RADIOJanuary 16, 2024

IOWA RECAP: Does ANY candidate have a chance at beating Trump?

The results are in for the 2024 Republican Iowa caucus and former President Donald Trump has secured his position as the frontrunner with over 50% of the vote. But has Trump all but secured the nomination, or do Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley still have a chance? Glenn and Stu discuss what the next primary elections in New Hampshire and South Carolina - where Haley is polling well - may look like. Will Haley kick DeSantis out of second place? Will the rest of the country follow suit? And will anyone get close to Trump's numbers?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Trump obviously won last night. A commanding victory for Donald Trump.

Not really a surprise. But he was -- what was the final?

Was it 51?

STU: Yeah. Donald Trump 51 percent, against 20 delegates. Ron DeSantis 21.2 percent against eight delegates.

Nikki Haley, 19.1 percent.

Seven delegates. Vivek Ramiswami, finished at 7.7 percent, against three delegates. Those are his, even though he dropped out at the race. He'll still have them at the convention. And then Ryan Binkley, pastor from Dallas, 0.7. And Asa Hutchinson, 191 votes statewide after a year of campaigning. He gets 0.2 percent.

GLENN: He did worse than Binkley. Binkman.

STU: Binkley. And it was not even close. Was not even close.

GLENN: Right. That is crazy. That is crazy.

STU: Catastrophic for poor Asa.

GLENN: Yeah.

Asa is on suicide watch today, I think. Don't let him have his shoestrings or a belt.

Let me talk now about what is coming.

There is a new poll out from New Hampshire. But this is without any of the news that happened last night.

So this is a poll that was taken just after Nikki Haley started to show some growth.

So we don't know what it means today.

Whether it will affect it one way oratory.

We don't know. But here is the latest poll from New Hampshire.

STU: Yeah, this is New Hampshire.

I think it's the American Research Group, we did the poll. This is the 12th through the 15th of this month.

So it includes yesterday.

Obviously would not include anything after the results. It has Donald Trump and Nikki Haley tied at 40. At the top in New Hampshire.

Polled way, way, way back with Vivek Ramaswamy. And Ron DeSantis still both on the ballot.

At 4 percent.

GLENN: Why do you think she's doing so well in New Hampshire?

STU: Largely it's because of the way the -- the primary works.

You're going to have a lot of independents and Democrats.

And she will crush in that group. As she did in Iowa, by the way. The numbers in Iowa, are not nearly as high as they are in New Hampshire.

Among those groups. She does very, very well in those groups.

Wins by wide, wide margins.

And that will help her there.

But it won't help her in these other states.

This is the problem with the candidacy.

GLENN: Yeah. Have you ever seen any research done on whether people switch and say, you know, I'm going to vote for the Republican.

And I'm usually voting for Democrat, and vice-versa.

Because they mean it. Or is it just to crew with the election.

STU: There are definitely some.

The percentages are relatively small, when you're talking about people doing what the -- what Rush Limbaugh used to call operation chaos. Back in, what was it? 2008. There's definitely some that do it. The majority of people who vote in those primaries, typically, at least according to the polls, are people who are either legitimately considering or undecided voters. Who are looking. Or they are people who are, have -- are deciding to vote that way for sure.

There are always some. But, I mean, for example, one of these states. I can't remember. It might have been -- I can't remember which state it was. I've looked at so many polls over the last few days.

But it was like 2 percent of the electorate consider themselves liberal.

So it's not a massive part of this. In a tight primary, like the one in New Hampshire. Can make a big, big difference.

Of course, in New Hampshire, you have a lot of people, who are mores. Maybe Libertarians.

Maybe people who are even leaning a little bit left. That may consider Republican candidates. Where you might not see that. In, you know, other states like New York or Massachusetts. Or Vermont.

There's a -- maybe a more independent electorate there in New Hampshire, which we kind of all recognize.

But, you know, look Haley has a chance to actually win New Hampshire. I don't know if this -- my guess is, it doesn't really hurt her for finishing third by two points, behind DeSantis.

Doesn't hurt her in New Hampshire.

You know, we were talking about the way these polls came out.

And I heard the votes came out in Iowa. There were a couple of different dynamics, right?

There was a question of whether Donald Trump could clear 50 percent. He did do that. There was a question who would finish second. We saw, with DeSantis squeaking out.

I think he had to beat her.

And he did.

