RADIOJuly 02, 2024

Glenn CAN'T TAKE Biden's Hypocrisy After the Supreme Court's Trump Immunity Ruling

President Biden spoke after the Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity ... and Glenn couldn't believe what he heard. Biden slammed the Court's ruling, which granted former president Donald Trump absolute immunity for presidential actions and presumptive immunity for "official" actions. Biden followed the lead of dissenting Justice Sonya Sotomayor, claiming that the Court basically allowed the president to do anything, including go after his opponents ... Wait? Like Biden is doing right now?! Glenn reviews Biden's speech line by line and highlights all the hypocrisy within it.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Well, I just don't know what to say. I watched the president's speech last night. And everybody coming out and saying, he could go after us. He could shut us down. Now that the Supreme Court has ruled. Donald Trump, if he's elected, he will come in and he will start putting people in jail.

Huh. I want you to remember that here in just a second. We will get back to it.

Here's what the president had to say last night, at a press conference.

It's cut nine.
(music)

BIDEN: The presidency is the most powerful office in the world. It's an office that not only tests your judgment. Perhaps even more importantly, it's an office that could test your character.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

BIDEN: Because you not only need moments where you need courage for the full power of the presidency. You also face moments where you need the wisdom to respect the limits of the power of the presidency.

GLENN: Yes. Stop there for a second. So, Stu, what would some of those limits be?

Because it's an awesome responsibility, to be president of the United States. But you can't just do anything. Right?

Like, what would some of the limits be. You couldn't just go out and kill people, right?

STU: I don't know. That's not what I have been hearing, Glenn. Over the past 24 hours.

GLENN: Really. Wow?

STU: My understanding is the Supreme Court gave James Bond license to kill, to the president of the United States.

GLENN: No. No. No, I don't think that's true. But we'll continue to listen.

STU: Yeah. Immune. Immune. Immune.

GLENN: I didn't hear the whole speech. So we'll go on.

I was thinking something smaller, like -- like maybe you say, hey, you have student loans.

I can't help you with those. That would be the -- the constitutional thing. But the president couldn't just say, I'm going to just forgive all student loans.

STU: Yeah. Yeah. That -- you're thinking of the old-timey America.

There was a version of America, where the -- you know, the head of the executive branch couldn't just spend $500 billion on a whim, without Congress.

But those days are long gone, Glenn.

GLENN: Okay. But it would go to the Supreme Court. If it was wrong, it would go to the Supreme Court. And they would tell a president to stop it. And he would.

STU: No. He would just do it again.

GLENN: Oh, it went to the Supreme Court.

STU: Yeah. They shot it down.

GLENN: Awesome.

STU: So he just did it again.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: And then in a slightly different way. Like 1 percent different.

And then sends it through the courts again.

And, again, it will get rejected again.

Then he'll just do it again.

GLENN: Right. So that's weird. It's an awesome power. And, you know, it shows character. You know, when you restrain yourself from doing those things that you can't do. Anyway, I digress.

BIDEN: Respect the limits of the power of the office of the presidency.

Legislation was founded on the principles. There are no kings in America. Each. Each of us is equal before the law.

No one, no one is above the law.

GLENN: Okay. Stop for a second. Stop for just a second here.

Stu, are we all equal under the law here?

I mean, is that true?

STU: It doesn't seem true. Uh-huh.

GLENN: Like, for instance, if you were held in contempt of Congress.

Right? You would go to jail. Right?

Like Steve Bannon just went to jail yesterday.

STU: Sure. Another Trump adviser who said, no. I can't share that. That's executive privilege.

They sent him to jail.

STU: Navarro. But it's all equal, right?

I mean, let's say, somebody was -- yeah. Not releasing tapes of testimony.

And they say, well, that was executive privilege.

And they were in contempt of Congress. They go to jail as well, right?

STU: No.

I mean, I don't know what you're talking about specifically. But what you just described does not sound at all like something you would go to jail for.

GLENN: Okay. Well, let's say you were the head of the DOJ. And Congress said, you have to produce this information, and then you didn't.

STU: Right. Totally fine.

GLENN: You would be in contempt of Congress.

No, no, no. You don't go to jail?

STU: That doesn't seem like a jailable offense at all.

It's like, I can see where you're getting confused here.

Like, for example, if you were to -- like, riot at a federal building.

Right? That's something you would go to jail for. It's wrong!

You don't do those things.

GLENN: Right. Right. The darkest day.

STU: Yeah, and then there's another separate scenario, where let's say you were to riot, at a federal building. You don't go to jail for that.

GLENN: Oh, wait. Was it just a federal building?

STU: If you're rioting at a federal building, you're going to jail.

If you're simply rioting at a federal building, you don't go to jail.

GLENN: So is it kind of like -- it's a very subtle difference, it's kind of like, when you're praying in front of an abortion clinic. You would go to jail.

STU: Jail.

GLENN: And but if you burn down an abortion clinic. You don't go to jail.

