RADIOOctober 09, 2025

This INSANE answer may have cost this Democrat her election

Katie Porter, a Democratic candidate for governor of California, was the most favored candidate to replace Gavin Newsom. But her recent meltdown during a basic interview may have cost her everything. Glenn and Stu give their commentary on this trainwreck...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Can we play the audio of Katie Porter?

Katie Porter, she's a Democrat representative from California, who ran for Senate and lost. And now she's running for governor. Yesterday, about this time, she was the frontrunner.

Today, she's not. I just want to play a clip of the interview she did yesterday.

VOICE: What do you say to the 40 percent of California voters who you'll need in order to win, to vote for Trump?

VOICE: How would I need them in order to win?

VOICE: Unless you're going to get 60 percent of the vote.

Everybody who did not vote for Trump, will vote for you.

VOICE: In the general election?

VOICE: Yes.

VOICE: If it's me versus a Republican, I think that I will win. The people who did not vote for Trump.

VOICE: What if it's you versus a Democrat?

VOICE: I don't intend that to be the case.

VOICE: So how have you intended that not to be the case? Are you going to ask them not to run?

VOICE: No, no, I said, I will build the support. I have the support already in terms of name recognition, and so I will do the very best I can, to make sure that we get through this primary in a very strong position. But let me be clear with you.

I represented Orange County. I represented a purple area. I even stood on my own two feet and won Republican votes before. That's not something every candidate in this race can say. If you're from a deep blue area. If you're from LA or you're from Oakland, you don't have --

VOICE: You just said you don't need those Trump voters.

VOICE: You asked me if I needed them to win. I feel like this is unnecessarily argumentative. What is your question?

VOICE: The question is the same thing I ask everybody, that this is being called the empowering voters who stop Trump's power grab. Every other candidate has answered this question. This is not --

VOICE: I said, I support it.

VOICE: And the question is, what do you say to the 40 percent of voters who voted for Trump?

VOICE: Oh, I'm happy to say that. It's the do you need them to win part that I don't understand. I'm happy to answer the question as you have it written, and I'll answer it.

VOICE: And we've also asked the other candidates, do you think you need any of those 40 percent of California voters to win? And you're saying, no. I don't.

VOICE: No. I'm trying to say, I will try to win every vote I can. And what I'm saying to you is that -- I don't want to keep doing this. I'm going to call it. Thank you.

GLENN: She gets up and walks away.

VOICE: You're not going to do the interview with us?
VOICE: No. Not like this, I'm not. Not with seven follow-ups to every single question you ask.

STU: Oh, God forbid.
VOICE: Every other candidate has --

VOICE: I don't care. I don't care.

I want to have a pleasant, positive conversation, which you ask me about every issue on this list.

And if every question that you're going to make up a follow-up question, then we're never going to get there.

I've never had to do this before, ever.

VOICE: You've never had to have a conversation with a reporter --

VOICE: To any interview.

VOICE: Okay. But every other candidate has done this.

VOICE: What part of, I'm me -- I'm running for governor because I'm a leader. So I am going to make --

VOICE: You're not going to answer questions from reporters?

Okay. Why don't we go through -- I will continue to ask follow-up questions because that's my job as a journalist. But I will go through and ask these, and if you don't want to answer, you don't want to answer.

So nearly every legislative --

VOICE: I -- I don't want to have an unhappy experience with you, and I don't want this all on camera.

VOICE: I don't want to have an unhappy experience with you either. I would love to continue to ask these questions so that we can show our viewers what every candidate feels about every one of these issues that they care about.

And redistricting is a massive issue. We're going to do an entire story just on responses to that question, and I've asked everybody the same follow-up question.

GLENN: Didn't go well.

STU: Wow.

GLENN: Didn't go well.

STU: This is somebody who is -- she kind of even says it. She's never had to deal with follow-up questions before.

GLENN: No. No.

STU: What an amazing -- we sometimes don't appreciate what -- what a great life it must be on the left.

GLENN: Oh. I've thought about that a lot.

