RADIOMarch 03, 2025

5 Theories to Explain the Epstein Files “Bindergate”

What really happened with the “Epstein Files Phase 1” binder controversy at the White House? Glenn lays out 5 theories that could explain why the full files weren’t released: Was Trump or someone in the administration protecting friends who were on the list? Did Deep State agents in the FBI and SDNY actively withhold the documents, as Attorney General Pam Bond claimed? Is the Trump administration using this controversy to gather support for mass firings at the FBI and SDNY? Was it just a combination of incompetence and people promising too much on Fox News? Or is the Epstein List conspiracy theory just that: a conspiracy theory that we already have the answers to? Glenn, Stu, and Jason Buttrill discuss …

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Jason Buttrill, head of research is in here. Stu Burguiere, our -- our executive producer with the radio program. And we've -- I mean, I talked until I was blue in the face today. Outlining treason. Because I think, if what is being told is happening in the southern district of New York, with the FBI. That is treason! And it should be treated as that. Constitutionally, listen to that case.

You can hear it, if you missed it. Grab the podcast. Wherever you get your podcasts today. So we are talking about the options.

The different options.

STU: What could explain this?

GLENN: That could explain what happened yesterday. So let's start -- the first one was...

STU: The first of three were, there -- Trump is just protecting friends on his list, or someone --

GLENN: I will put a zero on that one.

STU: Then you have the FBI is withholding documents, essentially the Pam Bondi story here is true. Okay?

They're withholding documents. There is really crazy stuff out there. The FBI is withholding it. That's why you don't have it.

Three would be your -- I mean, this is maybe the most -- you're speculative on this one.

That this is sort of a -- a -- a plan.

GLENN: A useful.

No.

A useful -- what was it? Never let a tragedy or crisis go to waste.

STU: Crisis go to waste. Right?

GLENN: This is a crisis that is useful.

STU: Yeah. And they're saying, what we're going to do with that information. Is use it a way we could clean out that office, in way that we couldn't necessarily get away with, if they weren't hiding Epstein documents.

GLENN: Correct.

JAMES: Just a blanket, the FBI is withholding documents, doesn't make sense with Kash Patel as the director. Because he's already seen. If he's gone off these statements. He already has seen it. He knows it. And he's vowed to release it. That has to be knocked off.

GLENN: But if they hold it, they may have moved his access to the information. They may have quartered it in New York.

JAMES: Yeah. And I think that kind of goes towards point three. Because if they know how New York is going to respond on this, that field office. They're just pushing them into the corner to react. How they know they are going to react.

GLENN: Correct. Correct. Correct.

STU: Let me give you a couple of others. And these may be uncomfortable for our side. But I think they should be considered here. Okay? A common, if -- possibility number four, a combination of incompetence, and a bunch of people in really high-profile roles, who say a lot of things on podcasts and Fox news, that sound good on podcasts and Fox news. But don't necessarily have the backing of the facts.

GLENN: Okay. First of all, incompetence. I've not seen this administration act incompetently. So it would be the first act of incompetence that I have seen, I think of any note, in the first, you know, whatever. Forty days.

STU: There's bits and pieces. Generally speaking.

GLENN: There's nothing.

This is a major problem, if -- if that was true.

STU: But -- go ahead.

GLENN: However, on that.

I -- I don't know anybody in this administration, that is part of this. That would be Kash Patel. J.D. Vance.

STU: Pam Bondi.

GLENN: President. And Pam Bondi. The only one that I can't vouch for, that would write -- would write checks with their mouth.

STU: Oh.

GLENN: You know what I mean? Can't be cashed.

Is Pam Bondi. Only because I don't know her. Doesn't mean she's not like that. I just don't know her.

STU: I'm not saying I necessarily think this is the end of the story. Let me just push back on that gently. Kash Patel also said on day one, he was going to close the FBI office and turn it into a museum for the Deep State. As far as I know, it's not occurred. That's a Donald Trump thing.

STU: And because you're saying it's a Donald Trump thing, I must also bring up that Donald Trump also says a lot of things. And he says things that sound great on podcast, and sometimes they're negotiation tactics or whatever. But he often does that.

There's a lot of overpromising, from some of the people he has put in these positions. That is, I think inarguable.

GLENN: That would leave me to believe that it's option three. That there is a method behind the madness. When Donald Trump says those crazy things, usually because it's negotiating or positioning something you don't understand.

