service allegedly didn’t have any aerial surveillance? Did Cheatle communicate with White House officials on messaging about the attack? Will she turn over her cell phones? Bongino also reacts live to the news that Cheatle has resigned.


Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Dan Bongino, good friend. Welcome to the program. How are you, sir?

DAN: Hey, good to talk to you, Glenn. Doing okay.

GLENN: Dan, I remember when we first met, you were still on presidential detail. And I said that you were standing in the room with these guys, while I was on the air. And they hated me.

And because of their reaction, you started really paying attention, to what was being said in those rooms. And I told you, I'm really concerned about the security, of the president.

Because I was on the outside looking at you, and people like you. And seeing the Secret Service being completely inept from the top. Not necessarily the agents.

It's gotten so bad now, Dan. And I'm not sure that it is -- they're being inept. I'm not sure what the hell is going on.

DAN: Yeah. These problems aren't new. And there's a lot of kind of -- Johnny-come-lately commentary on this, on the left-wing media good news.

But the reality is people like me, were calling attention to this problem over a decade ago.

And, you know, I have the receipts to back it up. You can go look at interviews I gave to the Washingtonian, a book I wrote, called Protecting the President.

All while diagnosing all the problems with the Secret Service. You will read the book. You're going to say, gosh, did he write this ten minutes ago? No, I wrote it ten years ago. And what wound up happening.

You know, a subject you're probably unfortunately familiar with is, the left-wing media, rather than analyzing Glenn Beck, Mark Levin, Hannity, and Dan Bongino say, they go on attack mode right away. They just don't like us.

See, I don't feel the same about them. If I hear something from the left-wing media, I can independently vet.

It doesn't mean it's naturally false. Unfortunately, a lot of times, it is. But the irony is they claim to be journalists. They attack me as a conspiracy theorist for telling -- for telling folks on my show in August of 2023, it's Episode 2079, if anyone wants to listen from last year. Where I said that Donald Trump was likely going to be hurt or killed.

I was getting that information from high-ranking Secret Service sources. Who were very troubled by the minimal security posture applied to Donald Trump.

And the repeated requests for enhanced security, that was being rebuffed.

And Daniel Arkin, from NBC wrote a piece. You can still read, because it's embarrassingly still up. Calling me a conspiracy theorist, saying, I was stating this without evidence. Without ever having speaking to me, or asking me what my evidence was. So, you know, if you listen to shows like this and your program.

You know, you're six weeks, six months, six years ahead of the news cycle. You're listening to the liberal media, you're consistently stunned by attempts like this on Donald Trump's life, thinking, what happened?

GLENN: So tell me your gut at this point. And I know I'm asking you to go on limited facts, because they're not releasing everything.
But you have inside connections.

Is your gut -- does your gut tell you, this is just more of the same incompetence, times a thousand? Or is something nefarious going on?

DAN: Well, listen, the ladder, I can't answer. One thing I never do is I never go down road, where I don't know if it ends up off a cliff. Because then you wind up like the left-wing media. Oh, look, there's a pee-pee tape out there. Have you seen it? No. I don't know if it's nefarious.

I can tell you, the level of incompetence leads naturally to the second question: You're not crazy to ask it. But the level of incompetence here is stunning. Because people think in threes and nuggets and pieces of information.

I'm going to give you a couple of chunks of information here, from over ten years of experience. And having worked with three presidents. Two Democrats and a Republican.

Having done hundreds of advances and having actually done four foreign lead advances too. So, you, I know what I'm talking about.

To number one, why was President Trump on the X? We recall the X. Why was he out on the podium at all?

It's a question that nobody can answer. It's also the question in the hearing yesterday.

If you go back and listen to it, the director, Kim Cheatle, a failed human being, who disgracefully, still sitting in a job, putting a nation at risk from incompetence.

It's why she won't answer the time line question. Did you notice how cryptic she was?

She won't answer the time line question, because she gives you a time that is recognized. Then the obvious next question is, well, if you knew there was a threat, up to an hour out, potentially 18 minutes out, depending on who you believe.

Why was President Trump walking on the stage, in the middle of a -- getting scoped out, and range located by a sniper? And she can't answer it.

GLENN: So, Dan, so -- but her answer will seem to be in the coming days, that while yes, but we didn't have communications open with the people that were there.

Those were local.

Don't you have a command center, that --

DAN: Yes. Don't waste your time.

You just said it. Don't even -- I don't care what her answer is. It's called the command post. Glenn, you have zero experience as a Secret Service agent. You're a very talented radio guy.

Even you knew that. You never worked in the Secret Service. You're like, wait. Didn't they have a command center? Here's the answer.

Yes. It's called the CP, the Command Post.

Every single law enforcement entity working that operation had either a representative or a radio in there.

There is absolutely zero chance the Command Post did not get information that they were working to suspicious mail, surveilling the outside of the perimeter with a range finder. There's zero chance.

So when you ask questions like, well, how had he walked off stage? The answer is such incredible gross incompetence. I don't blame people for saying, there's got to be something more here.

I just don't know that. All I'm telling you is that the failure here is so apocalyptic, everyone there on that advanced team should have resigned the next day. The director, the deputy director, all of them.

How they still have jobs is incredible. Let me throw one more thing out at you.

Let's just say all of the director's stupid stories are accurate. They're not. Let's just say they are. The roof was sloped.

It was hot that day. Whatever ridiculous excuse you make.

I've read problems in the past, where we could not secure a line of site problem.