STU: You just go -- oh, my God. You never have to deal with anything. No one ever asks you a follow-up. No one ever pushes you on anything. You just say whatever you want, and everyone just walks away, as if it's the greatest thing of all time.

That must be so fun.

GLENN: You would be so intellectually weak. So intellectually.

STU: Oh. I mean, you see it there. She asked one minor follow-up question that isn't adversarial at all, and she pulls the plug on the interview. I'm not going to do this. I don't want all of this on camera.

GLENN: Well, there's a lot that I haven't wanted on camera. It didn't stop anybody else.

STU: Right. That's when they get most excited with you.

GLENN: Yeah, I know. I know. I know.

STU: That's so bizarre. The reporter wasn't even going at her hard. It was like, hey. What do you mean, you don't need -- it's such a -- what a layup of a question, Glenn. No offense. But it's like, do you need the 40 percent of people to -- Trump voters to win.

You say, well, I want to get as many of them as I can. And, of course, I want to get as many as I can.

But I want to stand on my principle.

Any politician. That's not even a follow-up question.

It's like, "Do you want more voters?"

That's the hard question she walked out of an interview for?

GLENN: But remember who she is. Remember who she is.

Okay.

STU: Must we?

GLENN: Well, I mean, I think we have just proven, everything they said wasn't true. According to people who had worked in her office, she has made several -- multiple staffers cry. People are so anxious to even -- to even staff her, because if anything goes wrong, she flips out on whatever staffer is present. She just talks to staffers however she wants. One criticism of Porter is that she allegedly is a terrible person, according to some accounts, abusive and racist. Separate text messages surfaced in which Porter scolded a staffer for giving the congresswoman COVID.

One message said, she was rage-prone and had a tendency to disparage staffers. Others suggested her expectations were wildly unrealistic. One message accused her of making racist comments.

Those are from her staffer. And remember, those are from 2022. I mean, we've seen this. And they just buried all of that. And now you're starting to see it. You know, when you force people into uncomfortable situations, you generally see who they really are.

And that wasn't really an uncomfortable. That was a normal situation for anybody who is -- you can't handle that, sweetheart, you can't handle anything.

But imagine, you're in California. She was the front runner yesterday!

That's who everybody was like, "Yeah, I'll probably vote for her."

It was yesterday!

STU: Yeah. Looking at Kalshi, running the prediction markets, and she was at a 40 percent chance to win, which was double anybody else in the race.

And today, she's now a slight underdog in the race from that interview. It was that bad.

Now, we don't know how the electorate actually responds to it --

GLENN: We don't know how much people will actually see it.

It can run and go away.

STU: Oh, conservatives will see that today. Because conservatives will play it like crazy. Will people who might actually vote for her see it, is a totally different question.

GLENN: How do we -- you know, we watch ABC, CNN. We have MSNBC on in front of us all the time. We listen to NPR. We listen to -- you know, the New York Times. We read the New York Times.

STU: Maybe it's time to appreciate us a little bit more. Just saying. We do that for you, every day.

GLENN: Yeah. We do it, so you don't have to. However, we bring those things up all the time. On the air.

We know where the other side stands.

There are stories that just don't hit that side.

STU: Yeah. They have no idea.

GLENN: And they don't listen to anything else. And so there are stories like that -- that stupid story of -- the judge's house burning down. There will be people forever, that believe that was a hate crime.

STU: Okay.

GLENN: There is no evidence of anything.

STU: Even of arson.

GLENN: There's nothing.

STU: Let alone some conservative that did it.

GLENN: It was a house that burned down.

That's all we know now.

They had to immediately jump to, it's a house of a judge. That judge stopped Donald Trump. Harmeet Dhillon wrote a really, absolutely innocuous, you know, hey, this judge just made this ruling.

We will fight that every way, we possibly can. That can't stand!

They took that and said, Harmeet Dhillon was targeting this judge. So somebody went on the right, and burned that judge's house down.

None of that -- there's no evidence of any of that. They don't even know what caused the fire yet. And I'll bet you, you're going to find out, that it wasn't arson, it was just a normal fire.

