RADIOSeptember 16, 2024

Why a Kamala Harris presidency would be DEVASTATING for small businesses

Would a Kamala Harris presidency destroy small businesses? Small business expert Carol Roth joins Glenn to make the case: "They want to kill the gig economy and all the small businesses that depend on independent contractors in favor of unions and big business. So, it's very difficult to say, 'I am the small business, I am the worker candidate,' and still be in favor of these things." Carol compares this to "McDonald's being pro-cow." She also explains why Harris' claim that 19 million new business applications have been filed since she and Joe Biden took office is incredibly misleading.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Okay. But, Carol, she does have some things she can boast about.

The small business success. She claims a record of 19 million small business applications were received, under their leadership.

And that's a record, I hear. That's what they say.

CAORL: Okay. So this is -- I think most people know, who listen to me on your program. That I'm one of the world's leading experts on small business.

I've been entrenched for decades. I heard this -- this thing. This small business application.

And I went around, to every group that I know. And I said, what is a small business application?

Because when I started my business, I didn't have to apply, at the federal level.

You know, historically, I had an LLC. I registered that with the state. Some people had sole pro proprietorship. What does this mean?

Because we have 33 million plus businesses. But that only grows on net. Less than a million a year. So how is it possible that we have 19 million new application starts. And so far, no one has really been able to give me an answer. I have one -- one committee, you know, related to the House, who thinks that maybe there's an information that came from the state census data. I asked them. They actually are having a committee hearing. And I asked them, if they could ask, the FDA administrator. And putting her on the hot seat. Because they're running around, touting these made-up statistics to sound like they're some champion of small business. At the same time, Glenn, NFIB came out with their fall business optimism index today.

The 30-second consecutive months, that small business optimism has been below the historical average. And that's a 50-year average.

GLENN: Well, that's because they fear Donald Trump is coming back.

CAORL: For 32 months, yes.

GLENN: It's crazy. Because I see this number, of 19 million small businesses. And I -- and I am like, I thought, that was just because of all the businesses, that they had put out of business. They're like, starting up new businesses. So I just thought, they were taking credit. Like they do with all the job creation.

We've created more jobs. No, you didn't. People went back to work. You had told them, you cannot work.

So, of course, there were people going back to work.

But you're saying, this isn't that, at all. This is possibly even made up.

CAORL: Yeah. It's -- it's something that nobody knows really what it means. It certainly is not a prop -- it's not a prop for new small businesses created, which is what they're intimating. And we know the number of small businesses, you know, a year ago, was 32-point-something million, and then it climbed to 33-point-something million.

You know, yes, that's on that. Unless they're killing a million small businesses a year, which we know, they're certainly trying. But I don't think they've succeeded in doing it yet. That this is an absolute -- it's just, you know, spouting off nonsense.

And they're doing this, you know, again and again to gaslight people. Into things are so great. We're so in your corner. But at the same time, she's coming out, and she's tweeting about anti-small business policies.

Like, the Pro Act, that she said she's going to put in place. Which, for people who don't know, that's the anti-gig worker and anti-independent contractor language from California's 85 (phonetic) taken nationally. And they want to kill the gig economy and all the small businesses that depend on independent contractors, in favor of unions and big business.

So it's very difficult, to say, I am the small business. I am the worker candidate.

And still be in favor of these things. Which is why I equate it to being like McDonald's being pro-Catholic.

GLENN: You know, it is -- as a small business owner myself.

I look at tomorrow. And think, if they get in, the regulations, just the regulations, alone, that are still sitting out there, that they want to impose.

Will just crush small businesses.

These guys, you know, they used to say, well, the -- the Republicans are in with big business.

Well, then we're also in with small business too.

You know, they had a business attitude.

These guys are only big business.

They are only in with the giant global corporations.

That's all they care about. And it's honestly, like they're trying to impoverish, the small business.

And impoverish the middle class.

Without moving any of the middle class up. They're moving them all down.

CAORL: Yeah. I'm glad that you brought up regulations.

Because as I mentioned, there's this House Committee meeting right now.

And they came out with a report earlier this year, that the Biden-Harris agenda. Imposed $1.7 trillion in regulations on small businesses.

Ask that was before we've had some of these pending regulations, go into place. So I am certain, that that's higher.

And that is millions upon millions of hours that are wasted. That is dollars that are wasted.

And that's a barrier to success. You know, we keep hearing this ridiculous phrase, the opportunity economy.

