RADIOApril 02, 2024

How to STOP the FBI’s Abuse of Power Against Parents

The FBI has faced growing criticism for treating law-abiding conservative Americans as threats. The agency has been accused of misusing taxpayer funding to go after parents who protested at school board meetings and Americans who protested — or even just prayed — at abortion clinics. But FBI whistleblower Steve Friend has a solution. He joins Glenn to lay out a new bill that is up for a vote in the Tennessee Senate. The bill would force the FBI to inform local sheriffs about any “national security investigation” cases that their deputies are helping out with. But the bill has faced some pushback from unexpected groups. Steve explains why he believes this is happening, which says a lot about the FBI’s grip on local governments, and also explains how you can support legislation like this across the country.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So the FBI comes to town, and they're investigating, you know, let's say a parent for being a terrorist, because they spoke out at the school board meeting.

And the sheriff deputies and some of the police officers are asked by the FBI, joint terrorism task force to join.

And they do. And then they find out what the case is all about.

Well, the sheriff or the police chief doesn't have any right to know. Because they don't have a need to know, according to the FBI.

So you're -- your funds for the state, are going to this task force.

And you don't even know what they're doing.

Are they wasting money by going after somebody who, you know, was praying at an abortion clinic?

Steve Friend is -- is here now.

He's the center for renewing America fellow. He's the FBI whistle-blower. He objected to being part of the January 6th raids. Steve, welcome to the program.

STEVE: Great to be with you, Glenn. Thank you for having me this morning.

GLENN: You bet. So you're just trying to put up a line of defense of the people, using the last, really, constitutional string that you have. And that is the sheriff's office, right?

STEVE: Of course this is really just 101. A very simple bill, that is on the table here in Tennessee.

It's Senate bill 2804. House bill 2912. And it essentially just says, that the sheriff has to be read in, and approved of any of the terrorism investigations, that his deputies, who are on loan, from the FBI. Joint terrorism task force.

Any of the cases that they're working on. It will create sort of a bull work.

Because the FBI then has to bring it to the chief elected law enforcement official. Who the people voted for.

The people who don't vote for FBI, they vote for their sheriff. And not for nothing.

He should be aware if there's a legitimate terrorism threat in his county. That's his charge.

GLENN: Let me read this entire bill.

And it's quite a bill. Amend Senate bill number 2804. House bill 2912.

By deleting all language, after the enacting clause and substituting section one, Tennessee code annotated, title 38. Chapter eight. Part one. Is amended by adding the following new section.

Now, here's where the rubber meets the road. See if you can follow this.

In the event, a law enforcement agency within the state, nominates personnel to be deputized as a federal task force officer, on a joint terrorism task force.

The chief law enforcement officer, from the nominee's respective law enforcement agency, must approve each national security investigation, in which the nominee participates.

Then he gets into a very complicated Section 2. This act takes effect, July 1st, 2024. I mean, that's an easy to read bill.

And very, very clear.

What kind of opposition are you coming up against?

STEVE: Well, unfortunately, the Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security, the arm of the governor's office has opposed us on every avenue here with this.

GLENN: Of course.

BILL: And the communications we've received from them, is they don't feel that sheriffs are entitled to know about what they work with the FBI on.

So they're all in for the federalization of law enforcement, which is pretty aconstitutional from any conservative's standpoint.

GLENN: So what is their excuse for saying, it's the sheriff? The only elected enforcement in the whole group here. How come the sheriff doesn't have a right to know?

STEVE: It will impede their ability to work with the FBI. I think that the FBI is a pretty symbiotic relationship with a lot of these state-level agencies. That's the Tennessee bureau of investigations have expressed opposition as well, to us doing this.

And I think that they are in with the FBI. And the FBI gives them the goodies. And they get the credentials. They're all in for what's going on, at a higher level.

And the nature of -- as you move up the chain of command, within our government structures, you sort of feel like, the slipping in swine at the lowest level, even if it's the sheriff, is entitled to know what you are working on from on high.

