RADIODecember 12, 2024

THEORY: Did the Pentagon LIE About the New Jersey Drones?

New Jersey Rep. Jeff Van Drew recently claimed that the mysterious drones hovering over New Jersey are being launched from an Iranian “mothership” off the U.S. coast. Is there any truth to this or the Pentagon’s denial that the U.S. military is involved? Glenn speaks with New Jersey Assemblyman Brian Bergen, who recently attended a “mind boggling” meeting with the Department of Homeland Security. DHS, he says, claimed to have no information at all on the drones, except that they’re untrackable. Something doesn’t add up here, Glenn says. So, he runs his own theory by Assemblyman Bergen: what if the military is lying to us?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Okay. So yesterday, Republican Representative Jeff Van Drew told Fox news this about the drones in New Jersey.

VOICE: You know, I'm also on the transportation committee, on the aviation subcommittee, and I've gotten to know people.

And from very high sources, very qualified sources, very responsible sources, I'm going to tell you the real deal.

Iran launched a mothership. Probably about a month ago.

That contains these drones. That mothership is off -- I'm going to tell you the deal.

It's off east coast of the United States of America.

They've launched drones. It's everything that we can see or hear. And, again, these are from high sources. I don't say this lightly.

Now, you know, we know there was a probability. It could have been our own government. You know it wasn't our own government, because they would have let us know.

It could have been some really glorified hobbyist that we're doing something unbelievable. They don't have the technology. But let's pretend that's possible.

A third possibility was somebody, an adversarial country doing this.

Know that Iran made a deal with China, to purchase drones, motherships, and technology.

GLENN: Okay. Stop.

Now, the Pentagon came out and said, that's not true.

There's a state senator, you might have seen this, on X. Last night.

Here's what Doug Steinhardt said, on these drones.

Cut 13.
(music)

VOICE: The best information that we have available to us, at this point, suggest that these drones are coming from offshore. That when we try to make contact with them. They become evasive and elusive. You know, from my perspective, if they're American assets. If they're American military. If they're American drones, and I think we owe the American people answers or explanations.

GLENN: Okay. Stop. Now, Brian Bergen is another New Jersey assemblyman. He drove two hours for a private meeting with the FBI, Department of Homeland Security. And everybody else. This was going around last night.

And he left the meeting.

He said, it was the biggest bunch of bullcrap he's ever heard.

He's former military. He said, we don't know what it is. Of course we know what it is. And they gave us no information. He was really angry.

He's joining me here in about four minutes. So stand by.

I think I know what these are. I think -- but I'm not ruling out, the Iran thing.

I mean, that -- that -- I mean, a strike right now, would put the world at war.

I don't think so. The Pentagon said had to. But do you trust the pentagon?

The problem is here. We don't trust anybody.

Because they've all betrayed our trust.

That's why people voted on both sides, for Donald Trump.

Because we have to know the truth.

GLENN: I want to bring in Brian Bergen. I saw Brian on I think it was X yesterday.

He's a New Jersey assemblyman, that drove a couple of hours, for this meeting with, you know, the DHS and the FAA, and everybody that should know, what the heck is going on with these drones. And he walked out early. He was so flaming angry. And I wanted to get him on today. Brian, how are you?

BRIAN: I'm doing great, Glenn. Thanks for having me, man.

GLENN: You bet.

So why did you walk out yesterday? What happened?

BRIAN: Well, so we got called down there. We being all 120 members of the state legislature of New Jersey.

And the assembly and the Senate, got invited to come down to the special legislator-only briefing down in the state police headquarters. And the state police was there, and the Department of Homeland Security was there. And they were supposed to tell us what was going on.

GLENN: Wait. Wait. Wait. Hang on just a second. So they didn't even come to you?

BRIAN: No.

GLENN: They said to all the legislators. Instead of, how many guys were speaking? Ten?

BRIAN: Less.

GLENN: Less than ten. Okay. All right. That's good. All right.

BRIAN: Yeah. Yeah. So we all went there.

And the first thing they say, this is not a classified briefing.

In fact, we could have probably let the press in.