It was 11 o'clock in the morning.

It was just a normal fire. The house burned down. A tragedy. Glad that nobody was hurt. Well, her husband was hurt in it.

He had some broken bones and stuff, as he tried to get out of the house. And we wish them the best. But you're going to find, I think. And I'll correct it if we find differently. It wasn't any of those things.

But they have reported that now as fact. How many people are going to believe that forever?

I can guarantee you, I have members of my own family, who will bring that up to me. Well, you say violence. What about burning the judge's house down?

And I have to say, that's not true. Yes, it is.

And they won't believe me, because they heard it on MSNBC. They heard it on CNN. They heard it on the Washington Post. And so they just believe it. There are no facts to back them. None! Now, there may be in the future. Maybe in a couple of days. Let the process work. But there's none. These journalists on the left are so unbelievably irresponsible. And then because they have zombified their entire base, their base will not listen to the other side.

There are stories, I guarantee you. Think about how many people are going to believe from here on out, that Charlie Kirk was either killed by a Jew or somebody in his own camp or it was a left-winger. It was a Donald Trump MAGA killer.

Because that's what they said. And they're not listening to you.

They're not watching Fox. They're not getting their news.

They don't -- all news from major traditionally trusted sources. They watch all of that. And they think they're getting a variety.

Well, I read the Times and the Post. Oh, New York Post or Washington Post?

Well, not the -- the New York Post.

The Washington Post. There's no variety there.

STU: It's the same thing.

And this is how something like you can change your gender with a series of magical words comes into effect.

GLENN: It's how global warming is real.

STU: A liberal hears something like the gender stuff, for example. And they hear it for the first time.

And they just like you, react the same way. They -- what? What do you mean, you can just become a girl? What are you talking about?

They, in their minds, react the same way when they hear that. And then they hear it 500,000 times unchallenged.

GLENN: And saying, science is settled.

STU: And they're like, wow. I must have been wrong about that.

GLENN: If they have nothing to back it up, like in this burning down the house. They just say it over and over. And people go, well, they wouldn't say that, if it wasn't true.

STU: Right. And I don't hear anybody else. Oh, except for the crazy conservatives. That's what they're saying.

So, I mean, this is why -- I have hope, again. There's a lot of work to be done. She has a difficult job. But I hope for the Bari Weiss situation. It would be great if there was just an organization out of all of the ones that exist, that just comes out and gives you fair -- you know, balanced stuff. Now, I know Fox does that. But they're seen more as a conservative network obviously. But their slogan for years was fair and balanced. And it was seen by people who watched it and watched other networks. As the most balanced.

GLENN: Yeah. I think it was 40 -- 30 or 40 percent of the audience was Democrat.

STU: Democrat. So there's plenty of people who -- who will actually go and read and listen to other things.

But it's not particularly common. And I don't know -- what might happen is if the coverage by Bari Weiss over at CBS is, quote, unquote, too fair. They will be --

GLENN: They will be --

STU: They will be seen as a right-wing network and dismissed again.

GLENN: Yeah. That's how they will make them. And, by the way, congratulations, I was so glad to see GLAAD and everybody else, you know, LGBT celebrate Bari Weiss getting that position.

STU: Smashing another glass ceiling.

GLENN: Another glass ceiling. Yeah, it is amazing, what can be done.

STU: Too much fanfare. I was really overwhelmed by it.

GLENN: It really was. Yes. It's a first. But do we have to make that big of a deal out of it?

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Or did you hear anything?

STU: I didn't hear one word about it. Not one word of celebration. No one -- no one -- again, this is a person who founded the free press. With her wife!

It was just bought by a major media organization for nine figures. And she's now the editor-in-chief. Or, yeah.

Is it editor-in-chief of CBS News.

Not a -- no flowery discussions about her sexual preference.

GLENN: No. No.

STU: Her sexual orientation.

GLENN: And she's not even conservative.

STU: No. She's not.

GLENN: She's just fair.

STU: She describes herself as center left. And this is how desperate we are in the race.