Which is opposing anything that we expect of our law enforcement agencies, and that we want to keep the community safe. And we elect the sheriff to do that. We elect him to bring crime down. To confront terrorism.

If he's unable to do that. Because he doesn't have a need to know from the FBI's perspective. He's unable to fulfill that charge, and he can't do his job.

And we shouldn't be at a state level, hanging deputies or police officers, using those funds, and the taxpayers provided from the state. To go and do the bidding from the federal government.

And we don't have any oversight of it. We have disempowered local law enforcement. And if you want to make the argument, that we are all about supporting police. And we don't want to defund the police. This is empowering local police where it really matters.

GLENN: So is this mainly for -- to stop the people that are praying, you know, at the abortion clinic. Or the abuse of parents, who are called terrorists?

STEVE: That's really what the genesis of it is. The motivating factor here is the galvanized support, across the aisle as well.

That there were Democrats in the House that were intrigued by the argument that I was making. Because the FBI has clearly, broadly, overinterpreted his national security mandate.

We're seeing things, where they're starting to articulate and connect First Amendment protected activities to some of the things that they deem to be within their purview.

So you have the recent argument about Christian nationalism.

Well, the FBI has a caveat, that says, they don't investigate, First Amendment activity. Like the right to speak. Religious worship.

However, they're using these, quote, unquote, nonpartisan organizations.

Like the public religion institute, which generates a report and says that Christianity is refracted through a lens of white supremacy, and now the FBI is cooking with gas.

Because they can say, well, we do investigate racially motivated violent extremism. So we're going to go and investigate people who say, have a preference for the less mass, when they attend at their parish.

And recruit people to inform on them, so that we can open assessments on them, as an anti-government extremist.

GLENN: And this hopefully, you know, the sheriffs are open to, you know, investigations on actual terrorism.

No matter who it's from. No matter which side it's from. But actual terrorism.

And this would protect the people. It would not allow the sheriff, however, to alert the people, or stand alongside the people, if they're being investigated for praying in church.

It just means, nobody -- nobody will be using the local or county or state money. To help on that. Right?

DAVID: Yes. And I think as a sheriff who is elected by the people. The FBI says, we want your deputies. Task force here. To work on investigating an imam at a school board, and the sheriff opposes that. He will pull his people out. And I would imagine he would be rather loud about that. And let his people know, that the FBI -- even if it violates the security clearance, because that's an inappropriate investigation. I would hope that a constitutional sheriff, would focus on that, rather than a mere clearances, as many whistle-blowers have lost theirs for transient reasons within our federal government.

GLENN: Well, as our government has lost control of -- of the police force, you know, the federal police force. The only elected law enforcement official is your sheriff.

And if, when you're going in to vote for a sheriff, you better ask him. Who do you work for?

And what does that mean?

What happens if the FBI comes in, and they are doing an investigation on -- on parents at the school board.

Where do you stand on that?

You have to have serious conversations with your sheriff, if you have a sheriff up for election.

They are critical to this.

Now, in Tennessee, you're trying to pass this.

What -- when does it go up? And how can we help?

BILL: Oh, thank you for this. So the Senate, judiciary committee, is actually taking this under consideration today at 2:00 p.m. Eastern time.
They will be looking at it. And then the House, it's looking for it.

That's NFL 28O4. House Bill 2912, and the House Criminal Justice Subcommittee is taking this up tomorrow.

So if folks in Tennessee or in the country, want to reach out, up to the members of those respective committees, to express support for this, that would be a huge help.

I mean, this audience. My friend Garrett O'Boyle, felt that the weight of this audience, Glenn, that we were here, talking about -- he had more sales in two days, than he did in the entire history of his store.

So I know the Glenn Beck audience is down to support this sort of initiative.

GLENN: Yeah. And they -- they also just got a very important initiative passed in -- in Tennessee.

I think here recently. This audience is really, truly amazing.

Okay. So if you are in Tennessee, you want to call the Tennessee Senate. It's in committee tomorrow.

What committee -- what committee is it?