Then they went on and they said, that they know nothing. And they have no understanding what's going on.

They don't know where they're coming from. Where they're going to.

Or who is responsible for it.

And so I was just -- I was just pissed, that we're there to listen to such a Bush-league amateur hour presentation, that they could have given us via text message.

And what really got me upset, was the primary reason why I left early.

Was two things.

The colonel or the state police said he had a helicopter of his, hovering directly above one of these drones, which is called a six-foot drone.

But he felt unsafe for his pilots. And had them land. Ten minutes later, he says, hey. It would be really nice to know, where these things are going or coming from.

I'm like, why did you follow him? When you had it in your sites.

I mean, I have no idea why --

GLENN: Now, I just -- I want the audience to know, you were -- you were an Apache helicopter pilot in Iraq. You have a bronze star, combat action badge. Several honors.

You graduated at West Point. You're not a nobody on what happens in the sky.

BRIAN: Right. Right. That's exactly right.

First of all, what he said, people were hovering above it. I said, well, that's stupid.

Who hovers above a target? You know, you want to get a standoff distance and follow it. You know, so you can use your assistance to track it.

Yes. I'm speaking from some level of experience here.

But more importantly, it was just common sense.

You have this thing in your sites. That you know is potentially a threat.

Because we don't know where it's coming. Where it's going. And who is controlling it.

And it's 6 feet big in the sky.

And you just let it go.

I mean, it was mind-boggling to me.

The second thing that they said, that really sent me through the moon.

Was the Department of Homeland Security. Has some device. That they will give to the state police, that will help them identify drones in the sky.

And it's supposed to be pretty cool technology.

It filters out birds and stuff like that.

It's supposed to be really good.

Anyway, one of my colleagues said, well, when are you going to get it?

And the colonel of the state police said, it should be here in a couple of days.

And I was like, in my head, should be here in a couple of days? What the hell are you doing?

Somebody go get in a van. Drive it to freaking New Jersey, right now. You know, Glenn. This is the level of stupidity, that we're dealing with here.

And that's why I was so frustrated. And continue to be frustrated.

GLENN: Okay. So let me run a couple of things by you.

First, a Congressman came out yesterday. And said, I have it on good authority, that it's Iran.

And I have to ship off -- if that were true, would we not have followed these things back to the ship?

Why aren't we -- if they're going back over the water, and they're not ours, why wouldn't we be blowing them up, over the water?

BRIAN: Well, so that's a great question, and it was Congressman Van Drew who said that. And I think very highly of Congressman Van Drew. And he's not someone who normally says something outlandish like that. But in this case -- I rag on our state government all the time. And in this case, Homeland Security.

But our US Navy is a force to be reckoned with. Now, I'm a West Point grad.

We beat the hell out of the Navy this weekend.

But I have to give them some respect.

Because they would not allow an Iranian ship of any kind to get close to us.

So I find that to be pretty unusual, that that happened.

GLENN: Correct.

So the next thing is, if we couldn't track these things.

I've been in the new jersey and New York area.

There's a lot of airplanes in the sky.

If you can't track these. And you don't know where they are, you would ground all of the planes. Because you don't know if they're hostile to planes.

You don't know if someone of them just gets into the flight path of another.

There are planes everywhere in the sky.

So, again, that leads me to believe, you can track these. And you know where they're coming from.

BRIAN: Yeah. I don't know all the technology available to them.

What I do know. We're the United States of America. I live in a state. New Jersey, which has a 56 billion-dollar budget.

The fact we don't have the resources to figure this out. Is ludicrous.

You're right. There's a lot of -- the concerns are piling up now.

That you mentioned. What if they go dark, as the governor said. You know, that's a danger to other aircraft that operate in visual flight rules at night.

You know, there's a lot of potential issues here. You know, some lawmakers are calling for a -- a shutdown of drone activity in the sky. But, you know, we don't even know who these people are. What they're doing. They certainly won't live listen if we shut down activity.

GLENN: Right. What if we take all the guns from the good guys?

BRIAN: Right.

But what we do need to do is common sense. It just needs to be an all hands on deck approach.

