RADIOJuly 10, 2024

Who Doomed the Petrodollar: America or Saudi Arabia?

There has been a lot of confusion lately about Saudi Arabia allegedly ending a 50-year-deal with the United States. The "deal" tied oil sales to the US dollar. But many have claimed that the deal never actually existed. So, what's really going on here and should Americans be worried? Financial expert Carol Roth joins Glenn to break it all down, including why she believes the United States and our Federal Reserve are really to blame for the petrodollar's destruction. Plus, Carol explains why the Biden administration can insist the economy has never been better, although our wallets can tell the opposite is true.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Before we get to Carol, I want to give you some highlights from this Blaze media. And TheBlaze.com story.

Biden's phony numbers mask true economic pain. The official government numbers in the US economy have been contradictory and confusing for quite a while now.

What is clear upon closer examination, is that the federal government's overspending and overregulation are doing serious damage to the economy.

And we have yet to see the worst results of those policies.

The unemployment increase, seems to contradict recent signs that the economy has been weakening. In addition to the conflicting rise in unemployment. Other signs of deterioration. Include stagnant retail sales.

A slowing of consumer spending. Weak industrial product. Manufacturing orders. Increasing consumer debt.

Depressed by new housing starts. Falling annual earnings of full-time employees. And rising commodity prices. The Federal Reserve chairman, Jerome Powell, knitted, he believes the White House has been cooking the books.

This is the fed chair. Stating last week, you have payroll jobs, still coming in strong.

Even though, there's an argument, they may be a bit overstated. The only job growth, in the US, is for illegal aliens. Listen to that.

The only job growth in the US, are for those illegal aliens, who will work for below minimum wage. Which also explains why inflation hasn't spiked in the past year, as millions of illegal aliens were hired.

Legally resident American workers saw no job increase in the past year. And unlawful residents, willing to accept wages Americans can't are dragging everything down in the wage category.

With employment continues for American workers stagnant at best, the job market is another indicator that the economic growth is slowing, and the Federal Reserve should lower interest rates to reduce its suppression of economic activity.

However, they decided not to. Because it will -- it will spike inflation again.

The markets have already priced three expected interest rate reductions for the year.

However, suggesting a correction is in order.

Even so, the stock market stayed steady after the fed's interest rate announcement with the Dow falling slightly.

And the S&P 500 and NASDAQ, rising to new record highs.

Economist Robert Genetski. Genetski, calculates that the S&P 500 is currently overvalued by 34 percent.

If investors decide the market is near peak and start selling, taking their profits before prices, fall. There is more trouble.

This overspending continues from the federal government, as well.

In the first eight months of the current fiscal year, the current government has already accumulated more than $1.2 trillion, in additional debt.

With a staggering deficit of $348 billion last month alone.

Investors were reportedly believed the US economy is about to enjoy a significant expansion, because of AI.

That's boosting the stock markets. The shares in tech companies. Chip makers. And even utilities.

The government's stimulus injection may be waning, and the Fed's interest rate hikes are starting to bite, as indicated by the slowing housing and manufacturing production.

Higher interest rates hinder business from investing in production and consumers from spending on goods.

That support those businesses. Additionally, the Biden administration has implemented a regulatory program, that will directly cost the economy 3.95 trillion dollars in 2025.

And indirectly result in a staggering 75.05 trillion, in opportunity costs, for 2025, alone.

That might take a bite, no matter what AI is going to do.

Carol Roth is here with us.

Carol. Are we beginning to see all of the signs of the wheels coming off of this thing?

CAROL: I think we've been seeing the signs of the wheels coming off of this thing for quite some time.

And they're sort of hanging on by a thread.

Now, certainly, a lot of the numbers that are put forth. Are meant to window dress, and say, oh, no.

The wheels are still turning. And they're doing just fine. And they will last for a while.

We have seen cracks, and when you peel back the onion. And you look at things like the deficit to GDP, which are about two times the historic average at a time when they're telling us, there's an expansion. We know there's something wrong.

Because normally, when you have an expanding economy, that means you're taking in more revenue at the government level. And that means you're running less of a deficit because you have more money input.

What's happening now is the Biden administration has flipped that on their head. And they're using deficits to window dress the appearance, that we have growth.

