RADIOOctober 22, 2024

CBS News EXPOSED its REAL agenda with 60 Minutes editing scandal response

After 2 weeks of criticism, CBS News has finally released a statement on its “60 Minutes” editing scandal … and it was very snarky. CBS News insisted that its editing of Kamala Harris’ answers wasn’t “deceitful.” It also claimed that the 2 cuts of Harris’ response to a question about Israel were from the same question/answer segment, and not taken from another part of the interview. But Glenn still has a few questions: Why did it take so long to put this statement out? Why was it so snarky? And will CBS News release the interview’s full transcript? If you’ve had enough of the mainstream media’s games, Glenn and Stu share the most effective way for you to let your voice be heard.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So 60 minutes, finally came out.

Now it's been what? Twelve days. Fourteen days.

STU: A couple of weeks, yeah.

GLENN: A couple of weeks.

And there's been one question. Hey. Why is one answer different in the promo, than the answer you aired the next night, in the special, from Kamala Harris?

Kamala Harris was asked a question, and she gave this long convoluted answer pop Face the Nation. From that interview.

Then when it aired the next day, on CBS. The whole interview. It wasn't anything like that.

So people have been saying, can you release the transcript and release the video footage?

They always do that. For the full unedited interview, go to 60minutes.com, right?

They always do that, at least the transcript. So we've been asking for the transcript. You've been asking for the transcript.

The government has been asking for the transcript. Of the unedited interview.

So 60 minutes takes them two weeks to respond over the weekend with this. Sixty minutes gave an excerpt of our interview to face the nation, that used a longer section of her answer, than on 60 Minutes.

The statement claimed. Same question. Same answer. But a different portion of the response.

It was more succinct, which allows time for other subjects in a wide-ranging 21-minute long subject.

Then they said, but remember, Mr. Trump pulled out of his interview with 60 Minutes. And the vice president participated.

So, wow. Is that -- why was that last line necessary in answering the other question?

That shows, they have an agenda. Why wouldn't they release this?

It's taken them two weeks.

STU: I really don't get it. Other than, there's something there, they're literally trying to hide.

GLENN: Clearly. Clearly.

STU: You can argue, in some way -- like, if someone demanded to us release a transcript of something.

Screw you. We will do what we want.

Like you could see sort of an indignant response. It's our material.

We will release what we want.

That's not the argument we're making. They're not making any argument. They're not even addressing why.

They keep saying, well, we edited to make a 20-minute segment. Well, you have 45 minutes with her.

What happened to the other 24 minutes. Why didn't you release that? You didn't to have put it in the show, even. As you point out, you could put it online.

GLENN: So here's what you need to do. You need to email. Or write snail mail.

I would suggest email. Email the stations. Make it to the general manager.

You look for your local CBS television station.

And you ask them, why they are not demanding for their own local audience. To be informed on what looks like CBS news election interference.

Here's why you write that.

Because a letter has to be saved. Any complaint like that, has to be saved for the FCC.
That's how you get their license pulled.

You don't do it, you know, nationally. CBS news doesn't have a license. But the local stations have licenses.

And those local stations will call up to CBS. And say, what are you doing to us?

Release that information.

So if you want results on this, call -- I'm sorry.

Write snail mail. Or email the general manager of your local CBS station. Do it today.

GLENN: Big news, tomorrow, I'm releasing my next book. Propaganda Wars. How the global elite control what you see, think, and feel.

We all know that we're watching propaganda. It dominates every part of our lives now. From our children's biology textbooks to presidential debate stages.

But what most people don't understand is how powerful and well-organized this propaganda scheme has become. Who are the main players that are transforming our un.

What do they have planned?

What can we do to stop them?

Find out tomorrow. Join me in the fight to take our country back.

Preorder propaganda wars now at GlennBeck.com/books or Amazon.

Wherever you get your books.

It's out tomorrow.

The -- the audiobook is tremendous, I think.

It's really, really good.

This one will tell you how to stop things.

For instance, not in this book. But let me give you one of the things that will be helpful for CBS.

We were just talking about it a minute ago. You want to stop the propaganda. Well, it seems like you can't get any answers from CBS, right?

Even Congress won't give it. They won't give an answer to Congress.

So they're hiding something. So how do you get to CBS?

CBS cares about its local affiliates.