Wait. Someone who is center left, and actually kind of means something with her. She will actually say it, because sometimes conservatives are right on stuff.

We're like fine. We're not even asking for --

GLENN: Look at how desperate we are. But look at the other side. How authoritarian they are, on the other side.

You can't even say, occasionally they get it right!

No! Never.

STU: Never.

GLENN: And we're the authoritarians.

SHOCK POLL: The % of Young People Who Support SOCIALISM is Insane

New polling reveals a shocking truth: young Americans aren’t just open to socialism... they overwhelmingly want a socialist president in 2028. Glenn Beck and Justin Haskins break down five alarming surveys showing massive ideological shifts among voters ages 18-39, including young Republicans. Why is socialism exploding in popularity, and what does this mean for the future of America? Are we on the brink of a political transformation or potentially even a national crisis?

Watch This FULL Episode of 'Glenn TV' HERE

Property Taxes are OUT OF CONTROL - And Here's Why! | Guest: Texas Gov. Greg Abbott

Texas Governor Greg Abbott joins Glenn Beck to expose why Texans are being crushed by skyrocketing property taxes — and how local governments, not the state, keep driving homeowners deeper into financial distress. Gov. Abbott breaks down his five-point plan to impose strict spending limits, force voter approval for tax hikes, reform out-of-control appraisals, empower citizens to slash taxes themselves, and eliminate school district property taxes for homeowners altogether. Glenn argues that property tax is morally wrong because it prevents Texans from ever truly owning their land, and Abbott lays out his strategy to fight both parties in the legislature to finally deliver lasting relief.

Joe Rogan & Glenn AGREE: We just got CLOSER to civil war

Joe Rogan recently warned that we may have gotten to Step 7 of 9 in the lead-up to civil war. Glenn reviews the 9 Steps and explains why he believes Rogan nailed this one. But Glenn also lays out what Americans MUST do to reverse this trend...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So if you take what Fetterman said yesterday about how people are cheering for him to die on the left, and then you couple it with something that was on the Joe Rogan show on Tuesday. He was saying that the reaction to the death of Charlie Kirk makes him think that the US is closer to Civil War than -- than he thought.

Now, let me quote him. He said, after the Charlie Kirk thing. I'm like, oh, my.

We might be at seven. This might be he step seven on the way to a bona fide Civil War. Charlie Kirk gets shot, and people are celebrating.

Like, whoa. Whoa. Whoa.

You want people to die that you disagree with?

Where are we now on the scale of Civil War?

Well, let me go over the scale of Civil War, because it's sobering.

Now, none of this has to be true. If we wake up and decide, I don't want to do this anymore!

Okay?

Here's step one.

Step one. Loss of civic trust.

Every civil conflict begins when people stop believing that the system is fair. Are we there?

We're so far -- we're so far past the doorway, we are comfortably asleep on the couch on this one. Gallup and Pew both show trust in Congress, the media courts, and the FBI government are now at record lows.

The Edelman Trust Barometer classifies the US now as severely polarized. Majority of Republicans distrust federal elections. Majority of Democrats don't trust the Supreme Court.

Americans are really united on one thing, and that is the other side is corrupt!

When faith in the rules collapses, the republic begins to wobble. But that's step one. Step two, polarization hardens into identity!

Political disagreement is normal!

Identity conflict is fatal!

But that's what Marxists push. Identity politics. This is when politics stopped being about policy, and started being about who you are as a person.

Have we crossed this one into step two?

I mean, we're neck deep into this. A study on this, from PRRI.

It's a survey, found 23 percent of Americans believe political violence may be necessary to save the that I guess.

I think that's an old study. Americans now sort themselves by ZIP code into ideological enclaves. The big sort: Universities, activists, corporations. Everybody is promoting oppressor versus oppressed.

And that -- does what?

It puts us into incompatible tribes. Opponents aren't wrong anymore. The opponent is dangerous!

If I go back and you look at civil wars, Lebanon, before 1975. Yugoslavia, before 1991. That's -- we're doing that. Okay?

