RADIOJune 18, 2024

Exposing Target’s Internal MELTDOWN After Pride Month Backlash

Glenn Beck reveals leaked internal messages between the members of Target’s “Pride + Business Council” that took place during last year's boycott. Target went off the rails last Pride Month and offered “tuck-friendly” bathing suits, chest binders, and transgender-themed merchandise for children. Americans responded with a boycott that sent Target running back into the closet. Thanks to an employee from Target corporate who wished to stay anonymous, Glenn exposes for the first time ever the radical response of Target employees, including a witch hunt that ensued when certain employees defended Target’s rollback of controversial LGBTQ+ merchandise as a reasonable business move. In the end, Target leadership received a list of demands from employees that included a call for Target to bring back the merchandise that started the controversy in the first place. Despite the internal pressure, Target toned down its Pride collection this year. Should reasonable Americans take the win, or is there yet another battle for the culture just around the corner?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So you're the first to hear this exclusive leak, that we received from a source inside Target headquarters who thought the public needed to know how some of Target's employees responded to last year's boycott. First, let me speak directly to the people that made all of this possible.

Women, I know it was hard to boycott Target.

We were there. We -- we as husbands, and men saw you. Like you weren't busy enough.

We saw you drive past that bright red sign. And go from store to store, to be able to boycott. With us. With Bud Light.

I mean, it's beer.

We will just reach in the fridge for another beer. Victory. Real victory is yours with Target. But it's Pride month again.

Which means, it's been one year since Target rolled out a collection of Pride onesies, tuck-friendly bathing suits, chest binders for girls, and apparel made by some transgender Satan apologist. Not today, Jesus. Says Satan.

This year, prayed month, Target has a much more toned down collection. Like, for instance, let me show you their new Pride Month charcuterie board.

That says, it's giving charcuterie. Has no rainbows or Pride symbols on it at all. It's just a wooden board.

I guess maybe Target thinks charcuterie is gay enough on its own. I'm not really sure, but it's a tame collection of rainbow wine bottles and clothes and nothing like last year.

Also, unlike last year. There was nothing for kids. So victory.

Now, some Target locations won't have any Pride merchandise this year. It will only be sold online in the stores. Where Target says, they've seen historically the strongest sales demand.

Okay. That makes sense as a business. To be clear, Target, I don't think is doing this because corporate had some road to Damascus moment, and decided, you know what, we should depoliticize this company and maybe sell things people want.

Remember, this is the same company, that in 2016, when most didn't even know, you know, that there were 96 genders.

They said, put a statement out that said, we welcome. I'm quoting. Transgender team members and guests. To use the restroom or fitting room facility that corresponds with their gender identity.

Well, that make me comfortable when my kids want to go and try something out. Their 2023 sustainability and governance report. This Target is one of them that does ESG on their own. Says, their goal is to take urgent action. To combat climate change and its impacts.

The Target website says, Target is an inclusive and antiracist organization. That's key.

It's not non-racist. It has to be. You have to have a little racism to combat racism, you see.

So the way I see it. There's only one reason Target has pulled back on their Pride collection.

And that is you. But now Target is a really, really tricky position. And that's because, on one hand, they can't afford another boycott. The New York Post reported that after last year's boycott, Target lost ten billion dollars in market valuation, in ten days.

That's a lot. On the other hand, they have created a brand around being basically woke. And just like Disney, the inmates are now in charge of the asylum. And employees at Target, many are very woke and militant. Now, to make matters really complicated, that radical staff they have to deal with, was not happy. Last year.

Last year, our team was given exclusive access to internal messages, that took place on Target's slack chapel for their pride plus business council.

We found culture wars that are taking place, because Target is taking a stand and saying, wait. We're going to slow down on this.

And the people were not just boycotting.

Internally, the employees started a little revolt.

And let me show you what we were sent and found.

Last year, when you were deciding to boycott Target for their choice to sell chest binders to children.

Paneled underwear.

Target hosted a town hall to discuss the move to pull back on some of their more controversial merchandise.

The people of the pride plus business council, were not pleased inside of Target.