And if the local affiliates are squeezed, they will report that to the -- to the FCC. Because they have to! So I want you to write a letter to your local CBS affiliate. Your local television.

CBS affiliate. And write it to the general manager.

CC the FCC.

So they know, there's record of this. Because all of those letters have to be saved for their renewal of their license.

And if there is an overwhelming number of letters, addressing this propaganda. And using language, about your local community.

We don't care what the rest of the country might be thinking. But we believe this is propaganda from the network.

How can you, as a local station stand by, and allow this to happen. We demand answers, from CBS.

They won't give them, the answers.

Well, you should be asking for those answers.

Otherwise, you're not serving your community. Make sure you put that in.

You're not serving your community. That's how license challenges come up.

And there isn't anyone who is a general manager, who likes to see a letter like that.

No one. Because that just gives the FCC ammunition. You just want the FCC to walk in. See your public file. And go, okay. You're good.

You don't want anything that just makes that sticky. They will call if you're starting to give them lots of letters. They will call CBS and say, can you edit this please, because this is killing us?

STU: It's a similar approach, that many took toward -- and you discussed earlier about Bud Light. It wasn't called Bud Light.

It was a tweet to Bud Light. It was talk to the distributors. And that made a real difference in that moment.

GLENN: Yeah, it was the distributors that broke the back finally. Because, remember, the distributors said, we're not going to take Bud Light.

We're not going to take it. The local bars, we're not going to take it.

And so once those distributors fall apart, they're in trouble.

STU: And it's important to understand, with 60 minutes. This is a supposedly -- a news organization.

A news program.

The news program.

GLENN: Right. Right.

STU: We are not asking them, hey. You need to ask tougher questions of Kamala Harris.

Obviously, I feel like they should.

But it's their editorial control on that aspect.

What we're asking for is what actually occurred.

We've got a presidential election decision to make. Can you tell us what went on here?

And I will be honest. At the beginning of this. They edit.

GLENN: We always do.

STU: I try to give the benefit of the doubt, whenever necessary.

Or wherever possible.

Because, you know, I'm a conservative.

And my personal political bias, is to want one side to win.

So I try to question that all the time, so I'm not just randomly. There's so many people, on the freaking internet.

Saying, everything that is good for their side.

I don't want to be that person.

GLENN: I don't either.

STU: So at the beginning of this, I kind of suspected.

60 minutes edits this stuff all the time.

You're right. They will typically release larger portions. Or context alone.

GLENN: Especially if there's a problem or question.

STU: Journalists would react that way.

We're not asking for them. We're not micromanaging the way they ask questions.

Or why didn't they follow up on this. We can complain about that all day.

We just want to know what occurred.

There's a 45-minute interview. In which they aired 21 minutes. Why are we not knowing what happened in the other 24 minutes?

Why? What happened there?

At the beginning, I was skeptical, it was something really bad for the Harris campaign. The way they're acting here, the fact that after all this pressure, they haven't just said, okay. Here it is. Just look at it.

We didn't do anything wrong.

You might have thought we made a wrong editorial choice, but it's all right there. The fact that they haven't done that in 2 weeks, makes me think, something really bad happened.

Something where she really said something, that might really damage her campaign.

And I don't know -- I don't know what to think, other than that.

This is bizarre behavior from an organization that is supposed to be protecting its journalistic credentials.

GLENN: And, you know what, it may not even be on that question.

That question --

STU: I know. It might not at all.

GLENN: Yeah. But that leads us to believe, if they're editing that question, what other questions did they -- did they do anywhere?

You need the full transcript. And the full tape.

STU: Exactly.

GLENN: Like you said, 41 minutes.

Here's what really doesn't make sense to me.

You have a woman, that is not doing interviews.

At the time, this aired. She had just started giving interviews.

So it's her first major interview, since. Who was it? ABC, I think.

STU: Dana Bash did one, with both of them. Remember that?

GLENN: Right. So it's her first major network solo interview. All right?

STU: Solo.

In a time, where everyone wants to see it. I mean, we watched it. I don't want to watch -- I'm not watching it, if Joe Biden is giving an interview. I've seen it.

Been there, done that. I've got it. I and everyone else in America. Even her supporters, wants to know where she actually stands on things.

So why would you have a 40-minute interview.

You have 41 minutes in an hour.

Okay.

And why would they only use 21 minutes with all of the setup and everything else.

That's probably. They probably used. I'll be generous.