And that's what number three is.

This is a well-executed op, that is made for people to think one thing, but it's actually setting up -- it's like his negotiation for trade barriers.

STU: Yeah. Yeah. That's possible. Right?

What's interesting, I think. And you point out the incompetence. To pause on that for a second.

With the exception of number three, which to remind people, is this sort of idea.

Using this as a precursor to go into the Deep State.

GLENN: A useful crisis.

STU: Yes. Every other option has to have incompetence included in it because of the way they sold it.

She was on TV the night before, saying it was going to be this dramatic thing. And then the next day, she said, they didn't send me the documents. That's a terrible way to talk about that publicly.

At the very least it's bad messaging. And bad --

GLENN: Correct. And that is why I hesitate on any of this.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Because -- and I specifically say, I would think the weak link here would be Pam. A, because I don't know her. But, B, I saw that live.

I saw her say that live. And it felt weird. I'm like, that's weird.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: You know what I mean?

STU: She didn't seem all that comfortable saying it. To me, looking at her. She didn't feel like, I know exactly what's coming here.

It felt like it was a big promise.

It was the opposite of what you have told me, seven million times. Never overpromise and underdeliver. You always underpromise and overdeliver.

GLENN: You never do what she just did.

STU: Right! Because it gets people pissed off. So, again, I don't know if that's true. But that needs to be at least the discussion here.

JAMES: She immediately deflected. They immediately deflected because they knew there was going to be outrage on this, because it's one of our main issues on the base is the Epstein files.

GLENN: Yes.

JAMES: She immediately directed all that rage towards one specific point, New York.

STU: Benefit.

JAMES: There's only two reasons to do that. One, to deflect.

STU: To deflect. Which would work with the one that I described.

JAMES: Two, to set off point three.

STU: True.

GLENN: And I think, I'm hoping, because I don't know Pam. But I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt. I mean, she was the attorney general with Florida, with Ron DeSantis. I mean, he's not an idiot when it comes to law.

He won't have an idiot attorney general. But I -- can I -- I tend to think it's number three.

STU: Anyway, can I give you one more. I have one more here.

What if

GLENN: What if.

STU: Just throwing this out here.

GLENN: All right.

STU: What if the truth is, that not every famous person we know has sex with children.

I'm just throwing it out there as a possibility.

What if the Jeffrey Epstein story is a wide-ranging conspiracy of Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, Prince Andrew, several others. Doing all sorts of terrible things. But maybe we kind of know all of it already. Maybe there isn't that much left for us to uncover. And they're not -- we're not going to find.

GLENN: Not with 250 victims.

STU: I --

JAMES: Not with the CIA director going to meet him twice. I think that's kind of a big thing as well.

GLENN: I just --

STU: It's possible. So you don't think there's any -- because we knew about what?

70 victims, or so?

That just in the initial 2018 reporting.

So 250 is a high number. But it's not absolutely absurd. That that --

GLENN: All we heard is what he did.

We have not necessarily heard what others have done.

And we --

STU: But we have heard a lot of that. We have heard a lot --

GLENN: Why haven't they been prosecuted then?

STU: For example. Some people have been accused. And they've withdrawn their accusations. Think of how central, to bring up a friend of the program.

Who was on here, often.

Alan Dershowitz was on this case.

He was one of these guys who did all these things according to the accusations.

Then the girl. The woman now, who came out -- who accused him all this time. Said, maybe it wasn't him.

Like, maybe it -- maybe a lot of these people that were tied into this. Had connections with him.

But really, we don't have videos of them having sex with 14-year-olds. Maybe that's not the reality.

GLENN: You know what? I find that more implausible, and this is saying something!

STU: Yeah. Yeah.

GLENN: Because this is one that really just bothers me like crazy.

I find that more implausible, than we just didn't go to the moon.

JAMES: What! Wow!

GLENN: I think we just didn't go to the moon is more likely than that one.

STU: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Come on! We have a ton of people are known. We know. With incredible, line by line detail.

What that man did, in multiple different areas. We know a lot about this case.

And the fact that we have not uncovered that Bill Gates did it.

You know --

GLENN: Where is anyone that went to jail, other than those two?

STU: I mean, I would have to go back and look at it. I don't think there's been many. Not a lot of high profile people. That's what I'm saying.

