RADIOOctober 13, 2023

INSANE: Biden tries to tie Israel aid to UKRAINE?!

The Biden administration wants to tie Israel aid to Ukraine, Taiwan, and border funding and Rep. Chip Roy is furious: "Is there a swampier friggin' thing to do?!" Rep. Roy joins Glenn to discuss the latest Israel news as well as the Speaker of the House debate. After a vote among Republicans, Rep. Steve Scalise barely beat Rep. Jim Jordan. But some Republicans, like Roy, aren't done fighting yet. Rep. He explains why he's "still gonna be advocating" for Jim Jordan and why he's furious with how his party handled the vote: "They took our good-faith effort...and man, they called in all the usual plays."

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Chip Roy.

CHIP: Glenn, how are you, sir?

GLENN: Well, probably about as good as you are. What are we to make -- first of all, what the hell happened?

CHIP: Well, first of all, I am good because I have my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and we're on the planet for a brief spell. Okay?

GLENN: Yes.

CHIP: Second of all, this too shall pass. This country has gone through a lot. We have to figure out, now how to change its course. You and I have talked about it repeatedly on this show. We're going to have a vote today.

Led by obviously, not just -- let's be clear. There's at least six or seven, maybe eight guys.

Who reflect the frustration of the American people.

Who believe the status quo is unacceptable. And I 100 percent agree with them.

We have a tactical difference on timing.

I don't believe if you yank the coach at the beginning of the fourth quarter -- you play the coach through the fourth quarter. To me, that's some time through December. When we continued to play on the Ukraine issue and on the spending and appropriations bill. Because we all asked to get it done. Yes. By September 30th. But in truth, that's only happened four times in 50 years, in my lifetime. I want to play this out. That being said, let me just tell you, if you'll indulge me for one minute. Maybe two.

This is the speech that I read through the Republican conference this morning.

I said that no matter what happens with the speaker at the moment. If nothing changes, we will be campaigning on March 31st, with a leading candidate be who has a number of variables, just to put it mildly.

We will be campaigning March 31st, on the following: An extension of the debt ceiling until January 25, for $4 trillion. Done with Democrats.

A Ukraine funding of an additional ex-billion dollars. That's what the Republican establishment wants unless we fight it. I believe well over 50 billion, Glenn, if we don't fight it.

Unoffset, unpaid for. 16 billion of disaster packets that was just passed on a CR, not paid for. Even if we do the appropriation bills. Go to Congress. And there's a 50/50 chance we don't get jammed and rolled with an omnibus bill.

Maybe we get the 1 percent cut in spending, the debt deal got done. Maybe. But we blow past it with 100 million of supplemental spending. Inflation Reduction Act, remains fully intact.

The IRS remains 80 percent expanded and intact. We will likely not impeach Mayorkas.

It's 50/50 at best, if we want to impeach Biden, depending on what happens with the efforts.

We will not have full COVID reckoning. We will not have passed a ten-year balanced budget. The DOD will likely still be roped, and no accountability for Afghanistan.

The DOJ will likely still be weaponized. And importantly, the Senate will try to confuse everybody with a shiny object. Crappy border security package. Linked back in the Ukraine, and say, we did it. We secured the border, and we still needed 50 billion or 80 billion in Ukraine funding. But we secured the border.

And it will be garbage. The only thing standing in the way of that being the truth, and us changing it, is a small group of us willing to try to fight.

I will not throw my friends under the bus, who want to call to question. I will -- I will stick with my tactical position, that I'm not going to currently today, agree.

I will vote to table the motion, because I would give a month, to go figure this out, headed to Thanksgiving. Because we've been talking through these things.

But we're going to proceed either way, Glenn. We're going to lock arms, and figure out how to fight, change this. Because the list I just read to you, is unacceptable.

GLENN: Okay. So here's what's going to happen. He won't be removed today.

And nothing will happen in the next 45 days. And then coincidentally, I don't know if you've done the math. Forty-five days brings us right to the holidays. So we're right there to Thanksgiving, and Christmas. Where everything, always goes -- and is buried by Congress at that time.