GLENN: He had to, or he would have been done.

STU: Yeah. Nikki Haley, look.

Nikki Haley, if you go back six months, this is a dream result for Nikki Haley. Right?

But she wound up being a little bit below expectations, the last couple of weeks. Still, a decent showing. She's still in the game in New Hampshire.

Then Vivek Ramaswamy, who was promising all sorts of things, with a big turnout. And he drops out, almost immediately, after promising to stay in.

Of course, that happens every year.

So you look at Ron DeSantis.

Because people will say.

Hey, Ron DeSantis. He didn't make any inroads. People don't feel the way they thought about Ron DeSantis.

That's not true.

He is -- if you're voting for Trump. He's either number one or number two for you.

As far as, you're either going to vote for Trump. If he's the candidate. But you would rather vote for Ron DeSantis. Or you're voting for Trump.

And if he was out. You would vote for Ron DeSantis.

So it's almost. In many ways. The same voter as Trump.

So why vote for Ron DeSantis, when you've got Donald Trump to run?

STU: Yeah. No.

GLENN: So I don't think his position in the party or anything.

I don't think this says anything about him, for a run in -- what will it be?

28?

STU: Yeah. You know, look, I think the polling shows, he's still popular within the party.

He's usually the second choice with Trump voters.

Of course, there is a much different profile as a candidate, of what -- the way they run their operations. Right?

So you will see some differences there.

But what's -- I think -- what's interesting, it's like, right now, most people would argue, even though Ron DeSantis finishes in second place. That Nikki Haley is really in second place in this campaign right now. She is about even with DeSantis nationally. She has a much better chance of winning a state, that is coming up soon, which is New Hampshire.

The next state after that, you know, Nevada's caucuses are a little weird. So leading them aside, go with South Carolina as the next big state.

And South Carolina is Nikki Haley's home state. You can see there's an argument there. The difference is, while Ron DeSantis is probably not going to be as competitive as any given state after Iowa, as Nikki Haley will be in New Hampshire.

There's a path to win with Ron DeSantis' approach.

It's -- like, he is going for the voters, that like Donald Trump.

And he got about 20 percent of that 70 percent of voters.

And Donald Trump got 50 in Iowa.

That's not enough, obviously. That's not enough to win. However, Nikki Haley, you know, really is looking at the 70 percent of voters, who really like Donald Trump. And getting almost none of them.

And if you can't get any of those voters. You really have no path to the nomination.

And she can't seem to pick any of them off.

GLENN: No. What your path is, is that you are hoping that enough Republicans will hold their nose, and enough Democrats or independents. You know, the parties have never been weaker than they are right now. People are identifying as independents.

They are -- the average independent is not for, you know, socialism. And all of this crap that Joe Biden is doing.

But they also. I think the average independent. Many of them have been convinced by the media. That Republicans want and radical.

When really, no. We just would like a return to normalcy.
You know, a lot of Republicans were on that bandwagon. When Joe Biden said that.

We just didn't believe he would bring normalcy.

We knew what he would bring.

This!

And that's the only path. It would be truly, the independent vote, I think that she would be going for. And she would need a lot of Democrats, to make up. A lot.

STU: Yeah. And it's just -- you can't win Republican primaries.

You can win them in individual states with that approach. You can. You can't win Republican primary elections. As a whole. With that approach.

It just doesn't wind up working over the long-term. So she's put herself in a position.

And, you know, I -- she's not trying to say she's liberal. She's not trying to say, she's more moderate.

She's just cut out that group, you know, that part of the electorate. Ask for whatever reason.

Even though she hasn't been very critical of Donald Trump. In fact, over and over again. She said, he was the right president, at the right time.

They've all tried to walk this weird line. Where they don't say anything bad about Donald Trump, for months and months on end.

I don't know that there's an opposite approach that works there. No one has been able to find this if it exists.

But it's fascinating to watch this. As you were pointing out earlier on, maybe it was Steve Deace we were talking to.

She was a Tea Party candidate.

When she ran, she was a popular governor among Republicans. And just her brand of Republican politics, has largely just fallen out of favor.

And she doesn't really have a path to win over this new energy of populism. She's from an older school Republicanism.

That actually doesn't poll badly in general election audiences. You mentioned a poll earlier today.

That has her way out in front of Joe Biden, if she actually made it to the yen. And that's really her main argument here. Where both Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis in most of these polls can squeak it out over Biden. She usually has a seven or eight-point lead over Biden.