Up said, quote.

It feels like leadership wants to keep support for LGBTQ causes on the down low. Like they want to be able to point it out to people. You know, make a fuss.

But they don't want to advertise it for people who might disagree. Senior management for philanthropic operations agreed, saying, quote, reasoning with the down low piece for real!

See, what they're saying is, Target while -- while we were saying Target went too far.

The employees were upset, that they hadn't gone far enough.

And now they were pulling back. One employee said, see. We need to cater to the bigots to get our sales up.

Okay. But it wasn't just the town hall announcement that started the internal firestorm at Target. It was the comments in the community chat, while it happened. The leaked messages were given to us, in backward order.

So as we went through them, we saw the Pride-plus council's reaction to the comments, before we saw the comments, themselves.

Remember, we weren't given access to the actual conversation, just the comments.

So we don't know what was said, by the Target leadership during the meeting.

But we were given snapshots. And screen shots of what happened in the chat.

So we don't know what they said, at the leadership of Target.

But it must have been pretty horrible.

Based on just the reactions. The comments must have been awful. From Target leadership.

Here are a few examples of what the chat said, during it.

How the Pride Plus business council was reacting. JPG 22, here. I've been through a lot in my life. I have PTSD to show for it.

And I have to say, that was the most gaslighty dystopian thing I ever witnessed in a while. Here's another one: JPG 24.

We need to protect ourselves. There are consequences for hateful statements and displays.

So now, what did Target say that has made their employees say, we have to protect ourselves from these hateful statements and displays?

Number 27.

A few more. I'm still in shock, and disgusted.

I'm sure a lot of people are examining, whether they want to continue to be a team member after all of this.

Kind of hard to get back to work after that one, huh?

So at this point, we're assuming something truly terrible had happened in that community chat.

The acronym HR was repeated over and over again in the chat.

And people were talking about filing ethics complaints.

One woman put the name and email of an intern, who she said was advocating for discrimination.

Wow! Another intern was exposed for basically putting thumbs down on a comment.

Which promoted one of the lead buyers for Target's pride collection to say, each person should be submitted to ethics.

An intern who gave a thumb's down on a comment, should be submitted to ethics.

So what horrible things were these people saying, to elicit such an extreme reaction.

Surely, they had to be sexist, racist tirades, that started this chaos.

Well, here's what we found. And you may want to sit down for this one. Because it's pretty darn shocking.

Here's one of the comments, that we found.

A woman who was a Christian. Hang on just a second.

That wrote this.

I'm a Christian. And I don't support violence against guests or team members.

Okay. I also don't hate people who view differently than myself.

However, for some to say my Biblical views are disgusting, that's not inclusive.

Wow! Now, it gets worse.

The people in the chat need to look at past year's Pride assortment. The backlash this year has been specific to gender-plus children, to imply leadership is now bowing down to bigots is highly offensive.

Then this: A lead designer, who had been at Target for 25 years, defended the people, who felt a little weird about Target partnering with a designer, who currently produces products that say, Satan respects pronouns.

This lead designer at Target said, so someone who doesn't think a partnership with an artist who glorifies Satan in their products is a bigot? Would Target partner with a similar individual who had a racist-themed product, or would you have the same feeling towards those partnerships?

Maybe quit calling names, because their beliefs are different than yours. The most inflammatory comment that we could find was made by a woman who started working at Target in the early 2000s.

She said, quote, not all people agree that giving hormones to kids, which only provides long-term health issues is a good thing. So inclusivity, means ignoring 95 percent of the population? To make sure 5 percent are able to keep grooming kids, end quote?

Read about some of the stories. I'm still quoting now.

Of the young girls who have had a mastectomy at 13. And are now in their 20s. And have horrible health issues. From the hormones that they've taken. I don't care what an adult does.

But kids should be left alone.

Is that unreasonable?

My favorite comment was this, with JPG 45. Our leadership team has a difficult decision to make.
They answer to something called shareholders.

We're also responsible for thousands of team member jobs. Please, don't attack your leadership or your fellow team members when you don't know their heart.

We are a business, and this is capitalism. Good day now. End quote.