Maybe -- maybe just maybe. I know --

GLENN: We staged the moon landing.

STU: I know. Maybe.

Like, I -- and this is, by the way, the best option for all of us. I will point out. The best option for all of us.

GLENN: I did. When you said it, I said, immediately, moon landing.

And then I thought to myself, wow. Am I that jaded. That I dismissed the happy option?

As no way!

JAMES: Okay.

STU: Hold on. Let me finish my point, real quick. Real quick. Maybe it's possible that, you know, wanting to -- the desire to have sex with underage children is a little bit more rare than we believed.

And that would be great information.

Maybe not every rich and powerful person is doing this.

And I know there's a lot invested in that theory.

But to just go off of this for just a second.

We have had multiple politicians.

GLENN: Go ahead. Go ahead.

STU: Multiple sides.

By the way, as we've been told. And talked about, many of our people believe.

That Donald Trump, the ultimate truth teller on this stuff. Right?

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

STU: And he's been president twice through this period. And every time we're promised it. They can't come up with it. So it could be that there's some mass conspiracy hiding it. Or maybe. Just maybe. It's not there in the way that we believe it is. Maybe just maybe. It's a little bit less sexy, and that's a weird word to use there.

Salacious, I suppose.

GLENN: Yeah, that would be great.

STU: It would be.

GLENN: It would be great.

STU: Again, I think it should be discussed. I'm not saying this, necessarily.

GLENN: Well, let's -- let's. You know what, let's get on to the moon landing set, and we can talk about it.

JAMES: I've not seen it floated around a lot, and especially yesterday on X. I spent years doing intelligence. Actual intelligence operations. I'm going to go on full-on conspiracy theory here. I've seen how misinformation. Disinformation works.

I was warning people, that once information started coming out. Listing random names. Like, oh, my God.

Let's tie every single name to Epstein. That was a big op.

She was not involved. Oh, look.

Rihanna was at a party. She was on the list. Well, no. She's not. She could be eventually. I don't know. She's not on the list. Just because she was there. Some random person was there.

STU: Right.

GLENN: And just because you were invited there. Just because you flew on his plane.

Does not mean that you were part of that.

STU: Right.

GLENN: However, the way he made that kind of into his bread and butter, leads me to believe there are many more people involved.

JAMES: It might have been nap that is a big distraction. That is to blow it up to make it look like it's a vast right-wing conspiracy. To hide the fact what was going on. What was going on?

I don't know. But we know that members of the royal family were involved. We know. I'll say this again. That the CIA director!

At least twice! Went to meet with Jeffrey Epstein. He does not do that on some random dude that they have charged for a crime that didn't exist. Why would the CIA director meet with Jeffrey Epstein?

STU: I don't know. I mean --

GLENN: That doesn't happen!

STU: Yeah. I would agree. It could be very well, they were looking at something. And there could be more.

Let's say. Prince Andrew, would be a pretty big thing for them to look at. We know, at least allegedly, he denies this. He was involved in some of this stuff. Right.

So, but -- and there could be five -- ten other names. Saudi Arabian kings.

GLENN: Right. Right.

STU: Who knows. I'm just saying, maybe it's not where we -- where the biggest version of it is.

GLENN: I think that would be great. Here's the only thing that I think we can walk away, we know to be true.

STU: Yeah, you're a jerk. I know what's coming. I'm going to say, I was involved in the list.

I'm not going to let you get away with it.

GLENN: You Stu was on the list.

JAMES: We see what's going on, Stu.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

Dershowitz exposes Epstein narrative: The untold story revealed

Glenn Beck sits down with Alan Dershowitz, Jeffrey Epstein’s former lawyer, to dive into the explosive controversy surrounding the Epstein list and the unanswered questions the public still demands. Dershowitz reveals why the narrative around Epstein has been twisted, why there may never be a “client list” as people imagine, and why he believes every single document must be released. From shocking accusations, false claims, and media manipulation to the deeper truth about who knew what, this conversation pulls no punches. Is the public finally ready to see everything?

Watch Glenn Beck's FULL Interview with Alan Dershowitz HERE

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

Glenn Beck and Max Lucado discuss end times

Glenn Beck sits down with pastor and author Max Lucado to break down the shocking signs of prophecy that seem to be unfolding right before our eyes. From global deception, political turmoil, and persecution of Christians to the rise of immorality and cultural chaos, the warnings Jesus gave in the Olivet Discourse sound eerily similar to today’s headlines. Max Lucado explains the “super sign” that marks the beginning of the end, why the darkness seems to be growing stronger, and how believers should respond with faith and hope rather than fear. This is a sobering yet encouraging reminder to stay awake, stay faithful, and recognize the times in which we live.