Which is impressive.

But there's no path for her to get to the position in which she can utilize that support.

GLENN: Yeah.

So what is -- what is the poll number look like in South Carolina?

STU: South Carolina has not honestly had a ton of new polling. I can pull up a summary here in a second.

But, you know, I think you -- South Carolina, being you know -- I don't remember the date of it here.

I have it in my calendar. South Carolina is still 39 days away.

So we have a while before South Carolina pops up. A lot can change.

Right now, Trump at 54, Haley at 25.

DeSantis at 12, and Asa Hutchinson at 0.5 percent. I don't know where Ryan Binkley is in this state. Check that apparently, where we're monitoring these polls.

GLENN: Right.

I'm for that Bakerman. I love Bakerman. I love him.

STU: Look, Haley at 25 percent.

If she has a good New Hampshire showing, you can see that closing, and her being relatively competitive in that state, especially, if something were to change.

The one thing that people keep talking about. The Wall Street Journal has written an op-ed. Saying, Ron DeSantis should drop out.

And I think what people are not calculating here.

The DeSantis vote is not an anti-Trump vote. If Ron DeSantis drops out. I think it's probable that the majority of his voters will go to Donald Trump, not to Nikki Haley.

And I think there's a strong possibility, that DeSantis might even endorse Trump in that scenario.

So, again, these people who are like, you know, live or die. I don't want anyone but Trump to win. I don't think DeSantis dropping out is what you want.

You probably want DeSantis to stay in. And keep fighting. To see if he can get one of these later states to turn around a little bit. Or maybe just the tone of the entire campaign, changes with some external event, like a crazy legal development or something like that.

That's probably what you have to look for.

But Trump.

Look, Trump has a massive lead here.

He is -- I don't know that he was ever beatable in this situation, Glenn.

GLENN: Let me give you a new poll from the Economist. You.gov. Asked citizens to predict, who would win regardless of who they preferred.

Of those surveyed, 44 percent said Trump. 35 percent said Biden. 21 percent said, I have no idea. Split down the middle, regarding support. 43 percent said they were supporting Biden. 43 percent say they were supporting Trump.

Will Medicaid cuts KILL Americans? Glenn reveals the FACTS!

Democrats claim that the Big, Beautiful Bill will take Medicaid and Medicare away from many Americans and even “kill” people. But is any of this true? Glenn Beck and Stu Burguiere review just the facts and explain who’s actually affected by the changes.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Can I address some of the hyperbole around the big, beautiful bill, just a little bit.

If there's anything in the big, beautiful bill to worry about, it's the increase in spending.

Because the spending ourself into oblivion is an actual threat.

To the country. But that's not what anybody is talking about. What everybody seems to be talking about is the tax cuts. Which were already there. Or the tax cuts like no tax for tips. Which you would think the party of the little people. You know, the Democrats. Would all be for. But they're not.

Because they're not party of the little people anymore. And those had to be offset.

Okay. Offset. By what?

Well, by cutting spending. But cutting what spending?

Not cutting spending. Let me just say this. If I said, you know, I made $250,000 a year. And this year, we were going to spend $300,000.
Okay?

And you would say, immediately, Glenn. You can't do that.

And I would say, I've been doing that for 30 years. Okay. You might say, the bank is not going to give a loan.

But then if I came to you and said, yeah. I'm spending $300,000 a year. And my wife and I make 250 or 200,000 a year. But, you know, next year, I was going to spend $500,000.

Did you get a raise? No. I didn't get a raise. I still make 250,000 dollars a year between my wife and I.

But I'm going to spend 500 and not 300. And then somebody came in, like an accountant with some muscle.

And they said, Glenn, you cannot spend $500,000 a year!

Would it make sense if I went back to spending 300, not 200, which I had.

But 300, which I had been spending every year, would it make sense to you to -- for me to say, my children are now going to starve? My children are now going to starve.

Look at the austerity program that I am on.

My gosh, they just -- no. They didn't cut anything. They must cut thinking.

They cut the increase inning spending.

That's what they cut.

And, Stu, could you please explain Medicare.

I mean, all of the people. I know they warned us.

I didn't believe the death squads would actually go out.

And, you know, they want these people off Medicare so badly.

Or Medicaid.

They just sent out death squads. Trump is not waiting for them to die, because he's not waiting for them to get their prescriptions now he just wants them slaughtered in the street.

