RADIOMarch 04, 2025

Financial Expert WARNS: Why Trump’s Tariffs are a Risky Game

Inflation is still up, prices are still high, GDP is now predicted to decrease, and the Legacy Media is, of course, blaming President Trump and his tariffs. But financial expert Carol Roth makes the case that they KNEW this was coming. The economy is still reeling from Biden-era spending. That’s why Glenn advises Trump to demand in his first Address to Congress that Congress pass a budget with a bare minimum of a trillion dollars in cuts. But Carol also gives a warning: she believes that DOGE’s cutting and Trump’s tariffs could “explode the deficit” and alienate our allies if they are not done surgically.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: All right let me go to Carol Roth. Hello, Carol. How are you?

CAROL: Yeah. Glenn, I've just found that we've only been in this administration for a month and a halfish, and I feel like it's been 16 years.

GLENN: Yeah. I know. I know.

CAROL: There's so much going on. I'm trying to process it now. When somebody said, it's only been a month and a half. I went -- you know, my mind was blown.

GLENN: Yeah, we're 40 days into this administration. You're looking into this. And it's breathtaking at what has been done. Last -- last month, we had I think 1800 encounters at the borders.

A year ago, last February, it was 1009000 encounters.

That's how much of an impact he has made on that. We have all these things that he has done. But when it comes to the economy, Congress has to move on some of his things. He hasn't really done anything with the economy. Except, perhaps, for DOGE. Which you've been warning about on this program, for a while now.

What's happened?

CAROL: Yeah. Yeah. So we've talked about before, that the economic situation, is not really what it was presented to be. You know, we heard under Biden and certainly during election season. What a wonderful economy we had. All of these really great statistics, on employment and growth.

And it's become very clear. Well, it was very clear to all of us, before. We've talked about it. Something that Secretary of the Treasury, Scott Bessent talked about a couple of weeks ago. Is that really, the economic foundation is incredibly fragile. And what we've had the Biden administration do, which was exceptionally nefarious. Is that they decided that they were going to spend to paper over the weakness of the economy.

So if you remember, I think it was back in 2022, we had those two down powers of GDP. Which is a technical recession.

For some reason, by the way, they said, was not a recession. I'm sure if Trump had to down quarters, they would say it was.

GLENN: Right. Depression.

CAROL: But it had a D in front of it, so it wasn't. Then we came out of it. Then it was pretty clear that we were going to go into this double dip recession.

So what did they do to increase government spending, which is very inefficient spending, and we have been running deficits as a percentage of GDP. That are at wartime levels.

We're talking six to 7 percent of GDP, the historical average is somewhere around three, or three and I half percent.

So about double, you know, what you might see, on average. Not -- well, you have a good economy. You would actually expect that to be much lower. Because you're getting more receipts.

That's what happened. We had more receipts. We were taking $5 trillion. And they're spending even more. They're spending almost $7 trillion. So that was done to mask the weakness in the economy. Now that we don't have the ability to continue to kick up even more and more to show growth, the consumer continues to be tapped out from all the Biden Arab policies. And the fact that we have DOGE. Which is trying to cut down government spending. We're at a situation where things could get uglier. Before they get better. Or they could get uglier. And they could take away the political will to make them better.

That's this delegate dance that we've been talking about. Why we need this careful choreography.

The craziest thing that has happened over the past several days. Is that the Atlanta Fed. One of the branches of the Federal Reserve. Has a tool that predicts GDP each quarter.

They went over the last four weeks. Okay. Four weeks time. From predicting we would have almost 4 percent GDP growth in the first quarter. To now negative 3 percent, in the first quarter.

GLENN: That's impossible.

CAROL: A seven percentage point difference in four weeks! Which, A, just goes to show what a joke any of this reporting. And these tools and this data are.

But I think also shows, hey. We've got, you know, somebody else at the helm here.

So now we don't need to doctor these numbers in a way that seem a bit more friendly.

And it's so -- we potentially could be seeing something ugly. Which is something that we've talked about many, many times.

And this has been a setup, that they knew was come.

If you go back to the middle of last year, you had a bunch of, quote, unquote, noble economists. That put out a piece that said, Trump was going to create inflation. He was going to do all these things to the economy. And I called it right out, there is will it. This is a setup. They know this is coming, right then. They are setting the groundwork to blame this on Trump.

