RADIOApril 07, 2025

Stock Market CHAOS After Fake News of 90-Day Tariff Pause

The stock market went on a rollercoaster ride due to fake news that President Trump is pausing his reciprocal tariffs for 90 days. Glenn and Stu take a look at the story, why it’s evidence that maybe we should slow the panic a little bit, and how it can help us interpret the stock market moving forward. Plus, Glenn and Stu review a new poll that doesn’t look good for humanity: how many people think they can outrun a horse?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Welcome to the Glenn Beck Program.

We have an update. The market bounced back after it was released in the news, that Donald Trump may consider a 90-day pause. And then we were watching it bounce back. And then all of a sudden, it dropped down again. And it lost, maybe 200 points? Again.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Not detainer sure what happened until we checked the news.

STU: It seems like all these media organizations reported, an interpretation from some social media of your of an interview. In which the interview.

GLENN: Wait. Wait. Wait. I want to track that back down.

Of an interview with Trump?

STU: No. That was a good question.

It was a Trump official.

GLENN: Named official? Or Trump official, official?

So we have Trump. And then we have the Trump official.

And then it's -- it's somebody on social media. Doing an analysis of what that Trump official said. Right.

STU: Right.

GLENN: And then the media picks up on that.

So they're quoting.

STU: National economic counsel director Kevin Hassett.

Basically, all he said was like, look, I think -- he was asked by Brian Kilmeade.

Would Trump consider a 90-day pause?

And hasn't said, I think the president will decide what the president will decide.

GLENN: Well, and that means, yes. He will consider.

STU: It's incredible.

GLENN: That's how -- that's why where we that story.

We gave it to you, like four minutes ago.

Go off the air. Like commercial break. And it's all reversed. The stock market goes down. I think we should probably slow down a little bit.

There's no --

STU: We even brought it up. It's to discuss why the market moved. Why the market moved.

So it -- it's an appropriate explanation, I think.

But now --

GLENN: Official breaking, the White House now says, 1900 day pause is fake news.

STU: There's no pause. For you the market is down again.

GLENN: That is crazy.

STU: You know, I will say this, Glenn.

And I don't know what you think about this as far as politics go. Taking it out where you end up on this. We've had really bad economic times before. Right? COVID. Housing crisis in '08. The bursting of the bubble of the internet back in 2000. And you go back to '87, right? That market crashed.

All those things.

All those things came from what seemed like an outside event.

Right? To the American people.

Seemed like, you talked about the housing policies. And what led to the housing crisis for years before that.

And warned about that for years. So there were policies that were directly associated with that. But that's not how the American people took that. It felt like, oh, gosh. The housing market just crashed.

COVID just happened.

You know, this one, I think to the American people, right or wrong, is going to feel like, tariffs caused this.

And I'm worried about how they interpret that.

GLENN: Let me help you out on that.

That's because people did not interpret the stock market and what is going on in our economy as bogus.

STU: Yes, you're right. I think you're right.

GLENN: It's all this bogus money that the Fed keeps printing. And putting in the system with 0 percent interest rate.

It's all funny money. The stock market is no longer tied to anything real.

And everybody -- everybody just bypassed that. And went, wow. Things are really good. Things are really good.

No!

It was all bogus.

All of that is bogus.

STU: I sensed the weakness during Biden. Right?

The market went up with bind. They sensed the weakness.

They sensed it in the economy.

I think the optimism of Trump's policies. Launched into another stratosphere.

GLENN: That is our McDonald's attitude!

That is, yeah. I would like some tariffs. And I Diet Coke.

I mean, no! This is not a drive through. You're not going to get it, by the time you get up to the window.

STU: But I think that's the point I bring up. I think that's how a lot of people consume things.

GLENN: Correct.

Look what just happened!

Stock market. The stock market.

People who are supposedly, you know, educated, they turned that thing on a dime he has

STU: Yeah. But that's people who are really engaged, right?

They're overreacting to news that they are seeing.

The average person is not even following this on a day-to-day basis. They're seeing that general downturn. And if that continues with them, I -- I wonder if this is going to be seen, if this is -- turns into a recession, which it's not yet. If it turns into a long-term negative consequence, it could be seen as essentially Trump's fault. Which means that the entire movement has problems. As opposed to COVID, what people saw was, okay. China released this virus, or it started in China. It took over everything.