Well, if you want to create opportunity, you reduce war about barriers. You reduce regulations.

You reduce taxes. You reduce the government being up in your business.

And you have the government minding their own business.

So that you can go off and work in your business.

That is what it is all about.

GLENN: You know, I know that our audience is heavy on entrepreneurs.

And people who have done business for a long time.

But there's also a younger generation that listens.

And explain, why regulations hurt opportunity.

CAORL: They hurt opportunity. Because number one, they're costly. Two, you're spending time, complying with the regulation, instead of spending the time working and growing your business.

And the challenge is that if you are a big company. If you're the Amazons of the world. If you're the Walmarts of the world. You have -- not only a whole balance sheet to deal with this.

You have a whole host of people in your company. Whether it's HR. Or whether it's some other administrative functions that can deal with these regulations.

When it comes to small business, the majority, greater majority of small businesses. It's just beyond -- so it's one person, who is already wearing all of those hats trying to deal with this. Even if you have some employees, you don't have the wherewithal, the ability. You're struggling enough to deal with inflation, finding the right workers, you know, remaining competitive, dealing with cyber security and the like. You don't have time, and you don't have the bandwidth. And you don't have capital, to deal with these regulations.

And some of them are so onerous, that people want to close their business. Something that we've been talking about, Glenn, for months now.

That the corporate transparency act, which is this registration, with the financial crimes division of the Treasury. I've had hundreds upon hundreds of small business owners, and people looking to start small businesses, saying that they don't want to. They want to close their business. They don't want to start.

Because they don't want to deal with the asymmetrical risk of having their information exposed or the government coming after them, for doing something wrong.

So because the government is imposing this regulation, which, by the way, is still in flux.

It's preventing these entrepreneurs from taking those risks. And creating opportunity. Which creates jobs. Which creates more dollars in their community. Which grows the economy.

Which is what we need, to move ourself forward. This is so obvious.

But all they want to do is take away wealth. Create barriers. Redistribute it. And make it revery challenging. For a small business owner, to succeed.

GLENN: You -- I think it was you, Carol.

Said, oh, maybe six months ago, we were talking. And you said, Glenn, most of the stuff that they've done, doesn't really kick in until 2025.

So we haven't felt the full impact, of Bidenomics yet. Was that you that said that to me.

CAORL: Quite probably. Quite probably.

GLENN: Okay. So what is it that is coming still, that we haven't felt. Describe next year. Just as it stands, without any new policies. If we just continued where we are?

CAORL: Well, as I said, the House small business committee, is doing a markup on seven different pieces of legislation, trying to overturn, you know, all of these stringent rules for small business. The corporate transparency act. We have until the end of the year, for that to go into effect. If there's no delay. Which, by the way, there's two delay bills. Two repeal bills.

And seven lawsuits. If we don't get that done by the end of the year. Then people are going to be seen as compliant. Then on top of that. You know, we have the tax cuts and jobs act, you know, large pieces of that, is expiring and changing the way the small businesses have to look at their taxes and figure out, you know, what makes them -- from an administrative standpoint. So, you know -- and that's, again, scratching the surface.

So, you know, one after another, there are things in the pipeline. And then if Kamala Harris were to become president.

Again, day one. They will try to rule by executive order. One of the other things, you know, this Department of Labor rule. Very tight. Independent contractor world.

That went into effect in March. They haven't truly been enforcing it yet. I haven't seen much in the way of enforcement. But if they start to crack down on that, that is something that could kill all of the small business across -- across-the-board.

So there are just so many different things, and it's challenging enough to own your own business.

As you know, the small business owner. To not constantly having to be worried about what the next shoe that is going to drop, coming from your own government.

GLENN: Carol, one last question. I would like to take a one-minute break. And then I would like you to come back and talk about. They're talking about a 50-basis point drop in the interest rate in loans.

Some people say, that's really good.

Some people say, that could collapse everything. Can you -- can you explain if that's a good thing or a bad thing, at this point?

Carol Roth is with us. So tell me about the options the fed have, has now.

What's happened with employment. Why they might be dropping the interest rate.

And is it a good thing or a bad thing?

CAORL: Well, so I have always contented that the fed, didn't have the right tools, to address inflation.

And inflation was coming from the pie constraints, not demand. That the Fed really focus on his demand. And after 15 years of zero interest rate policy. That it wasn't them, that changed much of what was going on.

In terms of demand for new loans. Et cetera.

