RADIOSeptember 22, 2023

Did the CIA BRIBE experts to dismiss COVID lab leak theory?

It's been nearly 4 years since the COVID-19 pandemic broke out and we still don't have a consensus on where it came from. But recently, a whistleblower has claimed to Congress that the CIA bribed experts to suggest that COVID-19 didn't come from a lab. Rep. Brad Wenstrup, who chairs one of the subcommittees the whistleblower has spoken to, joins Glenn with the latest. According to the whistleblower, 6 of the 7 people on the CIA's COVID discovery team believed the virus came from a lab, but the CIA only said it was "unable to determine" the truth. And allegedly, there were "performance bonuses" attached to their findings. Did the CIA bribe experts to remain silent? Is the government trying to steer the narrative in one direction for political reasons? What does that mean about the trustworthiness of our intelligence agencies?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Congressman Wenstrup, how are you, sir?

WENSTRUP: I'm hanging in there. How are you, Glenn?

GLENN: I'm good. First of all, I want to let people know. You are a doctor. You're also an Army Reserve officer, and Iraqi war veteran. Thank you for that.

You were on the select subcommittee run by this pandemic. You have served as a doctor. You know, overseas. You also were at Walter Reed for a while.

And you are the medical policy adviser for the chief of Army Reserve. Correct?

WENSTRUP: Yes, actually retired from the Army in December.

But since I was elected to Congress, 11 years ago, I served at Walter Reed and as a medical policy adviser as well.

Obviously as a congressman.

And a congressman on the intelligence committee.

GLENN: Okay. So now, tell the story to the American people, in case they don't know. About what is going on, with the CIA. And this bribe, to the so-called experts.

WENSTRUP: Yeah. A little background. As a physician, ever since the pandemic started. I'm looking into what's going on, physiologically, how do we treat patients?

In the process of doing research, we discovered that we were actually engaging in China, in the lab in Wuhan, to create gain-of-function viruses.

That being said, with Intel committee, involved with this for the past three years, at least.

And what had happened now, is we have somebody coming forward, as the whistle-blower, seeking full whistle-blower protection.

And at this time, he wants to be anonymous. He came to both the intelligence committee, and the select subcommittee on the coronavirus pandemic, which I chair.

And he's made many allegations. Obviously, he summed up a lot of them. But there was the CIA, in trying to figure out, whether this came from a lab. Or from nature. Put together, a COVID discovery team, if you will.

Seven people, as you talked about.

So six of the people, they came to the conclusion with some level of confidence. That this came from a lab. And the senior person, according to these charges, said, it came from nature. Okay. Well, you're entitled to your opinion. What they ended up doing at the end of the day, releasing to the public and to the intelligence community. All they said was, the CIA was unable to determine.

Well, it sounds like they had a pretty high number of people, that were able to determine, as best as they know it. It is our responsibility, on this committee, to follow up on everything to do with the -- with the pandemic.

We take it very seriously. The reaction of the CIA, very serious.

So we're now seeking documents. Communications.

And we also have asked to speak with Andrew McCreedus (phonetic), who the whistle-blower says was the chief operating officer, and had a lot to do with constructing this.

I hope the director of the CIA will be cooperative with us.

But, you know, you hit the big question.

Why? I mean, why would they want to do that?

I mean, this goes back to where Fauci prompted. I'm using their words. Prompted a group of scientists to write what's called proximal origins.

Where in their internal documents, they're saying, oh, yeah. Well, they're doing research. Oh, yeah. They have this capability.

Oh, yeah. This really is something. And then they come out and say, it came from nature. And tried to make that definitive. Why are we not having scientific debate? What is the reason for attempting to steer everything in one direction? And here's one of my concerns, Glenn. And I think you will appreciate this. If this is true, and we have for political reasons. Or whatever.

Changing the -- the notion of changing intelligence. What does that say to our international partners, who rely on us, for intelligence?

Who we work with? Together on intelligence.

If our own intelligence department, is changing things from what people actually did and said. To fit a narrative that they want?

That's a concern I have.

GLENN: Well, not just that.

You know, you would imagine that in some cases, you would say, hey, let's not release that to anybody.

But this is changing things for the intelligence.

The oversight. You guys are -- you guys are engaged with oversight. And they didn't tell you this. A whistle-blower had to come and tell you this.

WENSTRUP: Right. And I would contend if we didn't have Republicans, in terms of the House of Representatives, it would come forward at all. To get an opportunity to somebody, that would seem like would listen. And is a whistle-blower.

And we are. And so we're pursuing this based on letters.

That's the first phase, requesting information. Documents.

You know, when we don't get them. And we dig a little bit deeper.