VOICE: The Senate is today. The Senate judiciary committee is having it at 2 o'clock Eastern. And tomorrow, the House has it in front of subcommittee under the criminal justice.

GLENN: Okay. Subcommittee of criminal justice. That's tomorrow. That's the House. You can call them today.

And the Senate Judiciary Committee, is meeting at 2:00 p.m. today, so you want to call them.
And again, you're looking in the House at the bill number 2912. 2912.

And the Senate bill 2804. If you can't remember the name of the bill, what would they just call it, something simple, so people would know.

VOICE: It's basically being called an FBI bill, by the layperson there.

Everyone knows who we are talking about. Again, this is empowering the local sheriff. This is nothing to do. It's not going to limit your ability to keep the community safe. It just says that the chief law enforcement officer, who is elected by the people, should know what is going on. And that should not impede any righteous investigation. And will actually bring the FBI back into focus. What they should be focusing on. Rather than imams at school boards. Or people who like to go to mass.

GLENN: Steve, you are a very brave man. Thank you so much.

God bless you.

STEVE: Thank you, man. God bless your audience.

GLENN: Trying to get it out of the Judiciary Committee today, and the House Subcommittee on criminal activity tomorrow, in Tennessee.

Call them and say, the -- the sheriff and the FBI bill. You want to go in for a full vote, pass this in committee. That's in Tennessee. Today.

WARNING: How America Elects a Socialist President in 2028 | Glenn TV | Ep 444

The rise of Zohran Mamdani, the 33-year-old socialist who just won the Democratic primary for mayor, is not just a political earthquake shaking New York City — it’s a warning for the rest of America. Backed by Bernie Sanders, AOC, and the Democratic Socialists of America, Mamdani promises free everything, to tax the rich, and to dismantle capitalism. There’s nothing new about this tired strategy, but the media is propping him up as a new political genius. And with Democrat leaders lining up behind him, it’s clear: This radicalism isn’t fringe anymore. It’s the Democratic Party’s future. Mamdani’s rise is part of a larger movement that’s rewriting America’s values. Glenn Beck explains how New York is the prototype for the Left’s socialist makeover of America. Victor Davis Hanson, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Standford, gives a terrifying prediction on Mamdani’s mayoral race chances and warns the revolution is coming for mainstream Democrats. He also dives into MAGA’s frustration with the Trump administration's handling of the Epstein files.

INSIDE Trump’s soul: How a bullet changed his heart forever

“I have a new purpose,” then-candidate Donald Trump told reporter Salena Zito after surviving the assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania. Salena joins Glenn Beck to reveal what Trump told her about God, his purpose in life, and why he really said, “Fight! Fight! Fight!”, as she details in her new book, “Butler: The Untold Story of the Near Assassination of Donald Trump and the Fight for America's Heartland”.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Salena, congratulations on your book. It is so good.

Just started reading it. Or listening to it, last night.

And I wish you would have -- I wish you would have read it. But, you know, the lady you have reading it is really good.

I just enjoy the way you tell stories.

The writing of this is the best explanation on who Trump supporters are. That I think I've ever read, from anybody.

It's really good.

And the description of your experience there at the edge of the stage with Donald Trump is pretty remarkable as well. Welcome to the program.

SALENA: Thank you, Glenn. Thank you so much for having me.

You know, I was thinking about this, as I was ready to come on. You and I have been along for this ride forever. For what?

Since 2006? 2005?

Like 20 years, right?

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

SALENA: And I've been chronicling the American people for probably ten more years, before that. And it's really remarkable to me, as watching how this coalition has grown. Right?

And watching how people have the -- have become more aspirational.

And that's -- and that is what the conservative populist coalition is, right?

It is the aspirations of many, but the celebration of the individual.

And chronicling them, yeah. Has been -- has been, a great honor.

GLENN: You know, I was thinking about this yesterday, when -- when Elon Musk said he was starting another party.

And somebody asked me, well, isn't he doing what the Tea Party tried to do?

No. The Tea Party was not going to start a new party.