Step three. Breakdown of the gatekeepers. The gatekeepers are kind of like the referees of society. It's the media, political parties, churches, civic leaders.

When they fail, extremism fills the vacuum. Okay. Where are we on this? Have our gatekeepers failed us?

Yeah. I think both parties, especially the left, you know, everything I predicted that the left was going to be eaten by the extreme left, and then the communists and the socialists is now happening.

They've lost control of the fringe of each party. Media transformed, you know, from referees into team coaches. Tech platforms. It's outrage for profit. Universities are not there to cool things down. They heat them up.

Churches. Churches are useless. Useless.

When the referees leave the field, the game devolves into a brawl. And the refs are gone off the field. So there are only nine steps. We're at step four. Here's step four.

Are you ready for this one?

Parallel information realities.

Civil wars don't require different opinions. They require different realities.

I remember reading about Germany, at the beginning of, you know, the Nazi era. How the two new newspapers. One was propaganda for the government.

And the other one, it was the last one that was kind of the holdout.

And they said, you could read them, and they would cover the same thing.

But they had almost no information was the same. Except, that happened yesterday.

Here's what they said. And then everything else was different. That's exactly -- I mean, step four is complete!

We can't agree on facts, right?

Crime rates. Border numbers. Inflation. Election security.

Two Americans can watch the same video. And see opposite truths.

Social media algorithms are creating customized political universes.

Digital echo chambers. Deepfakes. We're just at the beginning of that. And both sides accuse the other of running disinformation machines.

Why? Because we don't have a shared reality. So if you don't have a shared reality. How do you settle any dispute?

On the nine steps, we're up to number five. Coming in at number five.

Loss of neutral rule of law.

This out of the nine steps with, five is the pivot point.

It's not corruption, it's the belief that the law is no longer neutral.

Are we there yet?

Let me tell you the CBS you.gov poll. 67 percent say the justice system is used for political purposes.

I think that's low. January 6 defendants given years in prison, 2020 rioters were released. High profile political figures, prosecuted or shielded based on party.

FBI whistle-blowers alleging pressure to inflate domestic extremism numbers. States like Texas, directly defying federal directives, on border enforcement.

And now, leading the way, with the federal government.

History is really cold and unforgiving on this point.

Once the people believe justice is political! Remember, this is the turning point.

The republic stands on borrowed time. Once you no longer believe that justice is achievable. Step six.

Are we there?

I think we are.

Step six. Normalization of political violence!

This is where violence stops shocking the system. Are we there?

Remember, where violence stops shocking the system. Look at evidence just from Virginia. What they just voted for.

He was calling for the death of a -- a political opposition.

Calling for his children to be killed.

Was called on it, never apologized.

Never said anything other than, yeah. I know. He dug it deeper.

Was anyone shocked by it? Apparently not. They elected him. Here's the evidence. 2020 riots.
574 events. $2 billion in damage. Was anybody outraged by that? Or was it downplayed and excused?
Assassination attempts. Assassination attempts against the president. Supreme Court justice.

Fistfights. And mob actions on college campuses. To silence speakers. Rising to do for punching a fascist or stopping genocide. Depending on the ideology. Online chatter discussing Civil War, national divorce, and revolution.

When violence becomes part of the political language, a nation crosses an invisible line. We're now up to step seven out of nine.

This is where Joe Rogan said, are we at step seven?

The rise of militias and parallel forces.

When a state loses he is monopoly on force.

Countdown accelerates. So where are we on this one?

I think we're seeing, maybe early signs of this.

You're starting to see the -- the states kind of organize these mobs, you know, to go after ICE.

Right?

Armed groups, right-wing, left-wing radical secessionists. Anyone.

Once they start forming their own police forces. Or their own option forces, then you have -- then you have everything really falling apart.

Entirely!

I don't think we're there, yet!

But we're starting to see the beginnings of this.

Step eight. The trigger event.

Civil Wars don't begin with a plan. They begin with a spark.

So where are we?

We're not here yet. The conditions are right. Potential triggers, disputed election in '26 or '28.