STU: Yeah, that's the efficiency of the Trump administration. He wants these people dead so badly, he's just killing them in the streets. Actually, no, none of that is happening.

And the Medicaid cuts as you point out, are largely cuts to future increases that have not occurred.

The biggest chunk of this is the work requirements. You've heard this, Glenn.

And, you know, I went through this. And I was like, this can't possibly be what they mean.

I said, wait a minute. When they say work requirement cuts, what does that mean?

So I dove into it a little bit. Basically, what they're saying, you, if you're an able-bodied adult, so that does not include old people, does not include people who are sick and can't work. And it also does not include people who have small children, even if they are able-bodied.

And when I say small, I mean 12 and under. So if you have a 12-year-old. You're completely exempt from this.

But able-bodied adults.

GLENN: Okay. On people in wheelchairs.

STU: No. Gosh, again, I know this is tough. Yeah, this is where it gets difficult.

GLENN: Wait. I'm having a hard time following this. What now?.

STU: So you're an able-bodied adult, that does not have small children.

GLENN: No small children.

STU: You would be required to get Medicaid, to work 20 hours a week.

Now, you might --

GLENN: Twenty hours a week.

STU: Or 80 hours a month.

GLENN: Or 80 hours a month.

That's almost half a full-time job.

STU: Now, you might say to yourself. And this is actually true.

Some people can't get jobs. Right?

I'm sure, there are people trying to get part-time jobs. And maybe can't get them.

Those people will just lose their Medicaid. Well, as you may understand.

Of course not.

Because what you have to do then is go through a process, that you're basically telling them, you're attempting to get a job. Or you're volunteering somewhere, to meet that requirement.

So basically, you have to fill out -- yeah. It's like unemployment.

You have to at least fill out some paperwork here.

GLENN: It's the exact opposite.

Let me see if I have this right.

It's the exact opposite of unemployment which we've had forever.

Which if you're looking for a job, but can't get it. You can still have unemployment.

But it's the exact opposite. Right?

Especially if you're nursing sextuplets.

STU: Again, you're not very close to the truth.

You're a little bit off on this one.

GLENN: No. Huh!

STU: By the way, Glenn, you might say to yourself, wait. How is that a Medicaid cut?

Because they're not cutting anyone's eligibility here. Unless they don't want to meet the requirement.

Of course, there's always been requirements to all of these programs.

So meeting the requirements have always been part of getting on to Medicaid.

This requirement, if you decide basically not to do it. And not participate. And not fill out the paperwork.

Then, yes. You will lose your Medicaid coverage.

What they're saying, hold on. All right.

GLENN: No. I just want to make sure I have it right.

STU: Yes.

GLENN: If you are blind, you're deaf.

STU: No. Again, no.

GLENN: You have no friends, and you can't get out of the house, and you've been on Medicaid, somehow or another, you signed up for that. But now, you don't even know, because you can't hear the news. You certainly can't fill out a form. Because you have no eyes.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: They just come in and rip your Medicaid away?

STU: No. None of what you said is accurate.

Though, it is calm considering some of the accusations -- comparisons made bit left right now.

But, yeah.

So if you are an able-bodied adult that decides, you know what, I don't feel like filling out the paperwork, or I don't feel like going to job interviews, or I don't feel like volunteering, then yes. You could lose -- but that's what they're saying the cuts are.

They think 317 billion dollars worth of people will not bother doing those things. For whatever reason. Maybe because they had more money than they said. Maybe because they're lazy.

Maybe because -- I'm sure there's some case where some -- I don't know.

I can't think of the case.

GLENN: Blind person.

STU: Because the ailments are covered here.

But, yes. Maybe it's some particular skin color. Then they would reject you.

I don't know.

And it's not just that. There are other cuts. For example, some of the cuts are, they're eliminate duplicate Medicaid enrollment.

If you happen to have Medicaid.

GLENN: I can't double-dip.

STU: In two different states. They're going to try to stop you from having it in two states.

And instead, make you have it one state. Uh-huh.

GLENN: Hold on just one second.

I have two legs. I have two arms. I have two eyes. I have two nostrils. I have two ears.

I can't have two Medicaid coverages. It's insane!

STU: I know.

It's really, really brutal.

GLENN: I have two kidneys. I can only have one kidney now, you know, repaired?

STU: Now --

GLENN: Is that what you're saying?