It was to -- you know, it was to coerce and convince the Republican Party to do the right thing. And it worked in many ways. It didn't accomplish what we hoped.

But it did accomplish a lot of things.

Donald Trump is a result of the Tea Party.

I truly believe that. And a lot of the people that were -- right?

Were with Donald Trump, are the people that were with the Tea Party.

SALENA: That's absolutely right.

So that was the inception.

So American politics has always had movements, that have been just outside of a party. Or within a party.

That galvanize and broaden the coalition. Right? They don't take away. Or walk away, and become another party.

If anything, if there is a third party out there, it's almost a Republican Party.

Because it has changed in so many viable and meaningful ways. And the Tea Party didn't go away. It strengthened and broadened the Republican Party. Because these weren't just Republicans that became part of this party.

It was independents. It was Democrats.

And just unhappy with the establishment Republicans. And unhappy with Democrats.

And that -- that movement is what we -- what I see today.

What I see every day. What I saw that day, in butler, when I showed I happen at that rally.

As I do, so many rallies, you know, throughout my career. And that one was riveting and changed everything.

GLENN: You made a great case in the opening chapter. You talk about how things were going for Donald Trump.

And how this moment really did change everything for Donald Trump.

Changed the trajectory, changed the mood.

I mean, Elon Musk was not on the Trump train, until this.

SALENA: Yeah.

GLENN: Moment. What do I -- what changed? How -- how did that work?

And -- and I contend, that we would have much more profound change, had the media actually done their job and reported this the way it really was. Pragmatism

SALENA: You know, and people will find this in the book. I'm laying on the ground with an agent on top of me.

I'm 4 feet away from the president.

And there's -- there's notices coming up on my phone. Saying, he was hit by broken glass.

And to this take, that remains part of this sibling culture, in American politics.

Because reporters were -- were so anxious to -- to right what they believed happened.

As opposed to what happened.

And it's been a continual frustration of mine, as a reporter, who is on the ground, all the time.

And I'll tell you, what changed in that moment.

And I say a nuance, and I believe nuance is dead in American journalism.

But it was a nuance and it was a powerful conversation, that I had with President Trump, the next day. He called me the next morning.

But it's a powerful conversation I had with him, just two weeks ago.

When he made this decision to say, fight, fight, fight.

People have put in their heads, why they think he said it. But he told me why he said that. And he said, Salena, in that moment, I was not Donald Trump the man. I was a former president. I was quite possibly going to be president again.

And I had an obligation to the country, and to the office that I have served in, to project strength. To project resolve.

To project that we will not be defeated.

And it's sort of like a symbolic eagle, that is always -- you know, that symbol that we look at, when we think about our country.

He said, that's why I said that. I didn't want the people behind me panicking. I didn't want the people watching, panicking.

I had to show strength. And it's that nuance -- that I think people really picked up on.

And galvanized people.

GLENN: So he told me, when he was laying down on the stage.

And you can hear him. Let me get up. Let me get up.

I've got to get up.

He told me, as I was laying on the stage. I asked him, what were you thinking? What was going through your head? Now, Salena, I don't know about you.

But with me. It would be like, how do I get off the stage? My first was survival.

He said, what was going on through his mind was, you're not pathetic. This is pathetic.

You're not afraid. Get up.

Get up.

And so is that what informed his fight, fight, fight, of that by the time that he's standing up, he's thinking, I'm a symbol? Or do you think he was thinking, I'm a symbol, this looks pathetic. It makes you look weak.

Stand up. How do you think that actually happened?

SALENA: He thinks, and we just talked about this weeks ago. He -- you know, and this is something that he's really thought about.

Right? You know, he's gone over and over and over. And also, purpose and God. Right? These are things that have lingered with him.

You know, he -- he thought, yes.

He did think, it was pathetic that he was on the ground. But he wasn't thinking about, I'm Donald Trump. It's pathetic.

He's thinking, my country is symbolically on the ground. I need to get up, and I need to show that my country is strong.

That our country is resolute.

And I need people to see that.

We can't go on looking like pathetic.

Right?

And I think that then goes to that image of Biden.