STU: Depends on -- are you burning it down, because they're not doing enough abortions? If you're burning it down because they're frequently aborting enough kids, then yes. You cannot go to jail. But if you burn it down because you think they're doing too many abortions. Then obviously, you go to jail.

GLENN: Okay. So if you burn down an abortion clinic, you would go to jail, if you disagreed with them. But if you burned down the people's business, where they were pro-life, I also go to jail.

STU: Well, they're pro-life? The owners of the business. Yeah. No. You would not go to jail for that.

Why would you go to jail for that? That's stupid.

GLENN: Okay. I want to understand, that I understand equal justice under the law.

I think we have it. Go ahead with President Biden.

BIDEN: Not even the president of the United States. Today, the Supreme Court decision. On presidential immunity.

That fundamentally changed. For all. For all practical purchases.

Today's decision almost certainly means that that there are no limits to what a president can do. It's a fundamentally new principle. It's a dangerous precedent.

GLENN: Yeah, dangerous.

BIDEN: Because the power of the office, will no longer be constrained by the law. Even the Supreme Court of the United States.

GLENN: Wow. Stop for a second.

That is news, isn't it?

Especially to the Supreme Court.

That is news. That no matter what the president does. Even if it breaks the law, you're not going to have pay a price for it.

I didn't know that. I didn't know that.

See, what the left is afraid of right now is what they're saying is, he is going to silence speech. Donald Trump will silence any dissent.

And that's not happening now. Uh-uh.

Or he would put his -- he would put his -- you know, former allies -- I mean, his former foes in jail.

For instance, let's say, you're running against a guy who Donald Trump didn't think he could beat. Then he would just make up some charges.

And then get the guy arrested.

And then keep him, you know, in the court system, until you finally got him into jail.

That's what Trump could do. Trump could do that.

Because of yesterday's rulings.

So that's pretty -- pretty frightening.

You know, I think if we're really going to go all the way. What should be terrifying, is that Donald Trump could just round up a whole group of people, because he didn't like them.

You know what I mean?

Just round them up.

And then put them like in a concentration camp. Kind of like FDR did with the Japanese. And that wouldn't be legal. You know, he would get out of office. And he would never pay the price. that FDR had to pay.

STU: Which is that he named our best president.

GLENN: Well, yeah. That's weird.

STU: Over and over again.

GLENN: Yeah. The guys who would violate these are always the progressives. Always.

The deep, deep progressives are the ones, who violate all these things.

Now, when it comes to just killing people, or doing something illegal, the Supreme Court case laid out it must be constitutional. So if the -- if the president acts in an unconstitutional way, then you can get him!

But unless it's -- unless it's unconstitutional, he can't do it. So it would be unconstitutional to round up the people that disagreed with you.

It would be unconstitutional to silence those who oppose you!

It would be unconstitutional to go after your opposing political foe, and try to put them in jail. All things that Joe Biden is currently doing.

STU: Yeah. I mean, it's funny, this ruling is coming from Roberts. Who is an institutionalist. Right?

If anything, we've complained about him a million times, because he's so unwilling to shake up things. Just because, you know, it happens to be the constitutional way.

I mean, Obamacare is a great example of that.

It will shake things up. I don't want to give the impression, that we're too impactful on society.

He's always doing these things. That's in a way, what this ruling is.

What he's saying is, hey. We shouldn't have -- I mean, in a way, it's designed specifically to protect Joe Biden.

Because everybody knows, if there's no immunity. What do you think Donald Trump will do when he's president of the United States, after what he's just been through. He will go in there, and find everything that he can. And go after Joe Biden on that.

He promised to do with Hillary. He didn't do it. He now says he regrets not doing it.

And now they've done it to him! So you think he will just sit back and say, you know, let me show you what I will do as president.

It's a shoulder shrug. I don't think that's the way it will go down. In a way, Roberts is protecting both sides from this back and forth that can easily come.

GLENN: However, what the president has done, is not constitutional.

And he should go to jail. Not for the things that he's done in office.

I disagree with all his policies. The whole thing, of, you know -- of, you know, taking away your student loans. And things like that.

You know, that's unconstitutional. But I don't think that's something that you go after.

However, the business dealings with China?

Yeah. I think that should be prosecuted.

STU: At least as far as we know.

GLENN: That didn't happen as president.

STU: As far as we know, none of that happened while we were president. That wouldn't help at all. I think what Roberts is doing here, is just setting a high bar.

GLENN: That's what he's saying.

STU: Of course you can go after a president for the worst things in the world. However, there's a high bar for you to clear. So don't bother bringing up your BS nonsense every ten seconds because it's not going to work. That's beyond the fact that we all knew what he said was true.

Official acts would be -- you would be having immunity for. Like you're not able under the law, Glenn, to kill people. Right?

Like you can't just -- like, you couldn't send a drone to start murdering people, in other countries.

The president, with his powers, as commander-in-chief, has -- powers that we don't have.

Like, we all know that. There was some sort of implied immunity for official acts. We all knew that. We all knew unofficial acts would not be covered here.