GLENN: No, they blamed it on Trump because the media did.

STU: I don't think he took.

I mean, I think he won in 2024.

Because of what people remembered in his economy in 2014.

2020, was some outside thing that he couldn't do something about.

GLENN: Why did he lose then?

The economy was doing really, really well.

Why did he lose? They blamed him for COVID, shutting us down.

Blah, blah, blah. You know, the stuff that he did. That made sense, at the very beginning.

STU: Right.

I remember that being more broad an argument. I mean, no one thought it was Trump's fault that the economy crashed because of COVID.

You can blame him and say, hey.

I don't think he should have locked down. Again, he didn't really do that.

GLENN: Democrats have country that. Look what he did to the economy, and they won. And they won.

STU: They did win. They did win.

GLENN: So I think that's the ill-informed again. Let me give you this survey. Ready for this survey?

STU: Hit me with it. Hit me with it.

GLENN: Out of 50 men, if you ask them, in 100-meter sprint, can you beat a horse?

How many say yes?

STU: How many say yes, they could beat a horse?

GLENN: Beat a horse.

STU: A specific horse. Could be a horse that's dead?

GLENN: No. No. No, just a regular horse.

STU: So we assume a normal horse at a regular speed. Not necessarily a race horse. Just a normal horse.

GLENN: No, just a horse. I can outrun a horse.

STU: The correct answer to this would be zero. Zero. That's what it should be.

GLENN: Zero. Because a racehorse can run 40 miles an hour. Doughnut if you know this, you can't. Usain Bolt, he's the fastest in a sprint, 27 miles an hour. Okay?

Horse, a little faster. Okay?

So only 2 percent out of 50. So not --

STU: Okay. That's not actually bad. 2 percent will say anything, right?

GLENN: That's the one they say is number 15 on the big charts of animals I could beat. Okay?

There are 15. Then you get to a zebra. Okay. I will pass that on, maybe you don't think zebras actually exist. You know, we have none here.

STU: It is strange.

GLENN: Deer? I could outrun a deer. A fox. An ostrich. Number ten, I can outrun a cheetah!

STU: A cheetah would be the one I would think would be the lowest number. Because theater fastest animal. Right?

GLENN: Right. A kangaroo. A mongoose. I don't even what an a mongoose is. So I will give this a pass.

Ready for this? I can outrun a swarm of bees.

STU: I mean, no. You can't. Not for a long time.

GLENN: No, no, I don't think you can. I don't think you can. Have you ever seen --

STU: They are fast.

GLENN: Why wouldn't people just run? If the bees -- when you're being swarmed, just run. They can't keep up with you. You can't outrun bees. I can outrun a house cat?

STU: No. I mean, people have seen cats before, they're fast.

GLENN: I can outrun a goat. I can outrun a rabbit.

STU: A goat. How fast are goats?

GLENN: I don't have that stat. I don't have that stat.

STU: I don't -- all the other ones seem completely absurd. I'm thinking of a goat.

They're kind of climbing a side of a mountain.

They don't look that fast. I could probably take them.

GLENN: Would you say, yes, I could probably take a goat. I don't know.

GLENN: Okay. A goat? A rabbit?

STU: No. Rabbits are incredibly fast, no.

GLENN: Okay. A hippopotamus.

STU: I mean, a hippo, again, I've never raised a hippo myself.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

STU: But I -- like, a hippo doesn't seem like a fast animal. They move pretty slow.
GLENN: Is it the hippopotamus or the rhinoceros? One of those is the most deadly animal alive. They're fast, and they'll stomp you to death.

STU: Really? I thought it was mosquitoes. Aren't mosquitoes the most deadly animal?

GLENN: No. Of course not. I can outrun a mosquito.

Number two.

STU: Why don't we tell that to the African nations. Tell your people to outrun a mosquito.

GLENN: Run? Why don't you run? Number two, I can outrun an elephant?

STU: Yeah. See, an elephant does not look like it moves quickly. But the strides are large. You have to factor that in.

GLENN: I don't have to factor that in. I just know, I can't outrun an elephant. They're fast animals. They're an animal. They're a giant animal.

STU: So are we. We're all animals.

GLENN: Right. Yeah. Not fast!

STU: Look, I'm not saying I would say that I could outrun an elephant. I could understand why someone might say that.

GLENN: Why do you think we invented the gun? Why do you think men invented the gun? We couldn't outrun any of these animals.