GLENN: You have been with so many presidents.

How many presidents do you think that you've personally been with, would have thought that and reacted that way?

SALENA: Probably only Reagan. Reagan would have. Reagan probably would have thought that.

And if you remember how he was out like standing outside.

You know, waving out the window. Right?

After he was shot.

GLENN: At the hospital, right.

SALENA: Had he not been knocked out, unconscious, you know, he probably would have done the same thing.

Because he was someone who deeply believed in American exceptionalism.

And American exceptionalism does not go lay on the ground.

GLENN: And the symbol.

Right. The symbol of the presidency.

SALENA: Yeah. Absolutely. And I think that affects him today.

GLENN: So let me go back to God.

Because you talked to him the next day. And your book Butler.

He calls you up.

I love the fact that your parents would be ashamed of you. On what you said to him.

The language you used. That you just have to read the book.

It's just a great part.

But he calls you the next morning. And wants to know if you're okay.

And you -- you then start talking to him, about God.

And I was -- I was thinking about this, as I was listening to it. You know, Lincoln said, I wasn't -- I wasn't a Christian.

Even though, he was.

I wasn't a Christian, when I was elected. I wasn't a Christian when my son died.

I became a Christian at Gettysburg.

Is -- is -- I mean, I believe Donald Trump always believes in God, et cetera, et cetera.

Do you think there was a real profound change at Butler with him?

SALENA: Absolutely. You know, he called me seven times that day. Seven times, the take after seven.

GLENN: Crazy.

SALENA: Talked about. And I think he was looking for someone that he knew, that was there. And to try to sort it out.

Right? And I let him do most of the talking. I didn't pressure him.

At all. I believed that he was having -- you know, he was struggling. And he needed to just talk. And I believed my purpose was to listen.

Right? I know other reporters would have handled it differently. And that's okay. That's not the kind of reporter that I am.

And I myself was having my own like, why didn't I die?

Right?

Because it went right over my head.

And -- and so I -- he had the conversation about God.

He's funny. I thought it was the biggest mosquito in the world that hit me.

But he had talked profoundly about purpose. You know, and God.

And how God was in that moment.

It --

GLENN: I love the way you -- in the book, I love the way you said that as he's kind of working it out in his own he head.

He was like, you know, I -- I -- I always knew that there was some sort of, you know -- that God was present.

He said, but now that this has happened.

I look back at all of the trials.

All of the tribulations. Literally, the trials.

All of the things that have happened. And he's like, I realized God was there the whole time.

SALENA: Yes. He does. And it's fascinating to have been that witness to history, to have those conversations with him. Because I'm telling you. And y'all know, I can talk. I didn't say much of anything.

I just -- I just listened. I felt that was my purpose, in that moment.

To give him that space, to work it out.

I'm someone that is, you know, believes in God.

I'm Catholic. I followed my faith.

And -- and so, I thought, well, this is why God put me here. Right?

And to -- to have that -- to hear him talk about purpose, to hear him say, Salena. Why did I put a chart down?

I'm like, sir. I don't know. I thought you were Ross Perot for a second.

He never has a chart. And he laughed. And then he said, why did I put that chart down?

By that term, I never turned my head away from people at the rally. That's true.

That relationship is very transactional. It's very -- they feed off of each other.

It's a very emotive moment when you attend a rally. Because he has a way of talking at a rally. That you believe that you are seeing.

And he said, and I never turn my head away.

I never turn my head away.

Why did I turn my head away?

I don't remember consciously thinking about turning my head away. And then he says to me, that was God, wasn't it?

Yes, sir. It was. It was God.

And he said, that's -- that's why I have a new purpose.

And so, Glenn. I think it's important, when you look at the breadth of what has happened, since he was sworn in.

You see that purpose, every day.

He doesn't let up.

He continues going.

And it brings back to the beginning of the book.

Where you find out, that there was another president that was shot at in Butler.

And that was George Washington. And how different the country would have been, had he died in that moment.