And we're seeing that start to crack. Because even that, you know, window dressed growth is starting to come down.

We saw the first quarter GDP come in, almost a percentage point lower than expectations.

A first reading. The second reading was even lower.

So now, as of the second reading. We're at 1.3 percent. For the first quarter. And we're expecting a third reading.

And things keep getting revised and revised.

So all of the, you know, appearances that they're putting forth. And to make it seem like everything is looking great.

We've seen those cracks. And they're just becoming larger and larger.

GLENN: So do you think that there's any way possible, that anything, excuse the pun here, Trumps the economy.

I mean, they always say in elections.

You know, it's the economy, stupid.

And no matter how you window dress this.

Everyone knows, I don't have as much money, or my money doesn't go as far as it used to. And I'm having a hard time keeping up.

At almost every level, this is happening.

VOICE: So this is an interesting question.

There was a Monmouth poll, that came out yesterday.

That showed, far and away.

That the economy was the biggest issue.

You know, number one issue on people's minds.

But there's a disconnect by party. And obviously, when you have the -- the Republican side, and I would think to some extent. The independents as well.

There's more of a connection with the -- with the fiscal reality that's going on. And it becomes, you know, we believe so afford literally four more years of that.

There's a disconnect from the Democrats who don't believe in mass and reality anyway.

And so even though, they may be hurting, personally. They're going to make excuses. And say that it's for, you know, any sort of litany of other reasons. And it doesn't have anything to do with these specific policies, that we know have driven these outcomes.

You know, there's weather it's things like the American rescue plan. And they direct stimulus. That's literally called stimulus.

That overstimulated the economy. And caused inflation.

They're going to tell you, oh, no. Look, inflation has come down. Even though, they're still going to the same grocery stores, the same gas stations. Having to pay the same rent. And they're believing and buying into the gaslighting.

So that's my concern.

Is when you have so many people who are decoupled from reality. And can fed the propaganda that's gaslighting. And they're willing to -- basically, you know, they're cults. That that is not going to show up in the polls. The way that it should. If we were operating, you know, with some sort of normal baseline.

GLENN: Carol, I'm going to take a quick break, early here.

Because I don't want to interrupt you on this petrodollar thing.

Because I have seen stories that say, this is true.

Stories that say it wasn't true. I don't think there ever was a -- there wasn't a concrete deal. It was more of a handshake with Saudi Arabia. With the petrodollar. Wasn't it?

Or did we have a written deal?

CAROL: That's right. So I was surprised when I saw this as well. You know, I wrote about this in You'll Own Nothing. We have a whole chapter on it.

And there was a deal put in place. But never once did I come across anything that said, we have a specific expiration. But we know deals that, you know, are made. Can be shifted and changed at any point in time.

And I think that's the point we want to talk about.

GLENN: Correct.

Okay. So we'll do that next.

Because the petrodollar. If the world goes off the petrodollar.

That is -- that is the beginning of the end of the dollar.

It's just a matter of time. And what are people replacing? It with?

And so far, central banks are not replacing it with any currency at all.

We'll talk about it here, in just a second.

Okay.

So, Carol, explain why the petrodollar is so important.

VOICE: All right. So there's this story that was going around last week. That the Saudis had ended this agreement, that had been put in place in the '70s.

So what happened was that when the US went off the gold standard, they were very concerned over what was going to happen. So they created this secret delegation, that went to Saudi Arabia.

As part of a diplomatic chore. And there was a lot of chaos going on at that time. Not only did we go off the gold standard.

There was an oil embargo put in place by the Arab oil exporters. That set the price of oil sky-high.

So the big objective, was basically, they -- the US didn't want crude oil.

You know, energy. Which is obviously really what fueled growth around the world, to become an economic weapon.

And they knew they knew, okay. Well, now we're off the gold standard.

We had the currency. Wouldn't it be great to have somebody to finance their deficits?

So what they did, is they went to the Saudis. And they said, well, look, you come. You take -- you're going to agree to basically price oil in dollars.

And that's -- around the world, oil is going to be priced in dollars. And you will have all this excess money.

We want you to plow that back into US treasuries. Everything that you get in. We want to you plow that back into treasuries?