We didn't have enough bodies, whatever. I had a sight with Hillary Clinton. Just didn't have enough bodies to secure a dorm room, looking out at her speech sight at Hofstra University. You know what I did?

I have them go out, get a 5-dollar can of that snow spray, that fake snow.

Why would I do that? Because I sprayed the window. Because I figured, listen, if we can't mitigate this line of sight threat, and this potential sniper, at least we can block the line of sight so they can't see what they're shooting. Sometimes it's the best you can do.

They didn't even do that. They didn't even do that. They just let the line of site threat exist.

And the counter surveillance, which is a piece of paperwork, the countersurveillance team looks at, that will show that they knew that that was a vulnerability. And yet they did nothing about it. They basically let him get shot.

GLENN: They haven't released that, though, have they? That document?

DAN: No. They will claim it's classified. It's not. And here's another two pieces of paperwork. There's a survey, called the CS survey. The Countersniper Survey. That Countersniper Survey will point out every single elevated high point in the area.

That will be on there, and you will see something. I will break this later on my show. I'm not trying to be cryptic or funny about it on your show. I'm just working the angle right now, and I want to be sure I'm correct. But that specific high point, there's a major, major fiasco that happened there.

There was a communication lapse, that is totally unforgivable. But the countersurveillance and countersniper survey will show that that high point was a vulnerability. And then they will have to answer questions like, when that wasn't posted, when he was on stage.

And allowed that person to get up there. Because there was no post there or nothing. Why didn't you guys follow up?

The Secret Service is ultimately responsible. Why didn't the sight agents just notice that one of the posts they had wasn't there?

I mean, this is an unforgivable, unfortunate series of events, that basically caused this. There's no other explanation.

GLENN: So I had Eli Crane on. The Congressman from Arizona, that was up on the roof.
And posted a video, up at -- yesterday.

And he was standing in the barn, if you will. Right behind, where the shooter was.

And he's on the second floor.

Inside, air-conditioning. In an office.

And it has a window, that looks right out on that roof!

If it was too hot or dangerous, why were they on the first floor, and not on the second floor, looking at the roof!

DAN: Glenn, again, the incompetence here. These are hard interviews for me to give because of the questions you're asking. Again, as a guy with no Secret Service experience at all -- my wife asked me the same questions.

She's a database developer.

They're not explainable. Other than absolute, abject ignorance and stupidity. Whoever gave the advance that day. I don't know how they still have a job.

I really don't, and here's another thing: That -- here's the third question. I brought up the line of site. I brought up the paperwork.

There's another question that needs to be asked.

How did you not deploy -- we have an aerial surveillance branch in the Secret Service.

Why was the aerial surveillance, a drone, a helicopter, a -- an infrared -- a thermal. Why were these -- why were these simple tools we use over and over, not employed that day?

You would have seen the guy on the roof, the second he got up there.

You know, Kim Cheatle, the failed director, said yesterday at the beginning of the hearings, you go back and listen: We employ a 360-degree security coverage. Well, 360, is a three-dimensional sphere.
That means above and below. Well, where the hell was the above coverage?

There was nothing above. We didn't have a drone. Glenn, go to Amazon right now. Get a drone for 40 bucks. We couldn't send a drone up in the air?

You have a 6 trillion-dollar federal budget. What the hell is the federal government good for? Why was there no drones? The answer is, again, absolute stupidity.

And how these people have not been fired or resigned, is really deeply disturbing at this point.
The government has no accountability whatsoever.

GLENN: Dan, when I heard the congressman yesterday.

DAN: Wait. Glenn, hold on.

I'm hearing breaking news, that the director may be leaving very soon. So I'm just getting this now. So we may --

GLENN: Oh, good. Good.

DAN: I predicted this last night. We'll see what happens.

Yeah, she has no political support. But the Biden/Harris team doesn't want the headache. The Democrats have bailed on her. This woman needs to go. She's a disgrace. I'm getting this from a Secret Service friend now. Said, and she's out.

So whether he's got something we're breaking on your show or not, but this guy has been a reliable source for me.

GLENN: Tell me, when I heard the congressman yesterday say that, have you used any kind of encrypted apps to communicate with anyone.

I was shocked to hear her say yes.

But when -- when -- I don't know if congressman -- or, you know, are smart enough to think this way.

But I know I really try not to ask a question, especially, if I'm -- if I am in a situation, where I'm trying to prove somebody wrong.

I make sure I kind of know the answer to the question. Before I ask it.

That way, when we come back to it later. I've got her on the record.

What the hell is -- on her private phone. That's against the law.

DAN: Well, because we've been friends for a long time. I'm not going to spin your wheels.

There are two people on this phone call.

And one of them may have contributed to the asking of that question. So you could probably figure out by the fact that -- so, yeah.

They're -- Cheatle has no friends, anymore in the Secret Service.

They are horrified by her leadership. Let's just say a friend of a friend of a friend of a friend, may have sent to a friend, exactly that question. Who passed to a friend of a friend of a friend of another friend. And it made it into the hearings. That's what --

GLENN: What was the friend of a friend of a friend saying that we should get that on the record for?

DAN: Because the communications may -- may have involved communications with significant White House officials on messaging. And it may have involved.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

DAN: Yes. So we'll -- we'll see what comes out in the wash. Now, keep in mind.

GLENN: Did it maybe involve this -- this event?

DAN: Oh. Oh, yeah. That's a distinct possibility.

I mean, we will have to find out. I don't know the exact content. Because I don't have her phone.