But they have taken up the interest rate very high.

And a lot of people in the market.

A lot of investors, feel like they are behind the curve, in terms of normalizing policy.

Because they don't want to keep it so restrictive, that they cause a recession.

That's the concern all along.

So now that inflation has come down on a headline number. We know cumulatively, it's up over 20 percent. And that's what Americans are contending with. But from a policy standpoint, they see that inflation is coming down. And they see that the labor market, hmm, isn't quite as robust as they had hoped. So they are trying to address policy, to, you know, quash any recessionary outcomes. That's really what they're trying to do.

They have a couple choices. Right? They can do nothing as they have done for quite a while. They can deliver a cut and now they're deciding between --

GLENN: We have about a minute.

CAORL: -- a half a percent. And a quarter percent.

A half of percent may be bad news for them.

Because it may give the market a signal, that things are worse off, than they are.

So I think they will be a little bit more cautious. And go for that 25-basis point or whatever percent cut.

GLENN: All right. So you don't think that it will -- unless it's 50 basis points, I don't think that it will be a bad thing. Other than signaling that things might be worse than they thought.

CAORL: Right. And it's a much bigger signal at 50, than it is at 25, given where we stand with all the data. But I know you have limited time. We can get into this in another day.

GLENN: Yeah. And I'm not sure that anybody will want to open up the purse strings at this point.

I think everybody is waiting to see, what will happen, you know, with the -- with presidential election. I mean, because we're going one way or the other. And they're in opposite directions.

So it's kind of a scary place to be, as an investor, or a small businessperson. Or just, you know, a regular worker, in America today.

Carol, thank you so much. Carol Roth.

Will Medicaid cuts KILL Americans? Glenn reveals the FACTS!

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

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

Because the spending ourself into oblivion is an actual threat.

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

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

Okay. Offset. By what?

Well, by cutting spending. But cutting what spending?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Look at the austerity program that I am on.

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

They cut the increase inning spending.

That's what they cut.

And, Stu, could you please explain Medicare.

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

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

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

Or Medicaid.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But able-bodied adults.

GLENN: Okay. On people in wheelchairs.

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

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

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

GLENN: No small children.

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

Now, you might --

GLENN: Twenty hours a week.

STU: Or 80 hours a month.

GLENN: Or 80 hours a month.

That's almost half a full-time job.

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

Some people can't get jobs. Right?

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

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

Of course not.

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

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

You have to at least fill out some paperwork here.

GLENN: It's the exact opposite.

Let me see if I have this right.

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

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

But it's the exact opposite. Right?

Especially if you're nursing sextuplets.

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

You're a little bit off on this one.

GLENN: No. Huh!

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

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

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

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

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

Then, yes. You will lose your Medicaid coverage.

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

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

STU: Yes.

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

STU: No. Again, no.

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

STU: Hmm.

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

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

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

But, yeah.

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

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

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

I can't think of the case.

GLENN: Blind person.

STU: Because the ailments are covered here.

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

I don't know.

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

If you happen to have Medicaid.

GLENN: I can't double-dip.

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

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

GLENN: Hold on just one second.

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

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

STU: I know.

It's really, really brutal.

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

STU: Now --

GLENN: Is that what you're saying?

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

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

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

GLENN: Okay.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

STU: It's brutal. It really is.

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

STU: No.

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

When will you leave these people alone?

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

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

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

Liz Wheeler demands Trump FIRE Bondi after Epstein list debacle

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They're the good guys. We trust them.

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Why?

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

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

LIZ: Through that door.

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

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

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

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

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

LIZ: Yes. We need more evidence.

GLENN: That's reasonable.

LIZ: One piece of evidence.

It's not enough.

GLENN: Yeah.

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

GLENN: So may I just interject here.

LIZ: Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Listen.

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

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

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

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

VOICE: Not yet.

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

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

So who has Jeffrey Epstein's?

VOICE: Black book? FBI.

GLENN: But who?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, no.

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

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

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

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

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

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

VOICE: Liz, they're both very clear.

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

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

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

So how do we go from here?

VOICE: Yes. Listen.

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

Epstein was convicted of that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Possible.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The INCREDIBLE TRUE Story of Benjamin Franklin

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Whatever.

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

And have a beer with.

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

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

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah. He could.

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

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

MARK: Yes. Deborah. That's correct.

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

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

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

GLENN: Right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can you quickly tell that story?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: I don't think --

CHIP: Just like you are saying.

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

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

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