Why did they want that? Because that obviously helped the US finance their deficits at a very cheap rate.

He said with be okay. We'll do that. What we want in return, basically some economic and military support. And so they made this -- this deal. That was brokered.

The interesting part is there was a secret piece of it, and that was that the Saudis did not want everyone to know, that they had this huge Treasury stockpile. So for more than four --

GLENN: Why?

Wait. Wait. Wait.

Why didn't they?

CAROL: Because they must want everyone to know that this was sort of the underpinnings of the deals of how closely they were in bed, with the US.

GLENN: Okay. With the US. Okay.

CAROL: And that this is what they did. So this was actually uncovered by a Bloomberg report.

So for 41 years, what the US Treasury did when they broke out what central banks held the US Treasury, and you can go see if China holds this. Japan holds this.

They lumped Saudi Arabia in with 14 other nations. So basically, you could see, oh. We cut this special deal, and now it looks like now, that there's all this wonderful demand for treasuries around the world.

And it was kind of unclear that there was this alliance going on.

So what does that do? It creates a massive demand for the Treasury, because not only are the Saudis in there as huge buyers, but when you have -- you know, sort of a de facto basis. The oil price in US dollars. Then every other central bank will also want to make sure that they have a stockpile of a dollar equivalent security. That if they need dollars, they can cash in.

Of course, as opposed to holding actual dollars. When you hold the Treasury you do get some income. Or you get an interest rate. So basically, this has created huge demand for Treasuries. It means that the interest was artificially suppressed by that demand. And that the US government was able to finance their deficits.

It also meant that trade around the world, was done, you know, US dollars. So not only are these central banks, holding them in the reserves. There's all this trade that's happening in US dollars.

So this actually worked out for quite some time.

The Fed holding basically the world's reserve currency. And managing it. They held the US dollar fairly stable. When you saw the price of gas go up. That they would loosen monetary policy.

And when it was too low. They would tighten it, that they would stay in some sort of a range. Sometimes that was at odds with what was going on domestically.

But as the holder of the world's reserve currency, that was their job.

GLENN: Hang on just a second. Stop for just a second.

I just want to make the point: This is right now, where we're about to see the change, and it's not happening now. It's already happened.

We -- when we got off the gold standard. We promised the world, we will never put ourselves, you know, absolutely first. And go off, and do crazy spending.

And, you know, just break everything for America.

And that's why, it was at odds, sometimes. The fed's policies.

Were at odds.

With the United States policy.

Or -- or -- wants and needs.

Because they had to balance it for the world.

And then what happened, Carol?

CAROL: Yes. So for the economic wonks out there, that's called the Triffin dilemma. You sometimes have to make these tradeoffs between what happens domestically and what happens internationally.

What happened, if we come back to today, is that the Fed has managed to hold the dollar, not stable.

Either for the world, or domestically. So it's not like they even made the tradeoff.

They just abandoned it altogether. But going back to 2005, they decided when the price of oil shot up due to China's increase in demand.

Hurricane Katrina, a whole bunch of things. That they just weren't going to play this game anymore, and that's when things started to crack.

Then we had the Great Recession financial crisis, and so on and so forth.

And the US government continuing to run these huge deficits.

And just, you know, creating a really challenging situation, economically.

So the big issue, if you are these countries around the world. That now have everything priced in dollars.

All your major commodities.

It's not just oil.

It's then extending into food.

Everybody is trading into dollars.

When you have these huge swings in the dollar, that means, that threatens as a nation.

Because now you may not be able to afford energy.

Or you may not be able to afford your food for your country.

That's a national security issue.

GLENN: Forty seconds.

CAROL: Countries are getting sick of that. We weaponize the US dollar. And at the end of the day, they're starting to move away from it. Which threatens our ability to have cheap financing and our standard of living.

GLENN: And so the Saudis did not break a deal.

We've broken the deal long ago.

And they're just all doing what would normally be done. It's no longer good for me.

It's got to be good for both of us.

And so they didn't stop the deal. They're just naturally moving away.

And it's -- the money is going to gold, not other currencies at this point. Correct?

CAROL: Correct. You got it. You nailed it.

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.