But her agreeing to turn over her personal phone for forensic analysis to Lauren Boulder, who asked all the right questions, by the way. They should take her up on that offer. I can almost guarantee her, she will bail and lawyer up, if she's asked to turn her personal phone over.

Or she's probably deleting messages right now.

GLENN: Unbelievable.

Dan, as always. Great to talk to you.

And I'm so happy for your success.

Nobody deserves it more than you, Dan.

DAN: You're a food friend and a mentor. So I love you too, brother. Thanks, man. Thanks for having me. I appreciate it.

Glenn Beck Reacts: Secret Service Director RESIGNS After DISASTROUS Testimony

Glenn Beck Reacts: Secret Service Director RESIGNS After DISASTROUS Testimony

Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle has finally resigned 10 days after the attempted assassination of former president Donald Trump. But Glenn says, "that should not close this case by any stretch of the imagination." Glenn and Pat discuss Cheatle's resignation and her disastrous testimony to the House Oversight Committee the day before.


Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: The head of the Secret Service is resigning. Or appears to be resigning. But that should not close this case by any stretch of the imagination.

Pat and I want to go over some of the audio from yesterday. Let's start with Comer, with Cheatle struggling to answer any of his questions. Cut 11.

VOICE: At any point Saturday did the Secret Service have an agent on top of that roof?

KIM: Sir, I'm sure as you can imagine, that we are just nine days out from this incident, and there's still an ongoing investigation. And so I want to make sure that any information that we are providing is factual.

VOICE: Okay. Why did the Secret Service not -- can you answer why the Secret Service didn't place a single agent on the roof?

KIM: We are still looking into the advance process and the decisions that were made.

VOICE: Okay. Okay.

Wasn't that building, within the perimeter that should be secured? Do we agree with that?

KIM: The building was outside of the perimeter on the day of the visit. But, again, that is one of the things that during the investigation, we want to take a look at and determine whether or not other decisions should have been made.

VOICE: One of the things that you said, I believe in an interview, that there wasn't an agent on the roof, because it was a sloped roof. Is that -- is that normal?

And to a fear that that immediately creates an opportunity for future would-be assassins to look for a slanted roof?

I mean, this is a huge question that every American has.

Why wasn't a Secret Service agent on the roof.

And there have been reports that agents were supposed to be on the roof. And it was hot that day. And they didn't want to be on the roof. Can you answer any of those questions, Director?

KIM: Sir, I appreciate you asking me that question, Chairman.

I should have been more clear in my answer, when I spoke about where we placed personnel in that interview.

What I can tell you, is that there was a plan in place to provide overwatch. And we are still looking into responsibilities, and who was going to provide overwatch.

But the Secret Service in general, not speaking specifically to this incident, when we are providing overwatch, whether that be through countersnipers or other technology, prefer to have sterile rooftops.

VOICE: Did the Secret Service use any drones for surveillance that day?

KIM: Sir, I will not get into specifics of that day --

GLENN: Stop. She couldn't answer anything yesterday. Not one thing.

PAT: No.

GLENN: If you were the head of the Secret Service. It's been over a week now, you're the head of the Secret Service, you walk into people's office, the minute that happens and say, I want answers right now.

PAT: Who was in charge of oversight? Right?

It takes two minutes to find that out. Come on. It doesn't take ten days to find that out.

GLENN: Right. We're still looking into that. Are we?

Now, she had a problem with Jim Jordan as well.

Here's cut 20.

VOICE: Take to the president and the First Lady?

KIM: No, I have not.
VOICE: Talk to the White House staff, anyone in White House communications?

KIM: No. I have not.

VOICE: Have you talked to the countersniper that took the shot that took out the bad guy?

KIM: Yes, I have.

VOICE: And can you tell us about that conversation?

KIM: I would not want to reveal conversations that I've had with my employees.

PAT: Oh, jeez.

VOICE: But that's exactly the kind of information the American people want to know. The American people who pay your salary.

KIM: I understand. This is an ongoing investigation --

VOICE: Who is all doing the investigating at the Secret Service?

I know the inspector general, but is there also an internal investigation in addition to the inspector general?

KIM: We are conducting a mission assurance investigation internally, yes.

VOICE: You know what it looks like, director? It looks like you won't answer some pretty basic questions. It looks like you got a 9 percent raise, and you cut corners when it came to protecting one of the most important individuals. The most well-known individuals on the planet.

A former president, likely the guy who is going to be the next president, looks like you guys were cutting corners. That's what it looks like to me.

PAT: Hmm.

GLENN: Let's go to Cut 27. Here's Andy Biggs.

VOICE: Your agency has a no-fail mission. And on Saturday, July 13th, your agency spectacularly failed.

The failure resulted in the death of Corey Comperatore, and serious injury to two other rally attendees, David Dutch and James Copenhaver, besides the injuries to President Trump.

It's unfathomable, that a 20-year-old on the radar of Secret Service and local law enforcement before President Trump went on stage, was able to climb on to the roof of a building with a rifle.

And fire off multiple rounds before he was neutralized.

Was Mr. Crooks acting alone?

KIM: Again, I would have to refer to the FBI's investigation.

VOICE: Was he just a lone gunman?

KIM: I would have to refer you to the FBI's investigation for motive.

GLENN: That's not motive. That's asking, she revealed something there, on motive.

Don't you think?

Of us he acting alone? You'll have to talk to them about motive. Well, wait. No, that's a different answer.

PAT: That doesn't seem to go to motive. So that's interesting.