The state police, the National Guard, which can be mobilized by the governor.

The Department of Homeland Security. And they need to follow one of these suckers to wherever it goes, and let's figure who is responsible.

GLENN: So here's what baffles me, Brian. You get one guy with a laser pointer in his backyard, and he points it at an airplane and a pilot, and the FAA tackles that guy, they -- they grapple down from helicopters and make sure that never happens again. How do we -- if this is some private citizen or citizens doing it. How would we not know that?

BRIAN: You're 100 percent right. And that's why, in an interview I had yesterday, I said, it's a lack of effort.

It has to be a lack of effort.

You know, the FBI is an amazing organization. That takes down people, all the time, before they do all kinds of crazy stuff.

They have a litany of successes that they can point to, of stopping things before they happen. Because of the counter terrorism effort. And the intelligence efforts. Why the hell they can't find anybody responsible for this. Or pick up any chatter is crazy.

GLENN: Okay. Let me give you my theory.

And please, if you think it's nonsense. Shoot it full of holes.

My uncle used to be in military intelligence, back in the '60s and '70s. And he did all of the nuclear stuff. And when the stealth B1 bomber came out. The wing. He said, old technology. And I said, what?

And had he's -- because remember, it was first spotted. And they were like, what is that?

It's a UFO. And he's like, that's been available for a while.

They'll announce it to the country.

And they'll fly it around. And people will speculate.

Oh, yeah. We have a B1 bomber.

It's new.

I think a good chance is, we are sending someone a message. Or we're doing something with the -- I mean, Russia just launched, you know, a hypersonic missile.

It doesn't make sense that our government doesn't know what this is. And can't stop it. And doesn't see it as a danger.

What makes sense, is they're lying to us.

They know what this is.

And it's not extra terrestrial. And it's not any of that crap.

What do you think?

BRIAN: Well, so I don't disagree with the premise here. One of the things I will say is unique to this area, and where all this is happening.

We have a military inflation called Picatinny Arsenal.

And it's very important, to Picatinny Arsenal, that there's good community relations. Because, you know, we want to maintain that here.

And it's a huge resource for the army where it's at. Any uncertainty about what's going on military-wise around here, is bad. Bad for them. And bad for the future of Picatinny.

So they have an incentive to overcommunicate when things are happening. And they often do that, when they're giving testing. They overcommunicate. So in this area here. It's probably unlikely, that there will be anything that government would want to do, that would cause, you know, public concern.

GLENN: So then what is your -- what are you left with, that makes sense to you, the most?

BRIAN: You know, to be honest. I'm not left with much.

Before this briefing, I would have told you, it's FedEx. Or UPS. Or Amazon testing out delivery capabilities of aircrafts.

You know, and they want to do it at night. So as not to freak people out. But then by this point, it's blown up so much.

You would think somebody would say something.

They would say, oh, yeah. It's us. Chill out.

So I really -- I really don't know.

I am legitimately concerned. And I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I'm not one that jumps to conclusions.

But the -- the fact that nobody knows. And the people that are supposed to know, they give us no confidence.

GLENN: And you believe they don't know. You believe they don't know.

BRIAN: Yeah, I do. Could the CIA know? Maybe I was briefed by them.

But I believe the State Police, and the Department of Homeland Security, and the Pentagon do not know. I really do. And that's scary.

It's equally scary if I'm wrong. And they do know, and they're doing this to us.

GLENN: That's the world we live in today.

You know, it's always like, it could be this. Which would mean that Jesus is coming. But it could mean this. Which means Jesus is copping.

BRIAN: Yeah. That's right Glenn. In this situation, this is the part that frustrates me. They can figure it out.

A couple of Apache helicopters. We'll follow these freaking things.

And we will figure it out for you. Someone can get this done. They're just choosing not to do it.

GLENN: I know somebody with an Apache. A private individual with an Apache helicopter.

BRIAN: Well, let's get it over here.

A little rusty probably. But I think I can probably figure it out.

GLENN: They're probably listening right now. If you want to check in, we'll maybe line that up. Thank you so much, appreciate it.

God bless you, Brian. 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 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.