Political assassination or major attack.

Supreme Court decision that ignites mass unrest.

Financial crisis or dollar crisis.

A state federal standoff turning violent!

Nothing is ignited yet, but the room is soaked in gasoline. So we don't have seven. We're on the verge of eight, at any time. And here's nine.

This is the point of no return.

When police, military, or federal agencies split, even if no one calls it that, well, where are we?

Well, I just read a story about how with the Mamdani election in New York, a good number of the police force is going to leave. And they're going to go join police forces elsewhere. You also have the tension between the state National Guard, and the federal directives, the state guard and the state directives. Law enforcement recruitment is at crisis lows. The distrust of the FBI, DOJ, CIA. Tens of millions of Americans. I always really respected those institutions. I have no respect for them now. If you have states openly defying federal rules on immigration, drug laws, sanctuary policies.
Whistle-blower claims of internal politicization.

All of these things are in play for the first time in 150 years, people can imagine!

So I give this to you, not to be fearful of, but to know where you are. As a map!

Know where you are.

And hopefully, it might wake some people up, if you chart America on, on the nine step model of Civil War. Steps one through four, completed!

Step five, happening!

Step six, happening! Step seven, beginning! Step eight, just waiting for it. And step nine, avoidable, only if step eight, never happens. Again, I'm not telling you for doom purposes, this is diagnosis. This is a doctor going, I want you to look at the chart.

And this is a doctor saying, I want you to look at -- do you see what's happening to your body?

If you don't stop this habit, you are going to die. You don't have to die. You can stop smoking and drinking right now. You can start exercising. But if you don't, you are going to die.

The question is, are we the nation that says, nah, that's not going to happen to me. Or are we the nation that wakes up and sees our chart and says, good heavens, it's way far more gone than I thought it was. But I feel something in the air.

I'm going to change my behavior. The nation that refuses to look and wake up and stop calling their neighbors enemies, is the nation that fails!

We have to strengthen these things that have already fallen. And, you know what, the easiest one to do is?

Church. Where are you ministers and pastors priests and rabbis?

Where the hell are you?

I think there's going to be a special section for you, when you cross over to the -- because you're doing things in the name of God!

So when you get to the other side, I think there's going to be a special section for those who remained silent. While his rights were being taken away.

You don't own that right.

I don't own that right.

The Lord gave us those rights, and said, protect them!

By you, being the representative, the voice box, if you will, of the Lord, to shepherd his people. By you not standing up and saying, hey, by the way, we have -- we have a moral responsibility to protect these rights for the next generation! By you refusing because you're afraid. Because I think, there's no politics in the Bible! There's no politics in the Bible. Really?

The whole thing is about politics. Is about the moral way you have to live your life.

Calling things as you see them. Calling them back to eternal principles.

He didn't tell anybody how to vote. Render to Caesar what is Caesar's.

But there are certain principles that you have to have, or you lose not only this citizenship, but the next citizenship. The one that really matters. And, boy, if you are doing it because you're a coward, you are in the wrong business!

Get out of the pulpit, and go to work at Jack in the Box.

Democrat “SMOKING GUN” on Trump & Epstein gets DESTROYED by facts

The House Oversight Democrats recently released "new" emails allegedly proving President Trump lied about his knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein's crimes. However, Glenn points out a glaring issue with these emails that destroys their entire narrative...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Well, let's dive right into the Epstein Maxwell emails. My gosh, Stu!

Why are they trying to cover up that Donald Trump had sex with children!

STU: I mean, it's just clear, as -- as day, in the emails!

GLENN: Yeah. No.

STU: He spent hours with one of the victims. What else could have possibly have occurred in that arrangement? We don't know!

GLENN: And it's -- it's one of the victims, Stu. One of the victims!

STU: One of the victims, that's all we know. One of the victims.

GLENN: Let me read what Jeffrey Epstein wrote. I want you to realize that the dog who hasn't barked is Trump. Victim redacted. Victim spent hours at my house with him. He has never once been mentioned. Police chief, et cetera.