GLENN: No. Yeah. AOC.

I mean, the left was tearing her apart as well. Here is AOC cut seven.

VOICE: So the notion of a report coming out in 60 days, when the threat environment is so high in the United States, irrespective of party is not acceptable. And I think it's very important to understand that.

This is not theater. This is not about jockeying. This is about the safety of some of the most highly targeted and valued targets. Internationally and domestically.

In the United States of America.

So the idea that a report will be finalized in 60 days, let alone prior to any actionable decisions that would be made, is simply not acceptable.

It has been ten days since an assassination attempt on a former president of the United States.

Regardless of party. There needs to be answers.

PAT: Wow. Felt a little --

GLENN: That's the best thing I think I've ever heard her say.

PAT: Oh, by far. By far.

Felt a little bipartisan there, yesterday, a little bit. Didn't it.

GLENN: It did. Because as we've been saying on this show forever.

The president of the United States. The current one. If he's not dead already.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: You know, he's in danger.

Kamala Harris is in danger.

RFK is in danger.

We cannot have a -- a slew of assassination attempts.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Can't! God forbid one of them die, it will tear this country apart!

Here's another Democrat. This is Moskowitz from Florida. Democrat to Cheatle.

Cut ten.

VOICE: Director, I just want to give you an honest assessment of how this is going for you today. Did you happen to catch the hearing many months ago, in education, where there were a bunch of university professor, university presidents and Elise Stefanik asked a very easy question and couldn't get an answer?

Did you see that hearing?

KIM: No, I don't think I did.

VOICE: Okay. Well, let me tell you, it didn't go well.

And the short end of that story was, those university professors all resigned. They're gone. That's how this is going for you. This is where this is headed. Okay?

This is -- I don't know who prepared you for this. I don't know how many times you've testified in front of Congress, but a president was almost assassinated live on television, not just for Americans. But for the world, to see.

And this being your first opportunity. I understand there's an ongoing investigation.

I understand there are things that you can not talk about. But the -- the idea that we're getting less than you did, on television, is something that Democrats, independents, and Republicans are going to find unacceptable.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

Now, there was Nancy Mace, who was a little more plainspoken. Cut 12.

VOICE: Was this a colossal failure?

KIM: It was a failure.

VOICE: Yes or no? Was it a colossal failure is the question. Yes or no.

VOICE: I have admitted --

VOICE: This is a yes or no series of questions. Was this a colossal failure? Yes or no?

KIM: Yes.

VOICE: Have you provided a list to the oversight committee? Yes or no?

KIM: I will have to get back to you on that.

VOICE: That is a no. Have you provided all audio and video recordings in your possession to this committee, as we asked on July 15th? Yes or no?

KIM: I would have to get back to you.

VOICE: That is a no! You're full of (bleep) today. You're being completely dishonest.

GLENN: Love that.

And then we have Representative Fallon, who said this to Cheatle, cut 13.

VOICE: You know what else is dangerous? I believe your horrifying ineptitude, and your lack of skilled leadership is a disgrace. Your obfuscating today is shameful.

And you should be fired immediately. Go back to guarding Doritos.

PAT: She used to work security at Pepsi. That's why she was guarding Doritos. That's great.

GLENN: Yeah. I found that amazing. When the assassination first happened. I looked her up.

And I'm like, where did she come from?

And I saw she was head of security from Pepsi. And I'm like, you've got to be kidding me.

You're now the head of the Secret Service?

PAT: Well, how many Doritos, do you know were killed during her watch? None. None.

GLENN: None.

PAT: Not a single Doritos was murdered while she was there.

GLENN: And especially all those Coke lovers out there. That just want to knock off cans of Pepsi. She had her job cut out for her.

PAT: She did. She did.

GLENN: It was very difficult.

Oh, my gosh. Now, here's what I'm afraid of. That this is going to stop this investigation.

Because it can't. It cannot stop this investigation.

She has -- she -- we have to know what her device is. What's on her devices.

Why was she using signal when talking to the White House, from her own personal phone?

That's against the law. Did the White House know that that was happening? What were they talking about?

That's really important, to find out.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And I -- I think everybody on that Secret Service detail, should be brought in front of Congress, and have to answer themselves.

You know, it's one thing to be told, shut up. Sit down. Shut up. Don't say anything.

It's another, when you're going to be blamed for it. On national television.

So are you telling me, when you went and you surveyed the site, that didn't occur to you, that that was a big problem?

That you should have somebody secure of that. Is that what you wrote down in your report? Is that --

PAT: But --

GLENN: You should be fired right now.

PAT: They couldn't, Glenn. Because there was a slope. It was hot.

And we were -- this is just breaking. The sun was in their eyes.

GLENN: What kind of pussywillows do we have on the -- I mean, that's what we should call the Secret Service presidential detail, the Pussywillows. We're out here. It's hot. I don't know.

PAT: I don't want to get on a sloped roof. There's a 3 percent grade there. I'm not getting out there!
I mean, come on.

GLENN: It's unbelievable.

PAT: You didn't exactly have to be a mountain goat to navigate that roof. It's almost flat.

GLENN: Unbelievable. No. No. You really didn't. You really didn't.

PAT: Oh, man.

GLENN: I mean, it is -- it is their -- they're just -- I question the manhood of every single person, that was on the Secret Service detail. Or on the local detail, if they were like, it's hot!

It's very hot.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: Who do we have Dylan Mulvaney out?

Dylan, you watch the roof. Okay. But girl power.