They used 16 minutes of her actually speaking.

Okay?

Why wouldn't you -- why wouldn't you want to drive traffic even to your -- your website?

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Why wouldn't you make the entire thing.

It's not your Sunday, typical 60 Minutes. Why wouldn't you make the whole thing. Just that we sat down for an hour long interview. And you'll see it this week, on 60 minutes. Why wouldn't you do that?

STU: And I watched that whole hour, Glenn, as I mentioned. They had Tim Walz on for a second, which is moderately defensible. It's kind of a strange choice. When you have more material from Kamala Harris. Why wouldn't you air that. Instead of a Tim Walz interview, which no one cares about.

But he's on the ticket. Okay. Kind of defensible. The last 20 minutes of the show, was some produced piece about whether the Arizona election was stolen in 2020.

Like I -- and obviously, with the very heavy tilt, that it was not. And look at all these poor people that -- like campaign workers. Who got bad tweets sent to them. And things like that.

Like, you want to cover that. Right?

I don't see why it's really relevant right now. All right. Maybe you think it is.

But the idea that you would bump 15 minutes of a Kamala Harris interview with this context around it.

To air a pre-produced piece about what happened in the 2020 election in Arizona. What the hell is that -- that's the most insane decision of all time.

You want to throw stupid Tim Walz on there for a few minutes. Maybe you can defend that. Indefensible.

To leave 24 minutes on the cutting room floor of Kamala Harris.

When you're airing that. Air that another week. This is a prime time special.

This makes no sense at all.

GLENN: I would post your letter to the GM or the vice presidents of your local CBS stations.

I would post them on X.

Let people see that.

STU: Yeah. Tag us as well.

GLENN: Yeah. Tag the FCC. Make sure you tag the FCC.

STU: Note, as Glenn noted. The words, community, standards.

GLENN: Yeah. You're not serving your community.

STU: Serving your community.

GLENN: This is not helpful to our local community.

Because that's the directive, that they have to hit.

SHOCK POLL: The % of Young People Who Support SOCIALISM is Insane

New polling reveals a shocking truth: young Americans aren’t just open to socialism... they overwhelmingly want a socialist president in 2028. Glenn Beck and Justin Haskins break down five alarming surveys showing massive ideological shifts among voters ages 18-39, including young Republicans. Why is socialism exploding in popularity, and what does this mean for the future of America? Are we on the brink of a political transformation or potentially even a national crisis?

Watch This FULL Episode of 'Glenn TV' HERE

Property Taxes are OUT OF CONTROL - And Here's Why! | Guest: Texas Gov. Greg Abbott

Texas Governor Greg Abbott joins Glenn Beck to expose why Texans are being crushed by skyrocketing property taxes — and how local governments, not the state, keep driving homeowners deeper into financial distress. Gov. Abbott breaks down his five-point plan to impose strict spending limits, force voter approval for tax hikes, reform out-of-control appraisals, empower citizens to slash taxes themselves, and eliminate school district property taxes for homeowners altogether. Glenn argues that property tax is morally wrong because it prevents Texans from ever truly owning their land, and Abbott lays out his strategy to fight both parties in the legislature to finally deliver lasting relief.

Joe Rogan & Glenn AGREE: We just got CLOSER to civil war

Joe Rogan recently warned that we may have gotten to Step 7 of 9 in the lead-up to civil war. Glenn reviews the 9 Steps and explains why he believes Rogan nailed this one. But Glenn also lays out what Americans MUST do to reverse this trend...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So if you take what Fetterman said yesterday about how people are cheering for him to die on the left, and then you couple it with something that was on the Joe Rogan show on Tuesday. He was saying that the reaction to the death of Charlie Kirk makes him think that the US is closer to Civil War than -- than he thought.

Now, let me quote him. He said, after the Charlie Kirk thing. I'm like, oh, my.

We might be at seven. This might be he step seven on the way to a bona fide Civil War. Charlie Kirk gets shot, and people are celebrating.

Like, whoa. Whoa. Whoa.

You want people to die that you disagree with?

Where are we now on the scale of Civil War?

Well, let me go over the scale of Civil War, because it's sobering.

Now, none of this has to be true. If we wake up and decide, I don't want to do this anymore!

Okay?

Here's step one.

Step one. Loss of civic trust.

Every civil conflict begins when people stop believing that the system is fair. Are we there?