So, you know, if -- if you don't get it done, this next time in 45 days. It doesn't happen. And then you will have to replace them. And here's my question. With whom?

What is the game plan?

Who is it that you're going to -- not you. But the -- the good guys. That are standing up. Who is it, that they're going to get, because there are people now afraid we can get a Democrat in there?

CHIP: Well, that, of course, was the argument last January. I -- again, do not support tactic for the reason you just described. Because I believe, we need to force the conference to a reckoning. Because let's be honest, speaker reflects the conference. When I read the thing, I just read to you, this morning in a Republican conference meeting. Crickets. Crickets.

The vast majority of Republicans, are totally fine with increasing spending. Kicking the can down the road. Saying, oh. The next president will say this. Oh, we need to win the Senate. Oh, we need a bigger majority. Look, I understand the difficulty of the moment. So do you, Glenn.

Neither you now I expect us to get something we want, in this divided government. But at some point, you have to pick a major fight and mean it. Democrats do that all the time.

GLENN: All the time.

CHIP: When will we pick major fights and mean it? If we will throw down on the board, and that means accepting some Ukraine spending, and I would prefer not to.

Then let's pick that fight. If we need to kill all dollars to Ukraine. And that means, we're not going to address the border. Okay. Let's pick that fight.

I can't get -- a -- a clear signal from our leadership, as to what path we are going to choose to go win these fights. So to answer your question. Look, I'm staying focused on the policy, as we speak this morning, I'm having conversation with the senators, people here, trying to figure out, how we define the border, the way it needs to be confined.

Have meetings this morning, a case to restrain Ukraine spending. And a case for why that's not in our best -- our national interests.

Make the case for why we need to constrain spending on the appropriations package, on the rules committee last night. Holding the line. A lot of good things have occurred this year. The border bill is phenomenal. Right? The bill we put together for Limit Save Grow, was phenomenal. The National Defense Authorization Act is conservative. The DOD appropriation bill was pretty strong. But all of that goes out the window if you don't finish the job. So my position is, finish the job. And we hold accountable. If they end up vacating today, well, we will have to go find a speaker.

GLENN: So tell me what the speaker's plan is. You know, he says, 45 days, then we will pass all these things. That's such bullcrap. I wanted him to prove me wrong. But I don't believe it. We're going to come down at the end of the 45 days. Shut down the cars. And they're going to fold again. What's his plan?

CHIP: That is my problem, Glenn. This is the question I continue to force. At this point, my tactical choice would be to do what I was doing yesterday and the day before and last week, after the Saturday decision on the 45-day VR. Which is to sit down and say, Mr. Speaker, we have got to get this done before Thanksgiving.

They the Democrats want the Ukraine funding more than anything in the world. And we the Republicans want border security.

And we want to hold down spending, at a bare minimum.

So what are we going to do to make that happen? He assumes to have that -- his speakership, if he even survives this week, on accomplishing that objective.

Holding Ukraine to some level, that matches the conference perspective, spread out over time, with border security attached, and use the appropriations process.

Let me give you another example, without giving away individual names of the private meeting. An individual, who was very conservative/more populist Libertarian. Made an impassioned speech for why our processes and openness, is a massive change, compared to Boehner and Paul Ryan.

I mean, the American people don't care about that. Right? I mean, they might care a little. But they want results. But this is moving the Titanic around. The reason you all know what all is happening, is because we've opened it up. We're telling it in realtime. We're forcing votes. We're having amendments. But we're not getting the results we want. Because our conference, frankly, isn't strongly conservative enough, on the Senate side. So we're trying to manage through that process. And get to a result, where we actually cut spending. Actually hold the supplementals. Actually refuse to restrict, constrain Ukraine.

Actually secure the border. I've been giving up on that, even though you and I are both frustrated as you would expect.

GLENN: So, Chip, first of all, I don't want you to feel my frustration is pointed to you at all. Because I pray for you this weekend.

He has got to be just beside himself. Because I know how hard you're working on this.

Do you -- have you been struggling at all with, am I being duped?

Because I know I would be, if I were you.

I would probably do exactly what I would do in you. Because it seems reasonable for me. But I feel like, I would be saying, yeah. But, I mean -- why should I trust them?