I'm not going to walk on that roof. It's hot and sloped.

PAT: And I'm on my heels today. I'm in my heels. I'm not doing it. All right. Okay.

Did These Global Elites PREDICT the Trump Assassination Attempt?

Did These Global Elites PREDICT the Trump Assassination Attempt?

There's a conspiracy theory going around: Did a firm linked to George Soros, BlackRock, and the Bush family short the stock for the Trump Media & Technology Group on the day before the attempted Trump assassination? So, is there any truth to this? Former investment banker Carol Roth joins Glenn to explain why there's more to this story. Plus, she gives her take on the CrowdStrike outage, whether Trump would make JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon or BlackRock CEO Larry Fink his Treasury Secretary, and why a President Kamala Harris might be disastrous for the economy.


Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So let me go to Carol Roth now, who is joining us. She is the author of, you will own nothing, and a former investment banker. I want to talk to her a little bit about Kamala Harris.

But also, about this so-called short, taking a short position, against Donald J. Trump. A day before the assassination attempt of 7/13. She's been looking into it for us. Carol, welcome.

CAROL: Hi, Glenn, have you aged 12 years in the last 10 days like I have?

GLENN: Yes, I have. Yes, I have. Yes, I have.

And I think we're going to age another 40 years by the end of the summer.

CAROL: Yeah, I think you're right, unfortunately.

GLENN: Okay. So tell me. Tell me. Is this true or not?

The Trump media option story?

CAROL: So this is one of the biggest stories going on over social media. And certainly was very odd, right? The day before he gets assassinated, there's this big set of options, contracts, betting against the stock, saying that the stock. They were betting that the stock was going to fall massively. Millions and millions of contracts. And, of course, everybody tying, what does this mean? What does this mean?

So this is what I found based on publicly available information. So registered investment adviser, called Austin Private Wealth, as you mentioned, they have to file what's called a 13F filing. This is a disclosure filing, that's required quarterly from any investment manager that has more than $100 million in assets, under management. And basically, it lists all of their equity holdings, which usually includes equity-related options and -- ETFs and stocks and the like, at the end of every quarter. And since after the quarter ends, it takes a little bit of time to gather the data, you know, that usually is filed within a few weeks after the end of the quarter.

So the filing for Austin wealth, as of the end of June, was made on July 12th.

So people who sort of, you know -- think that this was reflective of something that happened on July 12th, didn't really appreciate that this was the end of June report, that was filed on July 12th.

That sort of set off the first wave of conspiracies.

GLENN: Okay.

CAROL: The second thing, really unfortunately, is that they had a third party vendor, apparently, according to their press release. That erroneously misstated their positions. And that meant for the Trump -- the Trump media group, that they had put -- instead of putting 12 contracts, which represented 1200 shares. Each contract is 100 share. It shows that they had 12 million shares, Glenn.

So that sounds a little sketchy why they would do that, but they did that on every call and put option that they had listed.

So it was -- for Nvidia, they had 370 million shares listed. Bank of America, 110 million shares. So this was a clear error across-the-board.
And because I don't believe anything, I went back and I checked all of the previous filings.

And in all of the previous filings, they had a -- a normalized number of contracts, being shown.

So it was clear this was a mistake, and it was an outlier.

So when you put these two things together, and you look -- it looks like there's so many shares, and it's done in a time period, that looks like it was the -- you know, Friday before the assassination attempt. But really, that was just the filing date. It got very blown out of proposition.

And they recognized their error, and they did a new filing, that they had to amend with the FEC. And this is on July 15th. And for anybody who is super nerdy and likes to go through and look at filings.

This is all available on the FEC site, Edgar, which allows you to find all the filings of the publicly -- publicly available filings that are made by companies. It's an unfortunate mistake in terms of timing and sort of the scope of the mistake that was made.

GLENN: Okay.

Let me take the next one. And that is CrowdStrike.


GLENN: There was a major outage this weekend.

And they say, it was just a release of new software.

And it was just an error that nobody caught. How does that happen

And put the United States. I mean, there were like 12 planes flying in the sky, because of this. And Europe was hit even harder than we were.

CAROL: Yeah. This was -- I have talked about the scene before. In previous books and things like that.

And he's the author and sort of coiner of the phrase, the back swan in wider use.

GLENN: Right.

CAROL: And they talk about these systemic risks that were being brought on by the fact that we're also interconnected. And technology is really exacerbating the systemic risk.

In fact, it's one of the reasons I argued in, you will own nothing, that a central bank digital currency, on top of all of the other reasons, made no sense.

Because it increases, you know, that -- the idea that you could have this massive one-off systemic risk, instead of everything being decentralized and having maybe more frequent, but smaller risks.

So when you have a firm that is tied into basically every major company in the planet. And it's impacting how their infrastructure runs, you're increasing the -- the ability to have these huge systemic risks.

Now, how can -- is it intentional?

Is it a test run?

Is it just incompetence?

Unfortunately, I tend to think we're in the era of incompetence. And that is in many ways, just as bad.

And we've seen in all these different areas of our life, these sort of lackadaisical policies. And the fact that people are no longer in school, taught, you know, merit and excellence. And the value of their name and their work.

And they just want to be given things based on an equity. And because I showed up. You know, you do get these worse outcomes, and so, you know, how could it happen. I mean, we all sit there. Yeah. What you test for these things. But, you know, that's sort of the reality we're living in.

And I think it really should highlight and put a giant red neon sign on the fact that we shouldn't all be beyond these same systems.