We're so far -- we're so far past the doorway, we are comfortably asleep on the couch on this one. Gallup and Pew both show trust in Congress, the media courts, and the FBI government are now at record lows.

The Edelman Trust Barometer classifies the US now as severely polarized. Majority of Republicans distrust federal elections. Majority of Democrats don't trust the Supreme Court.

Americans are really united on one thing, and that is the other side is corrupt!

When faith in the rules collapses, the republic begins to wobble. But that's step one. Step two, polarization hardens into identity!

Political disagreement is normal!

Identity conflict is fatal!

But that's what Marxists push. Identity politics. This is when politics stopped being about policy, and started being about who you are as a person.

Have we crossed this one into step two?

I mean, we're neck deep into this. A study on this, from PRRI.

It's a survey, found 23 percent of Americans believe political violence may be necessary to save the that I guess.

I think that's an old study. Americans now sort themselves by ZIP code into ideological enclaves. The big sort: Universities, activists, corporations. Everybody is promoting oppressor versus oppressed.

And that -- does what?

It puts us into incompatible tribes. Opponents aren't wrong anymore. The opponent is dangerous!

If I go back and you look at civil wars, Lebanon, before 1975. Yugoslavia, before 1991. That's -- we're doing that. Okay?

Step three. Breakdown of the gatekeepers. The gatekeepers are kind of like the referees of society. It's the media, political parties, churches, civic leaders.

When they fail, extremism fills the vacuum. Okay. Where are we on this? Have our gatekeepers failed us?

Yeah. I think both parties, especially the left, you know, everything I predicted that the left was going to be eaten by the extreme left, and then the communists and the socialists is now happening.

They've lost control of the fringe of each party. Media transformed, you know, from referees into team coaches. Tech platforms. It's outrage for profit. Universities are not there to cool things down. They heat them up.

Churches. Churches are useless. Useless.

When the referees leave the field, the game devolves into a brawl. And the refs are gone off the field. So there are only nine steps. We're at step four. Here's step four.

Are you ready for this one?

Parallel information realities.

Civil wars don't require different opinions. They require different realities.

I remember reading about Germany, at the beginning of, you know, the Nazi era. How the two new newspapers. One was propaganda for the government.

And the other one, it was the last one that was kind of the holdout.

And they said, you could read them, and they would cover the same thing.

But they had almost no information was the same. Except, that happened yesterday.

Here's what they said. And then everything else was different. That's exactly -- I mean, step four is complete!

We can't agree on facts, right?

Crime rates. Border numbers. Inflation. Election security.

Two Americans can watch the same video. And see opposite truths.

Social media algorithms are creating customized political universes.

Digital echo chambers. Deepfakes. We're just at the beginning of that. And both sides accuse the other of running disinformation machines.

Why? Because we don't have a shared reality. So if you don't have a shared reality. How do you settle any dispute?

On the nine steps, we're up to number five. Coming in at number five.

Loss of neutral rule of law.

This out of the nine steps with, five is the pivot point.

It's not corruption, it's the belief that the law is no longer neutral.

Are we there yet?

Let me tell you the CBS you.gov poll. 67 percent say the justice system is used for political purposes.

I think that's low. January 6 defendants given years in prison, 2020 rioters were released. High profile political figures, prosecuted or shielded based on party.

FBI whistle-blowers alleging pressure to inflate domestic extremism numbers. States like Texas, directly defying federal directives, on border enforcement.

And now, leading the way, with the federal government.

History is really cold and unforgiving on this point.

Once the people believe justice is political! Remember, this is the turning point.

The republic stands on borrowed time. Once you no longer believe that justice is achievable. Step six.

Are we there?

I think we are.

Step six. Normalization of political violence!

This is where violence stops shocking the system. Are we there?

Remember, where violence stops shocking the system. Look at evidence just from Virginia. What they just voted for.

He was calling for the death of a -- a political opposition.

Calling for his children to be killed.

Was called on it, never apologized.

Never said anything other than, yeah. I know. He dug it deeper.

Was anyone shocked by it? Apparently not. They elected him. Here's the evidence. 2020 riots.
574 events. $2 billion in damage. Was anybody outraged by that? Or was it downplayed and excused?
Assassination attempts. Assassination attempts against the president. Supreme Court justice.