STU: That's not what I'm saying. But, yes. I'm sure that's what's being reported out there by Dana Bash.

Another one, I will give you here, Glenn. They talked about immigrants.

You know, immigrants getting on their Medicaid cut. Now, this is tough. What this bill does, I want you to hold on to your hat here, Glenn.

GLENN: Okay.

STU: If you have green card holders and other certain immigrants, some will lose their coverage. Or actually, sorry, eligibility will -- retain for those people.

Certain other immigrants may lose their coverage. The current law says, all who are lawfully present.

That will kick in after a -- how many year waiting period?

Let me guess, it's a five-year waiting period.

So it will be the next president who has to deal with this, when future Congress will just put it right back in. And it's not a savings at all.

And then you have Medicaid death checks. They're going to require --

GLENN: They're checking on whether your debt? Look at this! It's crazy.

STU: It's brutal. It really is.

GLENN: You're going to kick all of the immigrants off in five years.

STU: No.

GLENN: And then you're checking to see if old people are dead!

When will you leave these people alone?

STU: I know. So, anyway, we can go through this stuff all day. But as you point out, most of this stuff is not at all, what the left is saying it is.

It's not the desperate Medicaid cuts that are going to ruin everybody's lives. A lot of them are just really common sense stuff, making sure you don't have them in two states. I don't know what the positive argument is for that. But they'll make it.

GLENN: Well, they don't have one. That's why they don't make it about that.

Liz Wheeler BLASTS Pam Bondi’s Epstein deception

The Department of Justice and FBI are now claiming that there NEVER was any Epstein client list and nobody else needs to be charged. But what about Attorney General Pam Bondi’s previous claim that the list was on her desk?! BlazeTV host Liz Wheeler, who had been given one of Bondi’s ill-fated “Epstein Files” binders, joins Glenn Beck to discuss how the MAGA movement should react to the claims made by Bondi, Kash Patel, and Dan Bongino.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Liz Wheeler. Liz wrote to me early today. Let me see if I can -- may I quote you here, Liz?

LIZ: Yes, you may. Thanks for having me, Glenn.

GLENN: Okay. Yeah. You bet. She said, give me one good reason why I shouldn't scream for Pam Bondi to be fired today? And this was at 5 o'clock in the morning. And I said, I'm sleepy. But I don't think I can.

I don't think I can give you a reason not to -- not to call for her firing today. But I want you to explain, why do you feel this way?

LIZ: It's not something that I say lightly. I didn't say it immediately after the White House, Epstein binder debacle. And I want to very prudently and judiciously make this case to you today and to make this case to President Trump too. Because Pam Bondi has become a liability to her administration, despite her loyalty in other areas. So let's start with the announcement from the Department of Justice last night.

A lot of us have a lot of questions about this announcement. It just doesn't ring true with a lot of us. We see a lot of evidence before our eyes that contradicts what we're being told without evidence to believe by the FBI and the Department of Justice. And it grates on us.

Because like you mentioned, we are friends with Kash Patel and Dan Bongino.

They're the good guys. We trust them.

And yet, we have to use our critical thinking faculties and look at the evidence before our eyes.

So it smells fishy. You'll notice it says nothing about whether Jeffrey Epstein was an intelligence asset.

Which, as you mentioned, Alex Acosta, the attorney who cut the sweetheart deal originally with Epstein. Said he was, before Accosta's emails mysteriously disappeared. So we have questions about that.

There are also outstanding, important questions about Kash Patel and Dan Bongino's definitive pronouncement, that Epstein killed himself.

I'm sorry. I don't think the video that they released proves definitively that they were stating that case.

GLENN: Why?

LIZ: Because it does not show what's happening in the cell. It just shows the cell door. We don't actually see him kill himself.

GLENN: Right. But we know that nobody came in.

LIZ: Through that door.

GLENN: Where are they going to go true, the little bars? Little drag la? A little bat.

LIZ: I don't know what the internal cell looks like. I don't know what they have. I don't know if they have fire escape routes. I don't know if they have adjoining doors. I don't know if they have emergency exits. I don't know if that video was doctored or not.

I don't know enough about that, to simply take that one piece of evidence.

GLENN: Okay. So that's a good point.

Just show us the room. Show us what's inside the room.

LIZ: Yes. We need more evidence.

GLENN: That's reasonable.

LIZ: One piece of evidence.

