RADIOFebruary 12, 2024

Parents REACT to Montana's DENIAL of 'kidnapping' daughter for trans surgery

Montana father Todd Kolstad and stepmother Krista have accused the state of medically kidnapping their 14-year-old daughter after they refused to support her transgender identity. But the state’s Republican governor alleged that their decision had nothing to do with the transgender debate. So, what’s the truth here? Glenn speaks with the Kolstads, who share their side of the story. They discuss why they’re speaking out, what actions they’re taking next, whether their daughter is being sent to Canada, and how the Montana hospital they went to allegedly started suggesting transgender surgery on “day one.” Todd and Krista also claim they were asked to go to marriage counseling to accept their daughter’s transgenderism and accuse Governor Greg Gianforte of not doing enough: “We’re very disappointed in the way this has been handled. He has never reached out to us.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: The Krista and Todd Kolstad family in Glasgow, Montana, is accusing the state of Montana, the Child Protective Services of kidnapping their teenage daughter after the girl began to identify as a transgender boy.

The child's stepmother Krista explains the nightmare began August of '23 after they received a call that their 14-year-old daughter Jennifer had expressed suicidal ideations while in school.

Later on in the same evening, a case worker with the Montana Child and Family Services showed up at the Kolstad home, to speak with Jennifer, and do an inspection of the home.

During the interview with CFS, Jennifer claimed to have consumed toilet bowl cleaner and pain killer medications that day, in an effort to commit suicide.

Krista said, that it immediately struck her as being highly unlikely.

Not only did Jennifer not have access to other substances, you know, these kinds of substances unmonitored.

But Jennifer had expressed no symptoms of imminent illness that day. Despite the doubts, Krista and Todd agreed to take Jennifer to the local hospital on an emergency basis. They found in all the blood work and everything else. She had not consumed any of these things.

Copies of the medical paperwork to substantiate their claim. That Jennifer had not consumed any of the dangerous substances, confirms that there are were no abnormalities detected in her system. Her system was good. However, they consistently mentioned that Jennifer identifies as a male and wishes to be called Leo.

Krista says, she and Todd immediately their objections to the hospital staff known.

They're supposed to call her by her birth name.

We were very clear in the emergency room, that this goes against our values, our morals, our religious beliefs.

They told me to call a lawyer, if I have an issue, because they're going to do what the patient tells them to do.

Then she said, we came in, and our -- our daughter was talking about having top surgery. And being nonbinary. She took her complaint to the on-duty doctor. Doctor who dismissed her. He told me, why are you not more concerned that your daughter tried to harm herself, than what the aid is talking about with her?

They then tried to switch her out of state, to Wyoming. There are six facilities in Montana, that she could go to. They had a facility in Wyoming. The family looked it up.

Looked like kids were allowed to have procedures done, and hormones without parental consent.

So when the hospital called, they said, we have an opening in Wyoming. And she needs to go there.

Quote, she has to go. She's not doing any good here.

End quote. The parents said, not on your life. That's when things got ugly.

They showed up, CFS showed up at their home to serve us with papers. To take Jennifer out of our care, according to Krista. They told me, the reason was we were unable or refusing to provide medical care.

That's not true. Now, the Republican governor has come out against the family, and honestly I don't understand this. They keep saying, well, we don't take, you know, children out of the home.

If it's just a transgender thing.

But, yeah. I get that. But I'm looking at the document, immediate threat to danger.

There's nothing checked, except child needs medical attention.

And parents are unwilling to perform parental duties.

So that's the loophole.

Is this an out-of-control state agency, or what's happening?

We have both of the parents on with us, now.

I can't imagine being you guys.

Krista and Todd Kolstad, thank you for coming on the program.

KRISTA: Thank you for having us. We appreciate it.

GLENN: So, Krista, what do you -- why did the governor come out in defense of this?

KRISTA: You know, I don't have an answer for that. There's no reason for him to. It's not hard for him to say, I made a mistake. This shouldn't have happened. And apologize. I really don't know why he's coming out against us.

GLENN: Todd.

Todd, are you there?

TODD: Yes, I am.

GLENN: Is there any idea in your mind, is there anything that is happening or has happened in your home, that we don't know about?

TODD: Absolutely not.

It's as simple as that. We keep going back to what the garden ad litem said, when he went to our house. He saw that everything was fine. We have a very nice home. We have a comfortable life. And she flatout told us, she asked if we were going to be willing to raise our daughter as a boy with the transgender care.

And she said, if we aren't, then she said, we're not going to like what she has to say in court. And that's exactly how it went.

GLENN: Now, you've got a call just recently, that she's not in Montana. She's in Canada stop they moved her across state lines.

TODD: Yes.

GLENN: And then out of the country. To her mother, who if I'm not mistaken. And correct me if I'm wrong, there's been some issues with mom, as well in the past, is that true?

KRISTA: That is true. There is some documented -- some documents that we submitted from counselors and what not, supporting our claims.

And also, you know, her birth mom just wasn't really involved in her life, the last seven years. Never called her. Never visited her. Anything like that. So this is really a stranger to her. So we do have some great concerns. That is a fact that I believe that Canada operates on a whole different system, as far as transgender care.

So we have some great concerns about her being there.

GLENN: Oh, yeah. Did you have joint custody?

TODD: Yes.

GLENN: You did have joint custody?

TODD: Yes.

GLENN: What were you going to say, Todd?

TODD: There was no custody battle with them.

We were on speaking terms with them. So there was no problem with that. It was CPS who initiated the contact with her in Canada. And then sort of pushed it to send her there.

GLENN: So what do you have remaining to do? What can you do from here?

KRISTA: Well, we're getting more lawyers involved.

We're challenging the gag order, based on our First Amendment freedom of speech rights. And we're continuing to speak out.