Fistfights. And mob actions on college campuses. To silence speakers. Rising to do for punching a fascist or stopping genocide. Depending on the ideology. Online chatter discussing Civil War, national divorce, and revolution.

When violence becomes part of the political language, a nation crosses an invisible line. We're now up to step seven out of nine.

This is where Joe Rogan said, are we at step seven?

The rise of militias and parallel forces.

When a state loses he is monopoly on force.

Countdown accelerates. So where are we on this one?

I think we're seeing, maybe early signs of this.

You're starting to see the -- the states kind of organize these mobs, you know, to go after ICE.

Right?

Armed groups, right-wing, left-wing radical secessionists. Anyone.

Once they start forming their own police forces. Or their own option forces, then you have -- then you have everything really falling apart.

Entirely!

I don't think we're there, yet!

But we're starting to see the beginnings of this.

Step eight. The trigger event.

Civil Wars don't begin with a plan. They begin with a spark.

So where are we?

We're not here yet. The conditions are right. Potential triggers, disputed election in '26 or '28.

Political assassination or major attack.

Supreme Court decision that ignites mass unrest.

Financial crisis or dollar crisis.

A state federal standoff turning violent!

Nothing is ignited yet, but the room is soaked in gasoline. So we don't have seven. We're on the verge of eight, at any time. And here's nine.

This is the point of no return.

When police, military, or federal agencies split, even if no one calls it that, well, where are we?

Well, I just read a story about how with the Mamdani election in New York, a good number of the police force is going to leave. And they're going to go join police forces elsewhere. You also have the tension between the state National Guard, and the federal directives, the state guard and the state directives. Law enforcement recruitment is at crisis lows. The distrust of the FBI, DOJ, CIA. Tens of millions of Americans. I always really respected those institutions. I have no respect for them now. If you have states openly defying federal rules on immigration, drug laws, sanctuary policies.
Whistle-blower claims of internal politicization.

All of these things are in play for the first time in 150 years, people can imagine!

So I give this to you, not to be fearful of, but to know where you are. As a map!

Know where you are.

And hopefully, it might wake some people up, if you chart America on, on the nine step model of Civil War. Steps one through four, completed!

Step five, happening!

Step six, happening! Step seven, beginning! Step eight, just waiting for it. And step nine, avoidable, only if step eight, never happens. Again, I'm not telling you for doom purposes, this is diagnosis. This is a doctor going, I want you to look at the chart.

And this is a doctor saying, I want you to look at -- do you see what's happening to your body?

If you don't stop this habit, you are going to die. You don't have to die. You can stop smoking and drinking right now. You can start exercising. But if you don't, you are going to die.

The question is, are we the nation that says, nah, that's not going to happen to me. Or are we the nation that wakes up and sees our chart and says, good heavens, it's way far more gone than I thought it was. But I feel something in the air.

I'm going to change my behavior. The nation that refuses to look and wake up and stop calling their neighbors enemies, is the nation that fails!

We have to strengthen these things that have already fallen. And, you know what, the easiest one to do is?

Church. Where are you ministers and pastors priests and rabbis?

Where the hell are you?

I think there's going to be a special section for you, when you cross over to the -- because you're doing things in the name of God!

So when you get to the other side, I think there's going to be a special section for those who remained silent. While his rights were being taken away.

You don't own that right.

I don't own that right.

The Lord gave us those rights, and said, protect them!

By you, being the representative, the voice box, if you will, of the Lord, to shepherd his people. By you not standing up and saying, hey, by the way, we have -- we have a moral responsibility to protect these rights for the next generation! By you refusing because you're afraid. Because I think, there's no politics in the Bible! There's no politics in the Bible. Really?

The whole thing is about politics. Is about the moral way you have to live your life.

Calling things as you see them. Calling them back to eternal principles.

He didn't tell anybody how to vote. Render to Caesar what is Caesar's.

But there are certain principles that you have to have, or you lose not only this citizenship, but the next citizenship. The one that really matters. And, boy, if you are doing it because you're a coward, you are in the wrong business!

Get out of the pulpit, and go to work at Jack in the Box.

Democrat “SMOKING GUN” on Trump & Epstein gets DESTROYED by facts

The House Oversight Democrats recently released "new" emails allegedly proving President Trump lied about his knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein's crimes. However, Glenn points out a glaring issue with these emails that destroys their entire narrative...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Well, let's dive right into the Epstein Maxwell emails. My gosh, Stu!