Okay. New information, just released. Or is it?

Because in 2011, 2011, that was released and everybody knew it. It's been out floating around. Here's the change: In 2011, this is what it read.

I want you to realize that the dog hasn't barked is Trump. Virginia spent hours at my house with him.

Why would you redact a name that is already out in the public square!

It's already out!

The memo is already out. The email is already out. It's been out for years. Why would you redact that name now?

Well, because it makes it all of a sudden, new and shiny. Shiny and new. If you don't know who said it, you see victim, and you're like, oh, you see victim. Who is the victim?

I don't know. But when you know it's Virginia, you know this has already gone to court. This is -- she already testified about this!

He didn't partake in any of this, any sex with any of it. It's true. He didn't partake in any sex with us, and I'm quoting, this is from the testimony. But it's not true, that he flirted with me. Donald Trump never flirted with me. Have you ever met him?

Yes, at Mar-a-Lago, my dad and him. I wouldn't say they were friends, but my dad knew him, and they would talk. Have you ever been in Donald Trump or Jeffrey Epstein's presence with one another? No!

What's the basis of your statement that Donald Trump is a good friend of Jeffrey? Jeffrey has told me that Donald Trump is a good friend of his.

He didn't partake in any of -- any of the sex with any of it. He flirted with me.

It's true, that he didn't partake in any sex with us. But it's not true that he flirted with me.

So I don't understand that. But she goes on. Donald Trump never flirted with me!

Okay. So what -- what's new about this?

This is the same girl, this is the same person that -- didn't she work at Mar-a-Lago?

Or she was going to get a job at Mar-a-Lago.

STU: Yeah. I believe she did at one point.

GLENN: Yeah. So we know they know each other. We know they know each other.

We know that at Mar-a-Lago, Jeffrey Epstein would come, and he was poaching the employees. The girls there. To go work for him.

And Donald Trump went to him. And said, "Hey, man. Stop it. Stop poaching people from me. That's not cool. Don't do it." And then he said, "Oh, yeah. All right." And then he did it a second time. And he's like, "You know what, you're out. I don't want you here anymore. I asked you not to do it, and you did it." Now, that doesn't mean that he knew what was happening to the girls or what was happening or anything else.

And even if it did mean something was happening with the girls, he was saying, "Hey. Stop it! Don't take any of the girls or the women here.
Don't do it." I don't believe he knew anything about any of this. But God only knows! And really, God only knows!

This is not new news. Donald Trump, he might end up beating Bezos as the richest man on the planet! When all is said and done!

Because, again, the -- they're presenting this as new fact, a giant scandal. Stu, I don't know if you know this. This is -- this breaking news is a giant scandal.

STU: Yeah. I've heard democratic representatives saying that over the past 24 hours. Yeah. We need to investigate this.

This is shocking stuff. It's a massive scandal. Even ABC News, I heard, pushed back against this. And said, well, what scandal? What are you implying occurred here?

We know who the victim was. We know the victim. Like why. Why did you even redact that name?

And they're like we always redact name of victims.

Do you really? When they're already out publicly?

Not to mention, this particular victim is not even alive.

You know, she sadly died. I mean, it's a terrible, terrible story.

GLENN: Terrible story.

STU: Yeah. She passed away.

A suicide. It was at least the report I believe. But she has a posthumous book coming out. But like a terrible, terrible story.

But, you know, to act as if you have to protect her identity when, number one, she's dead.

GLENN: Is ridiculous.

STU: Number two, everybody already knows who she was, including the news sources, who also have a policy, you would think.

And ABC has a policy. They redact, that was in this type of situation. But it's already been out. We already knew who it was.

So they redacted to make it look like he's with other people who have not already told us nothing bad occurred! You know, and it is an absolutely awful tactic. And at least --

GLENN: I think litigation should follow again. I think he should sue them again. Anyone who is presenting this as new information.

ABC did their job. Congratulations for ABC. They did their job.

They pointed out, this is not new information.

Why would you redact. Why are you releasing this now? And you're redacting a name this -- this email is already out!