We just want other families to be aware, and by bringing light to our situation, we're hoping we can help others. And this doesn't happen to another family.

GLENN: So, you know, we've -- I've seen the documents from the state.

And the state and the governor say, that's not the reason why she was taken out of the house.

So this is -- and, you know, I -- I'm really uncomfortable, because we can't find anything bad on you guys.

And the state kind of -- it feels kind of like they're saying, well, we've got something else here. And we just can't tell you.

And I -- I mean, I -- it makes it hard. Have you -- have you guys tried to engage some of these, you know, law firms that are -- are out there to help parents like you.

Why do you have a public defender still?

KRISTA: Well, we are interviewing lawyers currently.

So, yes. We are engaged with the lawyers. And trying to get different legal representation.

GLENN: Todd.

TODD: So to better answer that. The world has changed drastically when it comes to finding an attorney. When you blindly look, Googling areas, family law. You have to find an attorney that has been practicing in your state.

Almost all of them are scheduling consultations, like eight months out. That's how busy they are.

And then when they hear the state, they don't want to get involved. So it's far --

GLENN: Yeah. But this one is -- I mean, the Thomas Moore Society.

I mean, there are places that you can call. And maybe you just didn't know about them.

But there are big organizations, that take these cases, and they move rapidly when it comes to children. Because, you know, seven months is a long time with a child.

And so I'm wondering, have you been contacted by anybody? Or can -- you know, we'll give you the phone numbers. That that's -- go ahead.

KRISTA: I was going to say, I have not heard of the Thomas Moore Society, so I will definitely look them up, and get in contact with them.

But several agencies have contacted us. And we -- the -- from what I understand. And again, I'm not a lawyer.

From what I understand, the way it works, they don't practice in Montana. They have to find a lawyer that does practice in Montana. They become a cocounsel. The issue is, they are having a hard time finding lawyers that practice in Montana. That are willing to take this on with them.

GLENN: Pat is from the great state of Montana. Pat, what do you know about this governor?

PAT: Almost nothing. You know, I've lived in Montana for 40 some years.

GLENN: Yeah. I didn't know if --

PAT: I don't know virtually anything about him.

But, you know, Montana is perceived to be a Republican state. But they elect Democrats on a fairly regular basis.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

PAT: And so maybe this guy has RINO tendencies. I don't know. How does you guys feel about your governor?

KRISTA: We're very disappointed in the way that this is being handled.

He's never reached out to us. The -- Kyrsten Juris (phonetic), I think her name is. The one that he's tasked into looking into our case, she called me personally. And she said, I am going to look at your case, and then I never heard from her again.

So I don't feel like there's a lot of action on their part.

GLENN: Well, we have asked the governor -- I think we have. He's invited now. And our producers will be reaching out again. We have been in touch with the governor's office.
And, you know, there's a -- there was something here that I was sent, that talks about that you are -- because you guys said no to sending her to Wyoming. Which I think I would have too. Yeah. Well, state of Montana is limited in disclosing the specifics of cases involving minor children in its care, due to the sensitive nature.

Broadly speaking, the state does not remove minors from homes to provide gender transition services or to use taxpayer funds to pay for those services while a minor is in the custody of the state.

But your child is not in the custody of the state. Child Protective Services, furthermore, the governor has asked the Department of Public Health and Human Services to codify a formal policy in developed regulation to clarify and ensure the definition of abuse or neglect does not include a parent's right to refuse to provide gender transition surgeries to his or her minor.

So he's suggesting policy. But we also have, you know -- I have seen the Department of Health.

CFSD. Does not investigate. Nor remove children based solely on allegations that parents oppose, and will not allow their child who has gender dysphoria, to transition genders.

So I think that's very consistent, with what they're telling you, but I feel that that's a massive loophole.

They're leaning on that.

TODD: Yes. You would like me to comment on that?

GLENN: Yes, go ahead.

PAT: Okay. So right from the get-go, day one at the hospital. A nurse in, that kept talking about getting top surgery in front of our daughter. They immediately started calling her a boy. Immediately.

And they started -- we turned and complained, but it was immediate.

And there was -- when they said that they were going to have a bed for her in Billings, we knew immediately, before that, that that was not going to happen.

Because they kept looking at our daughter with an unspoken language, like almost assuring her it was going to be Wyoming. So we knew they would pull that card. And Wyoming allows the transgenderism, not without parental approval on anything. Where Montana, the Dakotas, Idaho, those states do not.

We were able to stand right there and Google that.

GLENN: So let me -- I only have a minute left.

Let me read this statement. This came from the Valley County attorney: Had the motion been granted, Todd Kolstad's legal rights as a parent would have remained fully intact. The state of Montana would have no more involvement in his relationship with his child.

Mr. Kolstad and his wife objected to dismissal and requested the state remain involved.
Any statement made otherwise is false and inaccurate.

KRISTA: Well, if we can respond to that.

When we were in the courtroom that day, we asked that the birth mother call the investigated as a safe place for her -- because they said no matter what, they were going to send her to Canada. And so we had asked they investigate the birth mom, and make sure that's a safe place for a child to go. And we explained our concerns, and we had documentation supporting those concerns. So that's not exactly true. We would love to have children services out of our lives. Our lawyers, our public defender still, at the time said, this is -- let them investigate the birth mom on the record.

And so we were told, that that's all that they were doing. We didn't understand that we were -- you know, hanging out with CPS for another six months.

Further, they've asked us to go to marriage counseling to accept our daughter's transgenderism.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: All right. Guys, we will follow this story. Thank you. We'll probably talk again. Thank you so much. We're praying for you, and especially your daughter. That the right thing happens. Thank you. We'll be in touch.

KRISTA: Thank you.

GLENN: You bet.

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.