And now think about how different the country would be, had President Trump died in that moment. There would be --

GLENN: We're talking to -- we're talking to Salena Zito. About her new book called Butler. The assassination attempt on President Trump. And it is riveting.

And, you know, it is so good. I wish the press would read it. Because it really explains who we are, who Trump supporters are. Who are, you know, red staters. It is so good at that. She's the best at that.

Is Pam Bondi hiding something? The truth behind the Epstein tape blunder

Glenn Beck makes the case that Attorney General Pam Bondi should resign over her handling of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation - not because of any potential cover-up, but solely because of how incompetent her rollout of the investigation has been.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Okay. I want Pam Bondi fired. I want Pam Bondi fired.

STU: This escalated quickly.

GLENN: And here's why. Here's why. Do you release a tape that is supposed to be the evidence, do you release the tape, and then let the public find out for themselves, that there's an edit in the tape?

STU: That's an excusable mistake. I mean, I don't know that she did it, I guess.

GLENN: You know what, it could have been just a digital jump in the tape.

It's a minute lost. Okay?

So let's just say -- let's just give them every benefit of the doubt, and say, it was just a digital jump in the tape.

Okay?

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Do you not put an intern on it, just to say, watch the clock!

And make sure there's no jumps or edit in the tape.

Because we know.

STU: Everyone is going to watch.

GLENN: 300 million people will be watching it. And somebody will take the time to watch the clock.

So watch the clock.

Is every minute accounted for? You didn't do that? You didn't do that.

STU: I think you can pretty easily say, that if you wanted to, right?

And your goal was -- you wanted to edit out -- it would be very easy to edit in a minute of footage.

GLENN: Correct.

STU: And that no one knows. Just make the clock continuous.

GLENN: Correct.

STU: It would be clear.

If you were trying to cover that, it would be --

GLENN: This is incompetence.

STU: However, highlighting your point to incompetence. At the very least, if you have a jump, you say at the beginning. There's an error at this point.

This is -- we know this is there.

You know, the fact that you release it as proof without acknowledging that minute is -- I just don't understand how you can make a mistake like that.

When your goal here is supposedly to put everyone's mind at ease.

I don't know. I don't know.

But there's more to it, than that.

GLENN: Hang on just a second.

Let me go back to before we leave. Just this one.

Remember when I said yesterday, your wife finds receipts for you buying presents at Tiffany's that she never got.

That, you know, you were in a hotel that she never came to.

You were -- you were not coming home for dinner. You had long weekends and everything else. It doesn't mean you were cheating.

STU: And a traveling jewelry investor.

GLENN: Right. But she -- she should demand the evidence, because it -- you don't want that hanging there. On your relationship.

It will just fester.

Now, you give her the evidence. But then she finds out that, oh. Well, it's the wrong receipt.

It was a -- it was a receipt, you know, that you explained away. But what you -- what you used as proof, was not the same receipt.

You were like, no.

See, honey. This is when we went to the hotel, together.

And she looks at it. And she's like, oh, okay.

And then she has it for a while. And she looks at it.

Like, wait a minute. The date is different on this one. This is not the same receipt.

That's a problem! That's a problem.

And it doesn't mean that he was cheating on you.

It just means. What the hell is going on?

Are you this stupid?

STU: And it would certainly make you have legitimate questions about --

GLENN: It just makes you question things for. Now, if it wasn't for the jump in the tape. And I'm not even going to call it an edit. Because I don't think it was an edit. I think it was jump in the tape. As if the jump in the tape wasn't incompetent enough for you, listen to this one. Jason is here with us.

Hi, Jason.

JASON: Hi, Glenn. What a morning, wow.

GLENN: What a morning it is, wow.

So, Jason, what else have you found?

JASON: Okay. So the more and more we looked at this tape.

I started looking.

It was weird. Because it looked like a janitor's closet.

Door 26.

And you were like, shut up, this is not a janitor's closet. I don't know what this is.

But I was like, I can tell you, there's a woman that looks like a janitor that comes out and supposedly the person that that they're saying is his cell. Which they're not, by the way. This was people on social media was saying, this is his cell.