There should be some level of decentralization. There should be at least a secondary fail-safe, because, you know, this is something that was massive, and was able to be brought back up. In short order.

But the next thing that may not be the case.

And this is the kind of stuff, you and I have been talking about in terms of repetition.

Because what if you didn't have ATM access for multiple days.

What if, you know, you didn't have access to a pharmacy, that couldn't get you, your medication on time. Because, you know, they couldn't access their records.

I mean, there's so many things now that are all completely reliant on technology.

Which is great, when it works, 99 percent of the time.

And when it doesn't work, it can be a disaster.

GLENN: So quickly, I just want to touch on Jamie Dimon being thrown around. What a surprise that is. When I saw him at Davos. And he said, you know, we should take a second look at Donald Trump. I don't think he's that bad of a guy, but he wants to be Treasury Secretary. But I also saw a story that Donald Trump is friends with Larry Fink from BlackRock and would consider that.

I don't believe that. What have you heard?

CAROL: Yeah. I saw that headline well, and I almost fell over.

You know, in the Jamie Dimon versus Larry Fink. I'm taking Jamie Dimon, every single day. 24/7, 365, every single time. Jamie, himself, has been positioning to get out of JP Morgan for the first time ever. He says that he's no longer a -- yeah. I will be here for the next five years. I'm looking for a successor.

What are the things that you may or may not be aware of. And this happened with Gary Cohn in the last administration. Is that if you go into it, in an administration, they make you share all of your shares. Which means, you don't have to at that point, have to pay capital gains taxes on them. So it's a really great way, if you have a lot of stocks to get a windfall.

And given the fact that Jamie Dimon is plugged in with all these people and knows what's going on, I think that's one to watch for Larry Fink. I think we all need to raise our voices, if that sounds like it's something that will happen.

Which is why I would tell you, that four people who say, should I get out of the stock market?

You have to remember, these guys are always taking care of their own. If we're talking about Jamie Dimon, in charge of things, what do you think our number one priority is going to be?

Wall Street.

GLENN: Right. So let me switch now to Kamala Harris.

Just based on the insane things she was for, when she was a senator and running, what -- what happens to the economy, under Kamala Harris?

CAROL: Yeah, this is very scary. I mean, we know that Kamala doesn't have a lot of economic stuff. We know that she likes Venn diagrams, but that's about it.

GLENN: Yes. And yellow school buses.

CAROL: Yes. And yellow school buses. So that's sort of the extent of her economic knowledge. And what's scary about that is it makes her more susceptible to the bad actors. We already know that Biden was not the one who was running the last administration. I mean, that's super clear to everyone. He was positioned as a moderate, and he was the most destructive president economically and otherwise that we have seen in a lifetime.

So now you have the same people, who were pulling the puppet strings, and now they have Kamala Harris. Who has -- and I know that Justin Haskins, your coauthor has brought this up before -- you know, she has a very checkered history. She was -- I think a lot of people forget this. She was one of the Senate sponsors. Cosponsors of the original green new deal. So she had --

GLENN: Which was insane.

CAROL: Yeah. I don't think people remember, because the Biden's version is insane too.

But this was like, you know, 100 trillion-dollar insane, and that was their estimate. So this is somebody who is in the same league as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, when they're talking about policy.

We have her on video, saying things like, I don't think there should be any private health care.
And if you go back to being -- you know, somebody who wanted to step into that cosponsorship, most of the senators did not want anything to do with that. There were a handful that did. She stepped forward.

If you start going through that, it's a socialization of everything. It's not only just completely killing energy policy. But it's a socialization of labor and wages. And, you know, even more so of college, and, you know, all of these different government handouts. And, you know, basic income programs. So I think that people really need to be doubled down on, A, this is not only an extension of the Biden administration, terrible policies. Because the same people are pulling the strings. But she's also aligned with every kooky socialist on the planet.

And this is a person with a lot of political clout, afforded to, that, no. You know what, I came from this area. I ran a business.

You know, I'm strong in this, and I know.

GLENN: Right.

CAROL: I mean, do you think she has any idea of what monetary policy is? I can't think that she does. And that makes her extra, extra dangerous.

GLENN: Thank you so much. I appreciate it, Carol. Thank you for all the homework you've done over the weekend, to prepare for this segment.

I appreciate it. Carol Roth. You can follow her at

5 DISTURBING Questions After Biden Dropped Out & Endorsed Kamala Harris

5 DISTURBING Questions After Biden Dropped Out & Endorsed Kamala Harris

President Biden has dropped out of the 2024 presidential race and endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris to take his place. But something doesn’t seem right about this, Glenn says. Glenn reviews the 5 questions that he has after Biden’s announcement: Was Biden forced out and did he get anything in return? Will Kamala Harris actually be the candidate come November? Why didn’t Biden also resign from office? Are the Democrats stuck with Harris because of DEI? And how can the Democratic Party say they’re “saving democracy” when – for the THIRD election in a row – party elites are choosing the candidate, not the people: “The ordinary Democrat, do you realize you don’t have a voice anymore?!”


Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So it was interesting, wasn't it, this weekend?

PAT: Hmm.

GLENN: We started Friday with someone releasing that Joe Biden would on Sunday, resign.

Now, this is not what Joe Biden said. In fact, nobody in the White House agreed with that, on Friday. In fact, just before the tweet went out, nobody in the White House even knew he was going to. I'm going to get back to that here in a second, because I think something descended smell right. Now, the reason why they say, is because of money, polling, it would wipe out the Democratic Party, staff, friends, donors, all abandoned Joe Biden. I don't think that's it. Why -- why did they announce on Friday, and who announced on Friday that the -- that a missive would be coming from the White House, and he would resign.