Why are they trying to cover up that Donald Trump had sex with children!

STU: I mean, it's just clear, as -- as day, in the emails!

GLENN: Yeah. No.

STU: He spent hours with one of the victims. What else could have possibly have occurred in that arrangement? We don't know!

GLENN: And it's -- it's one of the victims, Stu. One of the victims!

STU: One of the victims, that's all we know. One of the victims.

GLENN: Let me read what Jeffrey Epstein wrote. I want you to realize that the dog who hasn't barked is Trump. Victim redacted. Victim spent hours at my house with him. He has never once been mentioned. Police chief, et cetera.

Okay. New information, just released. Or is it?

Because in 2011, 2011, that was released and everybody knew it. It's been out floating around. Here's the change: In 2011, this is what it read.

I want you to realize that the dog hasn't barked is Trump. Virginia spent hours at my house with him.

Why would you redact a name that is already out in the public square!

It's already out!

The memo is already out. The email is already out. It's been out for years. Why would you redact that name now?

Well, because it makes it all of a sudden, new and shiny. Shiny and new. If you don't know who said it, you see victim, and you're like, oh, you see victim. Who is the victim?

I don't know. But when you know it's Virginia, you know this has already gone to court. This is -- she already testified about this!

He didn't partake in any of this, any sex with any of it. It's true. He didn't partake in any sex with us, and I'm quoting, this is from the testimony. But it's not true, that he flirted with me. Donald Trump never flirted with me. Have you ever met him?

Yes, at Mar-a-Lago, my dad and him. I wouldn't say they were friends, but my dad knew him, and they would talk. Have you ever been in Donald Trump or Jeffrey Epstein's presence with one another? No!

What's the basis of your statement that Donald Trump is a good friend of Jeffrey? Jeffrey has told me that Donald Trump is a good friend of his.

He didn't partake in any of -- any of the sex with any of it. He flirted with me.

It's true, that he didn't partake in any sex with us. But it's not true that he flirted with me.

So I don't understand that. But she goes on. Donald Trump never flirted with me!

Okay. So what -- what's new about this?

This is the same girl, this is the same person that -- didn't she work at Mar-a-Lago?

Or she was going to get a job at Mar-a-Lago.

STU: Yeah. I believe she did at one point.

GLENN: Yeah. So we know they know each other. We know they know each other.

We know that at Mar-a-Lago, Jeffrey Epstein would come, and he was poaching the employees. The girls there. To go work for him.

And Donald Trump went to him. And said, "Hey, man. Stop it. Stop poaching people from me. That's not cool. Don't do it." And then he said, "Oh, yeah. All right." And then he did it a second time. And he's like, "You know what, you're out. I don't want you here anymore. I asked you not to do it, and you did it." Now, that doesn't mean that he knew what was happening to the girls or what was happening or anything else.

And even if it did mean something was happening with the girls, he was saying, "Hey. Stop it! Don't take any of the girls or the women here.
Don't do it." I don't believe he knew anything about any of this. But God only knows! And really, God only knows!

This is not new news. Donald Trump, he might end up beating Bezos as the richest man on the planet! When all is said and done!

Because, again, the -- they're presenting this as new fact, a giant scandal. Stu, I don't know if you know this. This is -- this breaking news is a giant scandal.

STU: Yeah. I've heard democratic representatives saying that over the past 24 hours. Yeah. We need to investigate this.

This is shocking stuff. It's a massive scandal. Even ABC News, I heard, pushed back against this. And said, well, what scandal? What are you implying occurred here?

We know who the victim was. We know the victim. Like why. Why did you even redact that name?

And they're like we always redact name of victims.

Do you really? When they're already out publicly?

Not to mention, this particular victim is not even alive.

You know, she sadly died. I mean, it's a terrible, terrible story.

GLENN: Terrible story.

STU: Yeah. She passed away.

A suicide. It was at least the report I believe. But she has a posthumous book coming out. But like a terrible, terrible story.

But, you know, to act as if you have to protect her identity when, number one, she's dead.

GLENN: Is ridiculous.

STU: Number two, everybody already knows who she was, including the news sources, who also have a policy, you would think.

And ABC has a policy. They redact, that was in this type of situation. But it's already been out. We already knew who it was.