It's not enough.

GLENN: Yeah.

LIZ: The other thing, I wonder with Kash Patel and Dan Bongino are relying too much on the FBI's prior investigation to the FBI of old is a reliable narrator. I don't know who conducted those investigations, or if it was done soundly. I doubt it was done soundly.

GLENN: So may I just interject here.

LIZ: Yes.

GLENN: I talked to Dan Bongino a few weeks ago about this off-air. And, Glenn, we are turning over every stone. We are going to get to the bottom of it.

We are -- so, I mean, he led me to believe that, and I believed him. And I still do.

That he was using new resources. Opening the investigation in -- in a new way. Following it closely.

And I do believe Dan Bongino is one of the good guys.

LIZ: I do too. And I've been told the same thing by high-ranking officials in the FBI. Who I trust. They're trustworthy people.

I do think, that it might not be possible at this point, to piece together everything, because we know there have been reports of evidence, destruction.

So my issue with that definitive statement was the definitive nature of it.

This 100 percent happened this way. Epstein killed himself. Instead of saving, we don't have enough evidence to piece this together, or the evidence we have points to this.

All that being said, though, I want to talk about what happened last night.

Because this brings to us attorney general Pam Bondi, who just months ago said she had the Epstein client list on her desk.

When I went back to look at that video, the clip of her on Fox News, again, this morning, to make sure that there was not context that I was lacking, that there was not bungled phraseology, maybe nerves being on the air.

I went back and listened to it. She said definitively, she had the Epstein client list on her desk.

Now, fast forward to yesterday, she says that it doesn't exist, that they don't have it.

That is a really big problem. If I'm president today --

GLENN: Okay. Let me play this, from Bondi. This is back in February. Here is the actual statement she made.

Listen.

VOICE: The DOJ may be releasing the list of Epstein's clients. Will that really happen?

VOICE: It's sitting on my desk right now, to review.

That's been a directive by President Trump. I'm reviewing that. I'm reviewing JFK files. MLK files. That's all in the process of being reviewed, because that was done at the directive of the president from all of these agencies.

VOICE: So have you seen anything, that you said, oh, my gosh?

VOICE: Not yet.

VOICE: Okay. Well, we'll check back with you.

GLENN: Okay. So now let me take you back to Kash Patel. Because something similar was said to me. Here he is. Cut 12.

So who has Jeffrey Epstein's?

VOICE: Black book? FBI.

GLENN: But who?

VOICE: Oh, that's under direct control of the director of the FBI. Just like the manifesto from the Nashville school shooting. The Catholic school. We still haven't seen that, right?

It's not the Nashville police or PD saying, we don't want this out. The FBI airmailed into that operation and said, this is not getting out. Because they do that because this is another government gangster operation.

All these local law enforcement communities get funding from the DOJ and FBI from local programs. And if you don't cooperate, you're not getting your million dollars for this.

That's a lot of money from these local districts. That's how they play the game. That's why you don't have a black book.

GLENN: Because the black book, it's not just sitting. That's Hoover power times ten.

VOICE: And to me, that's a thing I think President Trump should run on. On day one, roll out the black book.

And not just that, on day one, all the text messages and communications we were told were deleted. On day one, play the rest of the video of the pipe bomber.

You know, he needs -- one of the reforms I talk about in government gangsters.

Is you need a central node to be continuously declassifying. This is another thing they do. They overclassify.

They are not telling you -- as a former number two in the IC, they overclassify 50 percent of the stuff there to protect the Deep State.

Oh, no.

You can't see that. Nothing to see here.

Gina was a master at it. Of doing it. And we haven't seen half of the Russiagate report we wrote. Still under lock and key.

On how the ICA was originally constructed. We went -- we put 10,000 man-hours against John Brennan's team that did it.

And we found out why they came up with their bogus conclusions. We couldn't sell it with the world.

Because we couldn't talk about it. And the government cancers came in and buried it.

All of these things, there needs to be a continuing central power whether it's the White House or off-site that says, every request that comes in.
Just right out the door. As long as it's not awe major threat to national security.

VOICE: Liz, they're both very clear.

It existed. But Pam Bondi did not say, she had any names in it.

She kind of made me feel like she hadn't really looked at it.

Kash Patel gave me the impression, he had seen it. Or at least he knew about it.

So how do we go from here?

VOICE: Yes. Listen.