Get ready for the talking points.

Trump has been in there for only six weeks.

He hasn't even really had a chance to do anything about the economy. Congress certainly isn't helping. And yet, we're already getting the rhetoric that, oh, look what he did to our really great economy.

GLENN: Correct me if I'm wrong here, Carol. But the Biden administration, while they spent a lot of money, they did it in ways to cover things up, et cetera, et cetera.

But that -- that big 2021, you know, $1.2 trillion bill. And then the 836 billion for roads and bridges. And broadband. And then the 144 in the Inflation Reduction Act. It's well over a trillion dollars.

And it's my understanding, that only 17 percent of that money has been sent. Spent. So what happens if we don't stop the spending, of just the stuff that is already on the books from Biden. Wouldn't that cause our inflation to go through the roof.

CAROL: Yeah. It absolutely would cause our inflation to go through the roof. Because even with the cash in and cash out that we have. As you said, we're running these wartime deficits. And, by the way, we're financing those at high interest rates. Not necessarily in the historical context. But in the context of the last 15 years. And in a way that we have now made the interest expense, on our debt, you know, what we're paying for stuff we've already bought.

Exceed, the financing charges exceed what we're spending on defense. Nile Ferguson has a great sort of maxim, if you will. That basically, I'm paraphrasing here.

But, you know, nations that spend more on interest, versus debt, don't, you know, remain great nations for very long. That seems to be pretty obviously, something that everybody can wrap their heads around. That we've -- we don't want to be spending all of our money paying for stuff that we, quote, unquote, already bought. And we certainly, at these levels, cannot afford to do that. If we continue to do that, and, you know, this kind of goes into another conversation that we've had before, Glenn, too. That central banks around the world who used to be our friends in support of the US being the world's reserve currency, used to just buy Treasuries, as kind of part of the deal here on an ongoing basis. Over the past 11 or so years, they have been net sellers of Treasuries. They have actually replaced that with gold on their balance sheet. So if we don't have central banks that will just buy Treasuries, whenever, because that's part of the geopolitical deal, that means you have to find people, who are, you know -- looking at the price. They're looking at the price of the treasuries. And basically, you know, at these levels, of even though, they've come off a little bit. And we can talk about that too.

But they're saying. Overall, they're saying, yeah, we're not going to do that. You know, we need to have a reprice here.

And, you know, when you don't have enough demand. You end up seeing our yields go higher. To the extent, they add you up too high. Which we were dangerously close to a few years ago. We've come off now.

If you hit that. That could end up causing a debt spiral.

End up causing a mismanagement.

Or not a mismanagement.

A throwing up, if you will, of the Treasury market. And have global implications. Let me explain this, so the average person understands what you just said.

You are -- you are wanting to buy a new house.

And the interest rates are up at 8 percent.

You say, honey, I don't think we should buy a new house.

The interest rate is too high.

And somebody says, historically not. Yeah. Historically, you might be right. But we're not buying in the 1980s right now. We're buying today, with our financial situation. So I don't think we're going to buy the house.

That's what a normal person would do. And you can start saving known buy a house later.

That's not what the government is doing. They're saying, let's buy the house at the high interest rates anyway.

But when you have poor credit, really good banks are going to say, no. I'm not going to take your loan.

That's what she's talking about with the central banks. They're like, I don't want it. I would rather buy gold.

Because I don't trust that you guys are ever going to get out of debt.

And so what happens? Loan sharks step in.

This is what she's saying about the yield going up. The loan sharks step in.

And they say, I can make this deal for you. It will cost you 12 percent.

You're like, 12 percent. That's outrageous.

You're going to do it, or you're not going to do it. What do you want?

So we're bigger ourselves with lone sharks. That's why, I believe, the president needs to say, tonight. Congress must pass a budget.

It must have cuts. I would love him to say, it must have a trillion dollars, bare minimum, of cuts. To show the rest of the world, that we're serious.

I don't know why Javier Milei can do these things, but we can't.

CAROL: However. However, however, Glenn, if we cut as we talked about, a trillion dollars. And we cut it up very carefully. And we don't choreograph it like Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers, and then we don't have that in our GDP, then we have a shrunken economy. We're taking in less receipts, and we actually explode the deficit, which could end up in a debt spiral.