So they redacted to make it look like he's with other people who have not already told us nothing bad occurred! You know, and it is an absolutely awful tactic. And at least --

GLENN: I think litigation should follow again. I think he should sue them again. Anyone who is presenting this as new information.

ABC did their job. Congratulations for ABC. They did their job.

They pointed out, this is not new information.

Why would you redact. Why are you releasing this now? And you're redacting a name this -- this email is already out!

You're presenting this as a new scandal.

And you redacted that name. This is completely dishonest. The news media shouldn't even run with it. They shouldn't even run with it. They should have said, old news. Old news. And if you did run with it, you should have handle it had like ABC handle it had. Wait a minute. Why did you redact name.

What do you mean that there's a new scandal. She already testified exactly opposite of what you're believing Jeffrey Epstein over the victim right now. I just want to make sure you understand the Democrats right here. You're taking the name of Epstein, over the victim.

Oh, okay. All right.

STU: And Epstein doesn't even say that anything occurred.

GLENN: No.

STU: There's not -- it's just -- it would be something you would have to jump to a conclusion, to accuse Donald Trump of something like this.

And we know what happened, because the victim said nothing!

Said, it was nothing!

GLENN: Right.

STU: In fact, it wasn't even a flirtation. Which, by the way, even that, you might have thought was creepy. It wasn't even a crime.

It wasn't even flirtation. So it's a disgrace in every single way.

GLENN: All right. So let me take you here. Let me take you here.

If you remember when the shutdown first started, what did the Democrats say, the reason why they did the shutdown?

Not them! Why Mike Johnson and everybody else wouldn't negotiate!

Why wouldn't -- why wouldn't the Republicans negotiate?

Because the heat was on, to release the Epstein files.

And they didn't want to have to do that. So they shut the government down!

Okay?

They wouldn't negotiate. You didn't hear any of this? Oh, it's so arrogant.

STU: It doesn't make any sense at all. That's probably what they said.

GLENN: I know. I know. So the government is open, and what does Mike Johnson do yesterday?

He said the House is going to vote on a bill to release all of the files related to the late financier, convicted child sex offender, Jeffrey Epstein next week. He said on Wednesday that a discharge position to bypass leadership and force a vote on the bill, hit the benchmark for needed signatures. It's been decided by him to expedite the vote for the bill, which under the current rules could have been delayed until at least early September.

So he says, as soon as that petition hit, the needed 218 signatures, I brought it up. Unanimous consent. Let's go! Release it.

So he's pushing this forward. Good, Mike!
Release all of it. Thank you!

Get it out. Lance this boil.

I mean, if anybody thinks that you're ever going to get the truth on this in the first place, it's madness. It's madness. Everybody -- I mean, so many important people were involved in this, and it was in the hands of the Democrats for the longest time. Okay?

So they had all of this information. You don't think it was all picked through? And if there was anything about Donald Trump, you don't think that would have come up between 2020 and 2024?

There's nothing in there about Donald Trump. These people are so stupid. This time, we've got him, boys. This time, we've got him.

No, you don't. This time, it's like Wile E. Coyote. This time, we've got the Roadrunner!

No. You're never going to catch him on this. It doesn't work. The guy was the most investigated person in the history of the world, and you've got nothing! Now, it's good to come out.

But if you think you're going to catch a bunch of people on the left, you're not going to. Because they had it, you know, in their possession.

You don't think all of the names were taken out? You don't think things were destroyed, if there was anything? I believe there was something. But I don't believe there's any names in it anymore. You're not going to get the truth on this one. You're just not going to get the truth, but release everything that we have. Everything!

Oh. Oh, by the way, also in the Epstein emails. How come nobody is talking about this one, Stu?

This one is from Michael Wolff, to Jeffrey Epstein. And then Jeffrey Epstein responds.

So Michael Wolff writes, "What's the thumbnail on Nes Baum (phonetic) Foster?"

And Jeffrey Epstein writes back, "Nes Baum White House Counsel, dot, dot, dot, Hillary doing naughties with Vince."

Now, Vince Foster killed himself, you know, and then killed himself at the White House. And then drug himself across the street to the park.

I mean, I don't know -- the Vince Foster thing is so old. And it doesn't -- but why is nobody talking about that one?

Why is no one talking about that?

Also, this the Jeffrey Epstein email bundle, ABC, you don't feel that's necessary to bring that one up?

Huh. Interesting.