CHIP: So you shouldn't. To ever and I don't. I trust no one for the most part, in this town. Particularly those who have been here for a long time. We are in a process, in my opinion, of breaking this town, and creating coalitions in which we can trust each other. I am talking right now to my colleagues I disagree with a little bit on their timing and tactics. Because I respect what they're trying to do.

There are colleagues, that I don't respect what they're trying to do.

They think it's about showboating. Or grandstanding. Or fundraising.

It's not. You know, they might raise money. That's politics.

But at the end of the day, it's because they're tired watching, the same old, same old. The status quo.

Again, Glenn, I want to reiterate. To all the listeners. Why won't you join it?

Well, I might at some point. The issue here is how we navigate from right now, to a place where we can go try to get the American people forward. Our country can't wait to keep us for Donald Trump or Ron DeSantis. Or anyone else to get in and shape things up at the White House without massive damage. For me, I want a victory for the people. Not just a political victory. So that, crickets. Your conference. Your Republican conference.

I want every listener out there to know, while they're moving in the right direction, at the end of the day, their reflex is still to be totally okay with increased spending.

Totally okay. Well, we might have to deal with the border at some point.

Totally okay with more money with Ukraine to push back.

And so, I'm just telling you, you get the Speaker, that reflects the conference.

Some of us are trying to shift that.

And it doesn't happen as fast as you or I, or your listeners would like.

GLENN: Well, it doesn't sound like an extremist to me. It sounds like a constitutionalist, and someone who is trying to think it out.

When you say crickets, I just want to make sure I understand, not because they're shocked like, oh, crap. We're in trouble. But because they didn't see a problem with it.

GLENN: Well, I would state it this way.

In fact, one member got us, and said, we can't address those things. Until we have the White House.

To which I say, poppycock. That's just not true.

There are -- we can't do all. But I can't possibly say, you and I, with the 221 majority, can kill Ukraine, fully secure the border, gut spending, to the levels you and I would do it.

Fire Mayorkas. You know, I get it. But can we get one of those damn things?

One! Right? Give me an actual spending cut that I can be proud of. Don't just pour molten crap. Supplemental spending.

Actually secure the border.

Don't think, well, it has to be a bicameral, bipartisan bill to get it through. No. Kiss my ass.

You want Ukraine funding, then give me the border.

Okay? All right. You don't want to cut that deal? Fine.

Give me a win.

That we can go to the people and say, we fought for you, and we won.

That's what I'm trying to tell the conference. Some are there.

I have a whole lot of text messages, in that room saying, hey. Thank you for saying that. But you know what, that still doesn't get us there.

Because the conference has to be moved. You guys are moving them. Don't give up.

Hold the line. But don't roast everybody in a stupid social media, you know, attack. If you don't -- it's tactical, Glenn, right?

Chip Roy is a RINO. Fine. Call me a RINO. I don't give a damn. What I'm saying is, don't go after Daize (phonetic) for being a showboat. And don't go after Chip Roy for being a RINO if you disagree on the tactics. You have a block of people from the 20, and it's growing -- who are fed up.

And that doesn't give you much, but it gets you a lot. When you're talking about, we're building momentum here.

Don't lose faith. We're years into this mess in Washington.

And we don't have the White House. We don't have the Senate.

And we have 221, in the freaking House.

So we're trying to move the needle.

I'm not going to lay down on this.

I'm not going to roll over us.

With the Ukraine funding.

Without if we go to border security.

Ukraine funding. We have to offset supplements.

These are the fights, we have right now. And we have to keep fighting.

GLENN: Chip, I'm out of time. I just need a simple answer.

How many votes do they need to oust him today? What's the number?

CHIP: I don't 100 percent know. Because I don't know how many Democrats are here, that matters. I think you will get -- I don't know. Seven or eight. Who will be -- who will vote no at the table, and can we get to the motion to vacate.

We may be in a position where we're choosing the Speaker. We'll see what happens the next three hours.

GLENN: Okay. Thank you very much. All right. Chip Roy.

Will the Big, Beautiful Bill’s Medicaid changes really “KILL” people?

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.