Was coming out with a trash can.
So I looked around to see, if there was any confirmation of what this cell was.

I found an OIG report from the Justice Department two years ago, that shows the camera angle, and the one camera that was actually working.

So you can see the diagram, and I think we actually have it if you're watching this right now. There's a diagram that shows where this camera is.
It shows where Epstein's cell is. And the big thing that stands out, Glenn, is this camera does not even have eyes on Epstein's cell at all. Like, not at all.

STU: Incredible.
JASON: There's four different wings here. There is a service wing. And that's what we're looking at, with the Door 46.

That's a service entrance, or staff entrance. Now, you can't see on the lower level of Epstein's cell at all.

So this is what it makes it look even crazier for that one minute that's missing.

And I will say -- that okay. Let me just say it this way.

I've spent years and years and years, looking at surveillance and security camera footage as you know, in my previous job.

I've never seen an over one-minute jump right at a time that would be very, very I don't know, just convenient.

I've never seen that before. In all my years looking at these things.

STU: There's no reason. Why would you say that minute would be convenient? You're just saying, that one minute being gone could be convenient.

JASON: It's convenient in this entire time frame.

Based on this camera angel.

It's convenient, that 60 seconds would be great for someone walking across that lower level.

60 seconds would be perfect if you wanted to conceal the fact that someone would have worked across that area. That's why --

GLENN: Here's why -- here's why I didn't buy into this, at first.

Okay. Sixty seconds, to open the door, kill him. And then leave.

Okay?

But look at the diagram. If you look at the diagram, where the camera is, there is a -- just a -- maybe a foot space, where the camera is not able to see. Where there is a door, from the staff area.

Okay?

STU: Are you looking at -- because I think -- it's hard to tell from this.

Are you looking -- is this diagram the top floor or the bottom floor.

Jason, do you have any idea?

JASON: So I think Epstein is on.

STU: The upper floors. Right.

GLENN: Okay. So I'm looking at where the staff area is, okay. See the yellow triangle and the red box, where it's his cell.

STU: Yes.

GLENN: Okay. So there is one way out of the staff area. And it's right below the camera.

STU: Like underneath the floor, essentially, of where the camera is.

GLENN: Yeah. On the floor. If the camera is up on a ceiling. Is that what you -- what -- you're saying.

STU: Yeah. The camera is -- the camera is from on the second floor, shooting down.

And the evidence that they're basically proclaiming here. And this is true.

You know, what Jason is saying, is true.

That you can't see the door of the Epstein cell. What you can see is a common area, that in theory, you would need to cross to get to the cell.

STU: What you're saying, Glenn. The camera does not actually show 100 percent of the potential paths to get there. Right?

JASON: It doesn't.

STU: If you cross right in front of the banister here on the bottom floor.

GLENN: There's no way you will see.

Okay. So wait a minute. I just want to make sure. We are talking about the same thing. If you look at the videotape, it's the white room, down stairs.

Right? And so it's where the garbage can is, down there.

STU: Below that.

GLENN: So Epstein's room would be below the garbage can.

STU: No. Epstein's room, if you look out -- the area that you can see.

And I apologize for radio listeners here that aren't seeing the visual. But I want to make sure we get this right.

There's an open area, where the banister is, and it shows the common area behind it. Right?

If you go on the right side of the common area from our view.

Outside of the view, to the right. Is where the entrance to the cell is.

The stairs up to the cell.

GLENN: So all you have to do. You don't have to cross the floor.

Why do you have to cross the floor? You can go through the door. You can go through the door, and see. And just stay against the wall.

STU: Yeah. I guess, maybe.

And Jason, maybe you know this.

Maybe it's explained somewhere else in the report.

Is it possible that they're saying, all the other entrances, to get to that area, have cameras. So they didn't see anybody walking into those areas.

GLENN: Why wouldn't you show the other --

STU: Right.

GLENN: You know, this is not proof that anybody did anything.

STU: No!

GLENN: This is proof, they're -- Pam Bondi needs to be fired.