People care deeply about the Epstein files because there was a grisly crime that we know for a fact that was committed.

Epstein was convicted of that.

It wasn't speculative. He was convicted of that. People feel that there's evidence of a cover-up. Not -- we're not inventing a conspiracy. There's evidence of a cover-up of this crime.

Pam Bondi as attorney general has exacerbated this trust. And it gives me no pleasure to say this. Because I like to give the benefit of the doubt to people that are on our side.

But going back to that day in the White House, this February. I haven't told this part of the story before.

Attorney General Pam Bondi, when we met with her. We weren't at the White House to meet with her. We just met with her while she was there.

Pam Bondi bragged to us about making that cover sheet on the binder, the one that read the most transparent administration in history.

She said, she had made it. She had printed it. She was proud of it. She placed it on that binder.

Glenn, to call that a severe lack of judgment would be the understatement of the year. There is no way, in my mind, and I've tried every way to Sunday, to square that behavior with the announcement that we got last night with the Department of Justice.

Pam Bondi told us at the time, she said, I've requested the Epstein files, the files in the binder, were the ones given to me. Nothing was in them, she told us at the time. Then a whistle-blower told her, she told us. And said the FDNY was hiding other files. That's the story she had told us, that there's been a Deep State cover-up. So at the time, after we were given these binders, we waited. Right? You give your side the benefit of the doubt. Maybe Pam Bondi will come up with the goods, even though the rollout was botched to say the least.

But she -- this is another thing I have not discussed publicly before. She said, she had not seen the FDNY documents at the time that she was telling us about them.

I asked her directly that day in the White House. When she said, a whistle-blower told us about these truckloads of FDNY documents. I said, have you seen them? She said no, she sent the request and they're brining them to her.

So contextualizing all of this, suddenly this seems like unforgivable behavior.

How could she give the American people -- not just me. I don't care about how this impacts me. How can she give the American people those binders that contain nothing, while at the same time, bragging about the cover sheet that she made.

The most transparent administration in history. And tell us that the FDNY had the real goods, that the binder was just proof of a Deep State cover-up. That was the real story she told us. Only now to say, sorry, there's actually nothing.

So it leaves us with this situation. What are the options? The options are, well, was she herself set up by some Deep State FBI officials trying to make a fool of her? It's possible, maybe even probable.

GLENN: Possible.

LIZ: But here's the thing, if you're smart, if you're savvy, if you're sharp enough to be Attorney General of the United States, you verify such information.

You don't assume its veracity and publicize it for clicks. And that's what she did.

So then we get to the point, that we think, okay. Well, what does this say about her judgment?

Is she just click thirsty? Is she wanting to be a Fox News star? Did she get out over her skis, trying to make news, being a mega champion with those binders, that maybe she had not verified the contents of, and she definitely hadn't verified the contents of the FDNY truckload. You can't square this announcement with the binders. With the binders in February, unless you allow for the idea that Pam Bondi could be operating in a way that is unacceptable, when on Fox News. Said she had a client list on her desk to review, when she hadn't looked at the documents.

And was just saying that to be a television star. I say this. In somewhat sorrowfully. If I'm President Trump, I would not tolerate this behavior anymore. She's become a liability to the administration. I think the administration is probably just now coming to the realization of how much goodwill this whole debacle has cost them with their voters.

And Pam Bondi is not worth it. She's a liability. It's time to move on.

The INCREDIBLE TRUE Story of Benjamin Franklin

Was Benjamin Franklin the greatest and most modern Founding Father? This July 4th week, “The Greatest American” author Mark Skousen joins Glenn Beck to tell the incredible and true story of Benjamin Franklin.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Dr. Mark Skousen, friend of the program, friend of mine. America's economist.

He is -- he has written a new book on the greatest American and the greatest American, he says is Ben Franklin. And I tend to agree with him. He's at least in the top five greatest Americans. Welcome to the program, Mark. How are you?

MARK: I'm doing well. We're out here in the Mediterranean Sea right now on a cruise, but isn't it great technology that even Ben Franklin would love?

GLENN: You know, I don't think people really understand the genius of Ben Franklin. I mean, there's this great article in the times of London.

I don't remember when. But he was going back to London. He was going to challenge the king.

And he was going back. And they said, don't let his boat come in to dock.

Because he's been working with electricity, and he has a ray gun, and he will vaporize, you know, all of London.