You're presenting this as a new scandal.

And you redacted that name. This is completely dishonest. The news media shouldn't even run with it. They shouldn't even run with it. They should have said, old news. Old news. And if you did run with it, you should have handle it had like ABC handle it had. Wait a minute. Why did you redact name.

What do you mean that there's a new scandal. She already testified exactly opposite of what you're believing Jeffrey Epstein over the victim right now. I just want to make sure you understand the Democrats right here. You're taking the name of Epstein, over the victim.

Oh, okay. All right.

STU: And Epstein doesn't even say that anything occurred.

GLENN: No.

STU: There's not -- it's just -- it would be something you would have to jump to a conclusion, to accuse Donald Trump of something like this.

And we know what happened, because the victim said nothing!

Said, it was nothing!

GLENN: Right.

STU: In fact, it wasn't even a flirtation. Which, by the way, even that, you might have thought was creepy. It wasn't even a crime.

It wasn't even flirtation. So it's a disgrace in every single way.

GLENN: All right. So let me take you here. Let me take you here.

If you remember when the shutdown first started, what did the Democrats say, the reason why they did the shutdown?

Not them! Why Mike Johnson and everybody else wouldn't negotiate!

Why wouldn't -- why wouldn't the Republicans negotiate?

Because the heat was on, to release the Epstein files.

And they didn't want to have to do that. So they shut the government down!

Okay?

They wouldn't negotiate. You didn't hear any of this? Oh, it's so arrogant.

STU: It doesn't make any sense at all. That's probably what they said.

GLENN: I know. I know. So the government is open, and what does Mike Johnson do yesterday?

He said the House is going to vote on a bill to release all of the files related to the late financier, convicted child sex offender, Jeffrey Epstein next week. He said on Wednesday that a discharge position to bypass leadership and force a vote on the bill, hit the benchmark for needed signatures. It's been decided by him to expedite the vote for the bill, which under the current rules could have been delayed until at least early September.

So he says, as soon as that petition hit, the needed 218 signatures, I brought it up. Unanimous consent. Let's go! Release it.

So he's pushing this forward. Good, Mike!
Release all of it. Thank you!

Get it out. Lance this boil.

I mean, if anybody thinks that you're ever going to get the truth on this in the first place, it's madness. It's madness. Everybody -- I mean, so many important people were involved in this, and it was in the hands of the Democrats for the longest time. Okay?

So they had all of this information. You don't think it was all picked through? And if there was anything about Donald Trump, you don't think that would have come up between 2020 and 2024?

There's nothing in there about Donald Trump. These people are so stupid. This time, we've got him, boys. This time, we've got him.

No, you don't. This time, it's like Wile E. Coyote. This time, we've got the Roadrunner!

No. You're never going to catch him on this. It doesn't work. The guy was the most investigated person in the history of the world, and you've got nothing! Now, it's good to come out.

But if you think you're going to catch a bunch of people on the left, you're not going to. Because they had it, you know, in their possession.

You don't think all of the names were taken out? You don't think things were destroyed, if there was anything? I believe there was something. But I don't believe there's any names in it anymore. You're not going to get the truth on this one. You're just not going to get the truth, but release everything that we have. Everything!

Oh. Oh, by the way, also in the Epstein emails. How come nobody is talking about this one, Stu?

This one is from Michael Wolff, to Jeffrey Epstein. And then Jeffrey Epstein responds.

So Michael Wolff writes, "What's the thumbnail on Nes Baum (phonetic) Foster?"

And Jeffrey Epstein writes back, "Nes Baum White House Counsel, dot, dot, dot, Hillary doing naughties with Vince."

Now, Vince Foster killed himself, you know, and then killed himself at the White House. And then drug himself across the street to the park.

I mean, I don't know -- the Vince Foster thing is so old. And it doesn't -- but why is nobody talking about that one?

Why is no one talking about that?

Also, this the Jeffrey Epstein email bundle, ABC, you don't feel that's necessary to bring that one up?

Huh. Interesting.