Now, this is why this bothers me. When you do something this dramatic, first time in American history.

When you do something this dramatic, you don't usually just spring it on everyone.

You usually will go in and have a speech. And they will announce that the president -- and they will speculate what he is going to say, et cetera, et cetera. Then he gives a speech from the Oval Office.

In his -- in his stepping down, from the party, he said, he would be addressing it later this week. Why?

Why didn't he address it, from the Oval, like all other presidents. Why would he just pop it out?

My guess is, there was another gun waiting to go off. You have until noon. You have until 2:00 p.m. on Sunday, to resign.

Or what?

What did Joe Biden get in return, for resigning?

Was there -- were there promises made by anyone, that we will make sure that you're not -- you're not held responsible for any of those crimes, that you might have committed?

And was it said, this way. Look, Joe. You and I both know. There are some real flaming hot evidence here. That you're selling your country out. We will make sure that goes away. And you and your family will be pardoned.

But you have until noon on Sunday. I don't know. That feels like speculation.

But it feels like there was a gun that was going to go off on Sunday, at some point.

And there was also, you know, they can -- they can pardon him, if he steps down from presidency. I don't think he's going to be president until the end of the year.

Or until January 20th. But they can pardon him, if he's not the president. They can pardon his family. And they can very easily blame that now, on if Trump gets in, it will just be revenge. He will just put all the Biden's in family. And we had to. And that will be good enough, apparently, for a lot of Democrats. Nancy Pelosi was the driving force behind all of this. And I love Nancy Pelosi in the last few weeks, where she was like, you know, we want Joe Biden to make the decision himself.

I made the decision. I'm staying. Yeah. Right. But he'll make that decision. And we're waiting for that decision.

I already made that decision. As like I said, he'll make it. And we're very excited for him to make that decision. (laughter)

It's -- it's like Barack Obama used to say. You know, we can get along. You just have to get in the boat with me.

Oh, wait. So wait. I'm a radical that needs to be destroyed, but you'll forgive me if I sign up for everything you want to do?

Oh. Okay.
All right.

So she was the driving force hipped this. Now, Alex Soros said he would not endorse Kamala Harris. Yet, he did. Right away, yesterday.

In fact, people are lining up. Barack Obama strangely did not endorse Kamala Harris. Hmm.

Hmm. Hmm. I personally don't think, and I would love to hear your just on this. I don't think Kamala is going to be the -- the candidate in the end.

PAT: Who do you think it's going to be?

GLENN: I don't know.

PAT: I don't see how they pass her up. Because she's a black woman. So you've got double identity politics going there.

She's the next in line. She would be really tough to jettison. But if they open it up at the convention, pretty much anything could happen.

So I think they like it to be Gavin Newsom.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: Or Gretchen Whitmer.

GLENN: Oh, I hope.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: You know, here's the thing, you know, they -- they -- first of all, why didn't Biden step down? There's a couple of questions. Why didn't he step down as president of the United States?

If he is not capable of running a campaign, he is certainly not capable of running the White House.

Now, that may have been the gun that was going to go off. Twenty-fifth Amendment, we are going to take you out of the Oval. We will leave you as president, so you can finish your term, and we will have parades for you, and everything else, and you will be remembered as one of the greatest presidents of all time. And, gee, look at how George Washington you are, by stepping aside for the good of the country and the good of the party. That is a possible gun that could have gone off. Otherwise, the 25th Amendment is going to be exercised. So there's no reason why the man can't run a campaign.

You know, because all of this is he's cognitively not there. He can't do it. He can't debate. Well, if you can't debate, I don't want you in a room with Putin, or Xi! I don't want you on the telephone with anybody!

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: But the Democrats are suddenly fine with that. Because they say, he can't win.

Well, Pat, look at Kamala Harris' poll.

Kamala, she is -- she is below Joe Biden. She is more unliked than Donald Trump is!

So why would they go for somebody else, who has this horrible, horrible image and likability problem, who polls just the same, if not a little below Joe Biden?

Why would you have that as your replacement? That doesn't make sense.

PAT: No. Really, nobody makes sense though, on the Democrat side. Who does make sense? Gavin Newsom has a terrible record in California, that can be exploited easily.

Gretchen Whitmer in Michigan, I mean, she's terrible.

GLENN: Horrible.

PAT: They have nobody on the bench.

GLENN: Right. But I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about, what doesn't make sense to am, is why you jettison somebody, and you say, because he's not capable.

Okay? We'll lose. He's not capable. He's not capable of running a campaign.

But he's okay to run the country the next six months.

PAT: Yeah. It doesn't make sense.

GLENN: That bothers me. That's an inconsistency. Also, the other thing that bothers me, the honest ones will be like, well, he just can't beat Donald Trump.

His poll numbers are too horrible.

Well, Kamala's poll numbers are just as horrible. So why wouldn't you -- why would you let him in, and then accept this person?

And why wouldn't you push for him to retire?

Is it because then you lose the first female black president, to be president, as a -- as a -- an election trick?

I mean, why wouldn't he just resign, and her take over?

And then she can run. And she'll have, you know, she'll be the president. And you can show what she can do. And that, you know, people get used to it. Or do you need the fact that she'll be the first black, you know, Asian president? Female.

I mean. I don't think they want to waste it on her. I honestly don't.