And we ask a little harder. And sometimes in the form of subpoenas.

GLENN: So they -- do we know if they actually paid these other experts?

These six people out of seven?

WENSTRUP: Yeah. So in the allegations, I would say that the conjecture, is that it may have come in the form of a performance bonus.
Not just out and out, hey, do this, and here's some money, if you are following that. Something to that effect. Right?

GLENN: Right. And do we have any idea how much? This is taxpayer dollars, right?

WENSTRUP: Oh, correct. And, no. We don't know how much. And, again, that's part of the investigation. We're obligated to do it. I mean, we don't really have a choice. This is what we should be doing. You know, keep in mind, I have to remember members of Congress this too. Congress created these agencies. And we fund those agencies. And we have oversight of those agencies. And not only do I have to remind members of Congress. We certainly have to remind the agencies, that this needs to be a working partnership. And you don't get to tell us anything. Especially on the intelligence committee. The intelligence committee is set up, so that there would be oversight over the intelligence committee.

GLENN: Correct.

WENSTRUP: And this is a select committee, so the people on this committee, which, by the way, is functioning well now, and is no longer an impeachment committee, but the intelligence committee, people are selected from both sides of the aisle. We also represent the other members of Congress. Because we're in a place where other members don't get to go. So this is an important role that we have. And the cooperation needs to be there. And sometimes, the community -- the intelligence community, thinks they don't have to tell us things. In the same statute that they do. So we will continue to pursue and find the truth. And we have -- we have to suggest or legislate things into law.

It allows us to hold people accountable, within agencies, when they do things.

And I use an example like this, Glenn. The military just served 25 years.

Uniform Code of Military Justice. Unethical is unlawful in the military.

And our agencies, unfortunately, this is across-the-board.

But in our agencies, if you violate some of your tenets, or what you say, or the rules of engagement within your agency, nothing really happens to you.

Oh, you might get fired.

But, you know, there -- this is -- this is a problem, that we have.

And so we are trying, on so many fronts, to put punitive measures in place when violations are occurring.

Such as, with the FISA court. Et cetera.

You know, the IG said 17 times.

Well, what actually happens? Where is the punitive measures? We're trying to implement those.

GLENN: Yeah. So do you -- is there a way out from -- I mean, your Justice Department looks horribly soiled. Your NSA. Your CIA. Your DNI.

All of these things, look like they've been a part of some really bad things, including the State Department. Now the IRS is involved. How are you possibly going to beat this?

I mean, it's like Whac-A-Mole.

WENSTRUP: Yeah. On my particular subcommittee. What I keep saying.

From the beginning. Is honesty and truth is non-negotiable. And we're going to be looking for it.

And if it's not there. We're going to point it out. And hold people accountable.

We have to.

GLENN: But you can't -- excuse me for interrupting.

But you can't really hold people responsible, if you say if they're in contempt for Congress.

Attorney general Garland. Is the one who has to prosecute. And he just came out and said, I'm not the prosecutor, for Congress.

Well, yes, you are.

But he gets to decide, who he prosecutes.

WENSTRUP: Yeah. And obviously what you're seeing, I know I heard Jim Jordan's voice when I came. And obviously you're seeing all kinds of things, where this is just wrong.

And I don't know how we get it all out from the American public. Most people don't know.

Obviously, I have the opportunity right now. To get to your listeners.

And that's important.

But there are things, that are going on today, that should be above the full front page headlines.

Each and every day.

And the mainstream media comes to our challenges, is definitely greater.

And elections matter.

And I hope people understand that. I grow up watching Superman. The beginning show.

Watching for truth, justice, and the American way. And then that's where we have to go.

And Americans have to understand, if that's what they want, or not. Because it's been deviated from, tremendously.

And let me make this suggestion too for our agencies. You know, in the military, you either move up, or you're out.

And you're required to be agnostic politically. And that's what we need in our agencies.

You either move up or you're out.

And when you get to the top, there's a mandatory retirement. You don't get to sit there with mounds of authority. And covert authority, if you will. And we have to make changes like that, within our system.

We started our country, with just three agencies. State Treasury and War.

Look what we have now. They have rule of law. They put out regulations.

We try to get laws to stop them.

It's completely backwards.

So Americans need to understand. To elect people that are willing to make that change, and get us back to the government, that you are Founders set up.

STU: Representative Brad Wenstrup. Thank you very much for what you're doing.

Please keep us informed, if there's any other news that starts to break here about the CIA apparently bribing members of the team.

The experts on COVID. Thank you so much. Appreciate it.

WENSTRUP: Yeah. Thank you so much.

GLENN: You bet.

Will Medicaid cuts KILL Americans? Glenn reveals the FACTS!

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.