GLENN: Right.

CAROL: So, yes. Congress needs to do their part. But it needs to be done very surgically, and that's the ultimate challenge.

That's the mess that the Biden administration left for Trump.

GLENN: If I were king of the world today, and I could go in and say, Congress, this is what you're going to do.

I would say to them, you're going to cut a trillion dollars. Plus, you're going to pass a flat tax. Or 15-15-15. What the president has talked about. And you're going to cut 15 percent of all regulations. Cut them right now. And you're going to pass the REINS Act. That would change the dynamics of the economy.

Yes. We would have all of that spending going away from our GDP. From the government.

Good, but money would flow into our country, and jobs would be created.

And we would he go night the engine at the same time. That's what has to happen! But that's not going to be the president's fault, if it doesn't happen. What a surprise! It will be the lame ass G.O.P. that will screw this up.

He has to get them back on path. Back in just a second with Carol Roth with some good news.

GLENN: Okay. Is there anything else that we need to hit here, on the economy, before we get to some good news?

CAROL: I mean, this was probably going to be a whole other segment, at some point we need to have a discussion about the tariffs. It's probably not the time now.

GLENN: No. Okay.

CAROL: But we need to have a discussion about these tariffs.

GLENN: Okay. Let's do that now. Let's start there.

CAROL: All right. So basically, what did the American people hire Trump to do? Right?

They hired Trump to stabilize prices. To get things more normalized.

And, yes. We have these issues around the world. In terms of where we stand by trade.

However, as we have been talking about, we just talked about, this needs to be very surgical. We need to have Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers doing choreography. We don't need to have a bull in a China shop.

And the tariffs situation, given the precarious economic situation that Biden has left us. And the fact that the citizens of the United States want priced ability is absolutely maddening.

I understood Art of the Deal. I understood the first time around, that we're trying to put some pressure. Show who is the big dog, and people to come to the table. But now, we're going after our allies.

We're trying to kind of separate ourselves from China. Well, we have country. Companies who decided to move manufacturing from China to Mexico.

So that they could be more aligned with the United States and North America. And now we're putting these crazy tariffs on it. This is -- this is something that, frankly, nobody in any economic circle, that I know, understands the strategy.

GLENN: Okay. So here's. And it does not seem to be consistent with what I have been talking about.

GLENN: Okay. Donald Trump has been playing many different games all at once. And the strategy that comes with Canada and Mexico.

I don't think really has anything to do with the economy.

It has everything to do with the border.

He is saying, help us with the border.

Help stop the flow of illegals. Stop fentanyl. And recognize that your cartels are terror organizations. Work with us. If you don't want to. That's fine!

You will get a tariff. He's not saying, you know, we -- you're charging us too much for our milk. And not enough for your milk.

Or whatever. That is part of it. But that's not really what he's after, I believe, on the tariffs with Canada and Mexico!

CAROL: I agree. That was the first time, we tried this.

And he got them to the table. And now we need to have sort of a different situation. Because the reality is that, as you said, he's made huge strides.

We have a tiny fraction of the encounters at the border.

So that is moving in the right direction. But things like pricing ability. Is not necessarily moving in the right direction.

And to throw this into the mix, at a time that is so precarious from an economic situation. Even if that is the ultimate outcome, it seems like the wrong tactic to take, because the situation on the economic front is so volatile. Find another path to do that! That's all I'll have to say on that.

STU: Yeah. And just to back up Carol's point on the border, I mean, we're down -- this is the lowest month we've had in at least 25 years of border crossings.

GLENN: Since 1968 or something crazy like that.

STU: Yeah. The only other close month was April 2017. Right? After Trump came in the first time. But that was much more about just tone, and it did slow things down.

This seems to be backing up with action.
And, you know, I -- I tend to agree on the tariffs with Carol here.

GLENN: Yeah, I'm against tariffs. I'm for even playing field tariffs.

STU: But, again, and that is defensible logically. Not what's happening with Canada, with being in agreement. There's no tariffs.

It was his agreement. He designed it. And now he's putting the tariffs on.

GLENN: I know.

CAROL: That's going back with the surgical part, if it was something very specific, I could understand. But across-the-board, at these levels, seems really insane at this point.

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 demands Trump FIRE Bondi after Epstein list debacle

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.