I mean, he was -- he was the Elon Musk of his day, but he was almost more magical, because people didn't understand it.

Back then. What did you find in writing this book about Ben Franklin, that you think most people just don't know?

MARK: Well, this is the thing. So when I wrote the greatest American, I thought to myself, everybody -- lots of books have been written on his biography.

So what I did was I came up with 80 chapters on how he is the most modern of all the Founders. And how he could talk about the modern issues of today, whether it's trade or taxes or inflation or war. Discrimination. Inequality.

I have a chapter on each one of these, in the greatest American.

And, you know, he was a Jack-of-all-trades.
And the master of all, on top of it!

So one of the things I thought would be really cool, if you put my book, on every coffee table in America, and people came in to visit, they would look at this book. And there might be an argument, as you say, as to who is the greatest American. Whether it's George Washington or Elon Musk, or what have you.

GLENN: Whatever.

MARK: When they see the picture of Ben Franklin, they sit there and nod their head. And say, wow. This is the guy I want to sit down with and talk to.

And have a beer with.

Because if you sat with some of the other Founders, they would get in an argument with you. Or they would refuse to answer the question. Or what have you.

But Franklin was willing to talk to a janitor, as well as the king of France. And that's pretty unique.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah. He could.

He was an amazing guy. So tell me, in your research of him, you know, you always hear that, oh, Ben Franklin was a notorious womanizer, and everything else.

And he abandoned his wife. Deborah? Was that her name?

MARK: Yes. Deborah. That's correct.

GLENN: Did that -- what's true, or what's not true about that?

MARK: So he certainly was the most liberal-minded when it came to the sexual revolution.

That's why I say, he's the most modern of the Founders. Because he was not prudish like John and Abigail Adams, who thought he was a reprobate. And sinner. And not a churchgoer. And stuff like that.

GLENN: Right.

MARK: So, yes. He was -- the ladies loved him. And he loved the ladies.

There's no question about that, that he was a bit of a playboy. And, in fact, he even admits in his autobiography, of having an illegitimate child, William. But then he settled down. He married Deborah. And, yes, Deborah and him, they did separate because -- and it was really more her fault than his, because when he went to London as a London agent, she had extreme aversion to going out on this -- the seas. It was a dangerous time period.

So it's kind of like people don't like to fly on airplanes today. So they did grow apart. There's no question about that.

But they maintained their -- their love for each other.

And, as a matter of fact, when Franklin died, he's buried right next to Deborah. So I think that's an indication of their -- their love and so forth. But they were very different personalities. She was very focused on -- on more of the home issues. She was not a public intellectual.

She would not feel comfortable in the same conversations that Franklin would have with scientists.

And with public thinkers, and stuff like that. So they definitely differed in their personality.

GLENN: The -- the story about his son William is one of the saddest chapters.

I mean, you know, Thomas Paine kind of looked at him as a father figure. And he -- you know, Ben Franklin did have a son, William, as you said. And they -- they had a really bad falling out.

Can you quickly tell that story?

MARK: Yeah. So I have a chapter on that very issue. Because who were his enemies, and he did have a number of enemies, including John Adams, at one point. But in the case of William, he, Franklin, arranged for William to be the governor of New Jersey. And he maintained his loyalty. He was a loyalist. Billy was throughout the American Revolution!

And at the end of the American Revolution, or during the American Revolution, Franklin writes his son and he said, it's one thing to -- we can differ on various issues.

But when you actually raise money, raise armaments to attack me, this was beyond the pale.

This is not something that you should have done. And then at the end of his letter, he says, this is a disagreeable subject!

I drop it. So you can feel that emotion, that anger.

And, yes. He removed him from -- from his will.

So there -- there -- Franklin got along with almost everyone.

And I have a whole chapter on how to deal in the greatest American. How to deal with enemies and be how to make your enemies, your friends.

But this was one example where he just couldn't cross over and forgive him. For what the -- for what we had done.

GLENN: I don't think --

CHIP: Just like you are saying.

GLENN: I think I would have a hard time doing that too if my son was raising funds and military against me. It would be kind of hard to forgive.

Mark, thank you so much for your work. It's always good to talk to you.

The name of the book is by Mark Skousen. And it is called The Greatest American. It's all about Ben Franklin. If you don't know anything about Ben Franklin, you will fall in love with him. You will absolutely fall in love with him. Mark Skousen is the author. The name of the book again, The Greatest American.