STU: That's a good point.

GLENN: Okay? That's the only reason why we're at the top of the food chain.

Because we're like, oh, really? Take that elephant. I can outrun an elephant. Yes, if I have a rifle.

I will do that.

STU: Because then it can be dead. And you can walk away from it.

GLENN: So we don't. We have a pretty healthy, we have a pretty healthy view of ourself.

10 percent say that they have actually -- sorry, 28 percent say they have actually been out in the wild, some place, and clocked an animal, and thought to themselves. I can outrun that!

A tenth of them have actually tried to do that. I don't know. Got out of their car. And was like, come on, horse. Bring it on.

And 11 percent.

Now, out of those showdowns, mainly with dogs. 61 percent have tried to race their dog. 26 percent have tried to race their cat.

I mean --

STU: How would you even do such a thing. 19 percent have tried to race a goat. Okay?

But 60 percent. Only 60 percent said, yeah. I couldn't -- I couldn't run. 26 percent considered themselves winners. And here's my favorite, 14 percent said it was a draw. It was a draw.

I mean, I think we both -- I talked to the goat afterwards. You agree, right?

We finished. We're basically at the same place. And you have four legs. So, you know, you might have run double the distance. But you have double the legs. So we're a draw, right?

Oh, my gosh.

I think we're a -- I think we're in trouble.

18 percent say they would back themselves to beat -- beat somebody in an arm-wrestling match. Only 11 percent of women. Why?

Wait. Why would only 11 percent of women? Women are no different than men. Hold on just a second.

Oh, it's ego probably.

It's mansplaining. The 26 percent of men say I could beat anybody in a wrestling match, and only 11 percent of women.

Probably because of what men have said to women. That you are not strong enough to beat a big, strong guy.

Because we all know that could happen. 72 percent of all respondents admitted that men are more likely to believe that men could beat an animal, than -- than women.

My favorite, is sure, I can outrun a horse, I can outrun a cheetah. But some -- some people -- one in 50, believe they can outswim a dolphin.

STU: Wow.

GLENN: Uh-huh. Don't know if you know this, they're in the water. That's their domain. You know.

Now, I could outrun a dolphin. You put one on the beach. I'll beat him every single time. Outswim him? No. I don't -- uh-uh.

I don't think. You should probably -- you get a nap in. Let's readdress this maybe tomorrow.

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

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

Watch This FULL Episode of 'Glenn TV' HERE

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

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

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

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

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

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

Like, whoa. Whoa. Whoa.

You want people to die that you disagree with?

Where are we now on the scale of Civil War?

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

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

Okay?

Here's step one.

Step one. Loss of civic trust.

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

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

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

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

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

Political disagreement is normal!

Identity conflict is fatal!

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

Have we crossed this one into step two?

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

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

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

And that -- does what?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Churches. Churches are useless. Useless.

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

Are you ready for this one?

Parallel information realities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

We can't agree on facts, right?

Crime rates. Border numbers. Inflation. Election security.

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

Social media algorithms are creating customized political universes.

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

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

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

Loss of neutral rule of law.

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

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

Are we there yet?

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

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

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

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

History is really cold and unforgiving on this point.

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

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

Are we there?

I think we are.

Step six. Normalization of political violence!

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

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

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

Calling for his children to be killed.

Was called on it, never apologized.

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

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

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

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

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

The rise of militias and parallel forces.

When a state loses he is monopoly on force.

Countdown accelerates. So where are we on this one?

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

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

Right?

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

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

Entirely!

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

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

Step eight. The trigger event.

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

So where are we?

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

Political assassination or major attack.

Supreme Court decision that ignites mass unrest.

Financial crisis or dollar crisis.

A state federal standoff turning violent!

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

This is the point of no return.

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

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

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

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

Know where you are.

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

Step five, happening!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where the hell are you?

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

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

You don't own that right.

I don't own that right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

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

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

GLENN: Yeah. No.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's already out!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Terrible story.

STU: Yeah. She passed away.

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

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

GLENN: Is ridiculous.

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

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

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

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

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

They pointed out, this is not new information.

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

You're presenting this as a new scandal.

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

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

Oh, okay. All right.

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

GLENN: No.

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

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

Said, it was nothing!

GLENN: Right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Get it out. Lance this boil.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why is no one talking about that?

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

Huh. Interesting.