Who is rolling this out?

The Little Rascals.

Panky, look, I've got some videotape. What are you doing? This is ridiculous!

This is such absolute incompetence! Incompetence.

STU: It's incredible. The fact that they would release that because I think everybody had the same -- even Jason, as a super-duper skeptic on this, even you had the assumption that what they were saying was, the green doors were the cells, or at least the cell area.

GLENN: Right, that's what I thought.

STU: That's what everyone thought, when they saw it. Now, to be clear, the report, as you pointed out, Jason. Previously had stated in June, this diagram that shows they're talking about the common area.

So that's not like -- but like, they, A, should have been very clear about that. What they're talking about is the common area.

They shouldn't put that in the announcement.

GLENN: Stu, we're going upstairs today.

Okay? To my house. And, you know, I have that balcony, upstairs by the fireplace.

Where you haven't -- like at midnight last night.

Because it's like a day's journey from anywhere.

GLENN: Right. But we're going to go upstairs. And you put a camera, okay? Down into the great room.

STU: Right. You want to recreate it in your house.

GLENN: I do. And I want to show you, I can get to places in the room, as long -- because there's a whole floor.

The balcony shows part, but it doesn't show the door.

I can -- wait until -- I got to prove, that we're going to do this live on YouTube, or something on -- maybe on X today, as soon as we get off the air.

Because I -- this is ridiculous.

STU: It's unbelievable. Again, it doesn't prove that this -- you know, he was killed.

However, it is -- the fact that they're releasing a video that has this many holes to it, to a passing -- again, the person you're trying to make feel better about all of this is someone very interested in the detail of it. Right?

It's not someone who has a passing interest. You're not releasing this to some person who kind of knows who Jeffrey Epstein is. This is intentionally designed to try to push down some weird argument as a conspiracy theory.

GLENN: You're also -- also -- and, you know what, I'm not arguing anything.

I'm arguing this is incompetence.

STU: Yes.

GLENN: I'm not arguing that he killed himself.

Or he didn't kill -- I don't know!

I don't know. I don't know.

But this isn't helping.

You know, not only are you saying, that these people have some interest in it.

Well, you know, these people are interested in the details.

No!

You're releasing it to a bumbling of people, who many of them have the details. But many of them are hostile to what you're saying.

So you better have a buttoned up case.

STU: Right.

GLENN: You better not have anything that they find out later, wait. Wait a minute.

What?

STU: Right. And it could be -- you know, you could make the couple of arguments that you probably could make here.

One, they don't actually care about this. And they're annoyed they have to deal with it.

So they threw it out there.

Terrible incompetence. If that's the truth. That's inexcusable.

The other thing they might argue. And this could be part of it.

There were reports at least, that this got leaked. That this came out essentially earlier than they wanted it to.

So the rollout was not as planned, as they thought it was going to be.

Axios reported this exclusively. Now, it's possible, they linked it to Axios.

It's not exactly a typical location of a Trump leak.

GLENN: Who? The Justice Department, or the FBI? That's what I want to know.

First of all, this administration has no leaks. We just bombed Iran without any leaks.

STU: Yeah. Different -- different wing of the government. Still, I get what you're saying.

GLENN: Yeah, right.

STU: A lot of this has been tight.

But there does seem to be.

You know, there's a lot of big personalities. There's always reported squabbling going on.

Who knows how this was released and who didn't.

That may be true. That part of the rollout was heard.

Right? Because it was released when they were ready. That might be true.

It still doesn't really explain. The video is a video.

They definitely posted it. They posted it like that. They posted it -- they had a memo that explained what the video was, and did not mention anything like that. That mentioned the --

GLENN: That's all you have to do.

Hey, there's a one minute jump. Here's why it's there.

STU: Again, even with that explanation, which would making me happier.

Right? That it's available.

It still wouldn't make a person who believes in this theory.

GLENN: Right. I can tell you -- I can tell you for a fact, nothing is going to satisfy everyone.

STU: Right.

GLENN: But you at least have to try to make the easy things go away.