Well, Target needed to send out a company-wide letters addressing the comments before the end of the day. And here's what they said.

Several comments made during the town hall, violated Target's policies. Those incidents are being addressed directly. Target does not tolerate discrimination or hate speech of any kind.

Wait. The ones who just said don't attack the leadership?

That that's hate speech? That wasn't enough for some of the members of the Pride Plus business council.

The idea was floated in their chat. On the day of their town hall.

That they needed more organized response.

That response came about a month later, in the form of a list of demands, sent to target leadership. Which we were also given access. Exclusive access to.

In the memo, they said, they wanted from Target, quote, an acknowledgment of harm. A sincere apology.

And a clear statement of unwavering support for the LGBTQ+ community.

They wrote, we have always regarded Target as an inclusive and progressive company. However, these recent events have called into question, the company's commitment to these values.

They said, the removal of some of the Pride collection was disappointing and distressing. So fort company to atone, they needed Target to acknowledge in writing, the harm done to the LGBTQ+ community, explicitly the trans and nonbinary -- nonbinary members of the community. Forge partnerships with prominent LGBTQ advocacy groups and immediately reinstate the Pride collection in full, which we know didn't happen.

Donate to LGBTQ causes and implement sensitivity training for employees and cease all contributions to politicians and organizations that do not support the LGBTQ community.

This is so crazy. Because here is a company, that supports LGBTQ. Way beyond what other companies do.

And they're not woke enough. Even after all that pressure from within the company. And all the pressure outside the company, from people like Governor Newsom accusing Target CEO of selling out the LGBTQ+ community to extremists.

We're the extremists. Target still toned down its Pride collection this year, and they did it because of you. This is a testament of what you can do, when we come together, which brings me to the point of this whole story.

What is this story really all about?

Because I'm not showing you all about this stuff?

You know, saying that Target has issues.

We know that already.

It's why you staged a boycott.

What is this story really all about?

Okay. So I wanted to give you this exclusive story today, on Target. Because I want you to see a couple of things here. First of all, we do have the power to make a difference.

We have more power than you think you do.

That's why they need to shut people up, using fear, okay?

The second thing is, is a little bit of hope.

And sadness as well.

Wokeness will always destroy itself.

This is -- it's like the plant in little shop of horror. You give it a little bit of blood, and it will eventually eat you.

And that's what's happening to companies like Target. They created a monster, and they planted it inside their own company. And it's eating them alive.

It's as if all of Target's virtue signaling came to life in the form some of their employees. And now it's the battle to the death. It's the same in higher education. There are those professors who have been teaching revolutionary theories for years. But now have been run out by revolutionaries they created. Same thing in the Democratic Party.

The new generation of progressives is threatening the Democratic establishment, who used to be the radicals, for not being radical enough.

Wokeness always eats its own. And it's because the entire ideology is fueled by deconstruction.

And critical theories that rage against the hierarchy. Or the debate. And do you know whams when you're in a movement for a while?

You, the radical, become the establishment. If you climb your way to the top of the woke ladder, you'll find yourself on the wrong side of the movement. And the new revolutionaries always destroy the old ones. The ending of the story for places like Target and Disney is inevitable.

And I think most of us understand that innately, which is why we watch these stories unfold like it's the end of the Daytona 500. We know someone is going to crash. It's just a matter of time. So what do we do?

Do we sit back, point and laugh?

No. That would be tempting. And fun. A little bit.

But not useful. Because in the short-term.

Whatever crash is coming. Is going to affect all of us.

There are plenty of sane people. Normal people. That work at Target.

Hike the ones that we saw, trying to be reasonable in their community chat.

All of us will be caught in the crossfire of these woke institutions as they implode.

We just need to be ready to fill the vacuum. That it's going to create.

In the long-term, we have to focus on creating an alternative. Business. Movie. Media.

Everything.

That's what we need. Alternatives. Kind, gracious. Decent. Alternatives.

You build it. They destroy. But you build. You restore.

Wokeness is a destructive force.

We just have to hold on to our values. And be ready to rebuild.

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.