There was nothing new in this ruling. It was blatantly obvious. Yet they have to do this charade every single time. And act, oh, SEAL Team Six might come and just start being utilized to kill people. You know how many -- how many different layers of checks and balances would have to -- including SEAL Team Six, just going along with this.

Which they would not be covered to do. They would all get prosecuted. They would all be put in prison. But we're supposed to believe, that Donald Trump would be fine for doing this.

It's insanity.

GLENN: All right. Well, let me just end with this.

As the president was saying this, two things happened yesterday. Christian pro-life father of 11 is now facing over a decade in prison.

He will be sentenced today, okay? For a peaceful protest in Tennessee. It was a violation of the Face Act, you know. They were praying in the hallway.

What he said, yesterday, is this: Quote, it's real easy for me. I can go and go to battle and go to jail as an individual. And it's not a big loss.

The challenge comes, when you're leading your family through it. When you're talking to your 3-year-old and your 23-year-old and your other family. Von said that he wanted to pray to God, quote, every day. And get up ready to take on the day, with whatever circumstances believe my way, with a humility and a grace and a spirit-led life. That represents all of us in our society. Represents him and our community around us.

How many politicians order their life after truth and justice, versus power, greed, negotiation, and negotiating principles?

So here's a guy who said, I believe what I believe. God will be with me.

I'm going to go to jail. At the same time, Bannon also went to jail.

For contempt of Congress. There are now 15 -- I believe 15 people in the Biden administration that have been deemed in contempt of Congress.

None of them are being prosecuted.

But Donald Trump's people are. Bannon said this, and I don't like Bannon. Okay?

I don't agree with Bannon on everything. I think he's -- a thought leader, that I really strongly disagree with many times. But he should not be going to jail.

He said, I am proud to go to prison. If this is what it takes to stand up to tyranny, if this is -- if this is what it takes to stand up to the corrupt criminal DOJ. If this is what it takes to stand up to Nancy Pelosi, if this is what it takes to stand up to Joe Biden, then I am proud to do it.

You have people crying that they might go to prop. While they're putting people in prison, for the things that they have done themselves.

Please, Mr. President, don't talk to me about out of control tyranny from the Supreme Court. They have done exactly the opposite.

They have protected the presidency, while they are dismantling the administrative state.

Will the Big, Beautiful Bill’s Medicaid changes really “KILL” people?

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

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

Because the spending ourself into oblivion is an actual threat.

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

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

Okay. Offset. By what?

Well, by cutting spending. But cutting what spending?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Look at the austerity program that I am on.

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

They cut the increase inning spending.

That's what they cut.

And, Stu, could you please explain Medicare.

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

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

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

Or Medicaid.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But able-bodied adults.

GLENN: Okay. On people in wheelchairs.

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

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

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

GLENN: No small children.

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

Now, you might --

GLENN: Twenty hours a week.

STU: Or 80 hours a month.

GLENN: Or 80 hours a month.

That's almost half a full-time job.

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

Some people can't get jobs. Right?

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

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

Of course not.

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

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

You have to at least fill out some paperwork here.

GLENN: It's the exact opposite.

Let me see if I have this right.

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

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

But it's the exact opposite. Right?

Especially if you're nursing sextuplets.

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

You're a little bit off on this one.

GLENN: No. Huh!

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

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

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

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

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

Then, yes. You will lose your Medicaid coverage.

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

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

STU: Yes.

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

STU: No. Again, no.

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

STU: Hmm.

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

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

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

But, yeah.

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

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

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

I can't think of the case.

GLENN: Blind person.

STU: Because the ailments are covered here.

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

I don't know.

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

If you happen to have Medicaid.

GLENN: I can't double-dip.

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

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

GLENN: Hold on just one second.

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

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

STU: I know.

It's really, really brutal.

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

STU: Now --

GLENN: Is that what you're saying?

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

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

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

GLENN: Okay.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

STU: It's brutal. It really is.

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

STU: No.

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

When will you leave these people alone?

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

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

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

Liz Wheeler BLASTS Pam Bondi’s Epstein deception

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They're the good guys. We trust them.

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Why?

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

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

LIZ: Through that door.

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

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

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

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

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

LIZ: Yes. We need more evidence.

GLENN: That's reasonable.

LIZ: One piece of evidence.

It's not enough.

GLENN: Yeah.

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

GLENN: So may I just interject here.

LIZ: Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Listen.

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

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

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

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

VOICE: Not yet.

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

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

So who has Jeffrey Epstein's?

VOICE: Black book? FBI.

GLENN: But who?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, no.

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

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

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

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

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

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

VOICE: Liz, they're both very clear.

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

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

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

So how do we go from here?

VOICE: Yes. Listen.

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

Epstein was convicted of that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Possible.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The INCREDIBLE TRUE Story of Benjamin Franklin

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Whatever.

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

And have a beer with.

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

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

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah. He could.

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

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

MARK: Yes. Deborah. That's correct.

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

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

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

GLENN: Right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can you quickly tell that story?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: I don't think --

CHIP: Just like you are saying.

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

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

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