They are holding that back, and I don't know how they get away with not running her as president. Because of that.

Wait. Wait. Wait. You took her on. You know you took her on because of DEI. You took her on for DEI purposes, and now you're not going to let her go because you say she's not qualified?

You want, what? A white woman?

A white man? They can't get away with that. They're so screwed.

PAT: They are. Yeah. It's going to be a fun convention. I mean, if you thought 1968 was chaos, wow. I mean, they didn't have the kind of chaos within the party, that in 1968, that they have now. This -- this is unprecedented stuff. And this is something that you really want to pay attention to. Because this is American history, in the making.

GLENN: So how is it, Pat, that we have Democrats, that have been saying that this is the end of democracy. And yet, the -- the same ones that have been telling you, he's fine. He's fine.

Are you now the ones saying, boy, he's not fine. They called us a conspiracy theorist to say that he was not fine. Then when it was exposed, they're the ones saying, it's -- it's okay.

They were also the ones -- or, that it's not okay. They were also the ones that said, no. He doesn't need to have a primary.

We don't primary him. He doesn't need to go and actually campaign and primary.

They wanted to keep this quiet for as long as they could.

So they're the ones, because remember, when there was no primary, the reason why people were talking about it. Because a lot of democratic voters didn't want Joe Biden!

They didn't think that he -- but those people were crazy and dangerous.

Their own voters. So they had 14 million people vote for Joe Biden.

And now, for the third time, the presidential election and the Democratic Party is going to be decided by elites.

The first time it occurred was 2016. When the Democratic National Committee manipulated money and the process, to help Hillary Clinton beat Bernie Sanders.

Remember that?

And all the Sanders people were pissed off.

PAT: Superdelegate.

GLENN: Right!

The second time was 2020, when the party elites pushed out Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar. So Elizabeth Warren, would split the progressive vote with Bernie Sanders.

Which then made Biden the candidate. Both times, both times, people knew this was happening. Now, this time, even though, she was deeply, deeply unpopular with democratic voters. Remember, she came in last. She bailed. Nobody liked her.

She's now apparently going to be the candidate, because they thwarted the primary system. So they didn't let the people speak. And now, they're going to go to an open primary. That's what they're actually calling for.

GLENN: It is crazy for the democratic party, the ones that are shouting that, you know, we're headed towards a dictatorship, where the elites will call all the shots.

They have the elites calling all the shots.

You know, it was a very small number of Democratic Party donors and the media. That chose Hillary Clinton, Biden, and Harris.

It was the media, that influenced the donors and decided, Biden should go after, you know -- they should go after him, on the disastrous debate performance.

The ordinary Democrat really -- do you realize you don't have a voice anymore?

When the media insisted he was fine, you just jumped on board with the media, saying, yeah. See. You guys are liars.

How many times do they have to do this to you, before you wake up and go, gosh, these guys are really not good people?

They're just not good people. Well, Trump. Trump. Trump. Trump.

You are sacrificing your own influence, your own liberty, your voice.

What? At the altar of not Trump.

How many people do you think in China and Russia, and Iran, right now, were like, well, I don't know.

I mean, now it's a toss-up. Do we go for Kamala or Trump?

They're all going for Kamala Harris!

It's going to get even easier for them.

And here's how this is going to work. So the -- in early August, they're trying to put this together.

And early August, they're going to have an open primary.

So it will be an open convention. And they will go out, and say, to all the delegates, who do you want to be president?

If they come up with Kamala Harris, then they'll all be like, Kamala is the one. But then on the second vote, it is open to the superdelegates.

These are about 5,000 of the super elites.

And the super elites get to vote.

And whatever the super elites get to vote. Whatever they vote, well, that's going to probably be. Well, that's more important than the other delegates, I'll tell you that.

So you have about 5,000 people, total, that are going to be making the decision in Chicago on who you can have, as your choice for president of the United States.

And it's all caused by the same people, who are now voting.

They're all the ones who told you, he was fine.

They're all the ones who said, no, no, no, no. He's super, super moderate.

This is the fuddy-duddy. He's just a little old man, that just means well.

PAT: And these are the people who are saving democracy. Let's not forget.

This is all about democracy. And how they're trying to save this country.

From the non-democratic Donald Trump.

And you know that that's right.

I mean, the superdelegates will decide this thing next month.

They're -- it's absolutely what's going to happen. And I don't think the superdelegates and the super elite in the Democratic Party. I don't think they want Kamala Harris.

GLENN: Oh, I don't think so either. I don't think so either. You'll notice, that Barack Obama did not endorse --

PAT: Right. And they spoke yesterday.

GLENN: Kamala. Yeah. And it's interesting to me.

I don't think that she's going to be the nominee. I could be wrong. But I just don't think -- something -- something is going to happen, that will make it easy for her not to be the presidential candidate. At least that's what I -- that's what I think.

I mean, they just -- they don't want. The American people aren't going to stand for another cramdown. They're not. Oh, she's the first female black Asian president. Nobody cares anymore. They just don't care anymore.

And she's wildly unlikable. Wildly.

I mean, first of all, the first female president didn't work with Hillary.

Because she's as likable as Kamala Harris, okay?

The two are just. You put them in a room together. I think they cancel each other out. I think they just disappear. And her policies are -- are a little crazy.

She does have policies kind of.

At least we can look at her record and see what she was for. And what she was against.

And it's going to be a -- well, it's not an easy transition to make. For most Americans, and I believe most Democrats.