Watch Glenn Beck's FULL Interview with Max Lucado HERE

Mother admits she prefers AI over her DAUGHTER?!

Glenn Beck gives his thoughts on a story he read where an older mother admitted to liking her AI “companion” more than her daughter: “My first thought was, ‘we can’t do this! We’re going to lose our humanity'…and then as I was thinking about this, I thought, ‘maybe we have already lost our humanity…’”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So I read this story from CBS News, a couple of days ago. And I -- I jotted down some thoughts, that I want to share with you.

But I honestly, up until this morning. I didn't know if I was going to share these thoughts with you. Because I don't know.

I'm in this really unique place right now. Where I -- start. Here's my first thought on this.

My first thought on this was, she found a new companion. You know who the new companion is? AI? AI. She spends, I spend five hours a day with my new companion, and we play games. We do trivia. We just talk. And I like her more than my daughter.

Wow!

So my first thought was, this has got to stop. We can't -- we can't do this. We cannot allow -- we're losing our humanity. That's what -- we are going to lose our humanity!

And then as I was thinking about this, and what I wanted to share with you, I thought, gosh. Maybe we've already lost our humanity. In a different way. In a different way. And then I just started going down this rabbit hole about me. You know, who are you to say any of this stuff?

I'm in a weird prays right now. It's a good place. But it's a weird place.

You know, this isn't ideal that she's found a companion.

And I want to say, we have to stop this.

But then, what do you replace it with?

Then we just have this old woman at home, by herself, rotting away, not talking to anybody?

Have we lost our humanity? My thought was, what have I done to exercise my humanity? Instead of just getting on the radio and just going, blah, blah. You know what you should do? You know what we should do? And then not doing any of it.

What am I actually doing to close the distance between knowing and doing?

Very little. Very little.

Because we do know. We know what the intellectually, spiritually, we know exactly what we should do. We know what Jesus would do. What would Jesus do?

He would stop. He would notice the old lady. He would sit down. He would eat with her. He would chat with her. He would spend time. He touched the untouchable. He didn't outsource compassion.

He didn't like, you know what. Yeah. She's -- let her have the AI thing.

He wouldn't have done that. He made room.

And so I started thinking, and this is why I didn't want to share this necessarily with you. Because, I mean, I don't know if you can relate to this.

But why don't we do this all the time.

Because, really in the end, this is the kind of stuff -- this is the only stuff that matters. This is the only stuff that matters.

Human connection.

And I am so bad at that, in many ways. Look, my best friend, has always been this. I started this, when I was 13 years old. And I could tell, this, anything. And it never rejected me.

And it became my best friend. But in that, my relationship is with this. Which, in a way, turned into a relationship with you. When I was a kid, I was just in a room by myself. And I was just yapping.

But now, I feel like, I know you.

But I get so -- I just -- I -- I don't know.

Sometimes, if you ever feel like there's a hole, in you.

That you're missing something. That you're like, I think I'm missing a piece. That other people have, you know what I mean? Because at times, there is something that keeps us from doing the most human things. And I think part of that is fear. And this is something that goes not just to the elderly, but it goes to you, and it also goes to our kids. Look, why are we -- why are we embracing fake AI friends, and talking to them, and everything else? Why are our kids on social media?

Because real face-to-face stuff, real kindness, is really risky.

It's really risky. If I step into your loneliness, it means, I have to feel my own loneliness.

You know.

Give me a sec.

Hey, how are you? You don't really want an answer. You don't want an answer. So we all say the same thing: Fine. I'm pretty good.

You're not. You're not really fine. You're not pretty good. You might be having a great day. You might be having a horrible day. But you'll say, fine. Pretty good.

And you're doing it out of a courtesy. Because you know when you ask the question, you don't want somebody to say, you know. I'm really struggling right now.

Because then you're like, oh, dear God. I've got to stop my day and sit down and talk to you. I didn't really want to know.

I -- I don't have time for this. You know what I mean?

We -- we stop being human, and we just play this little game. Because I don't want to have to rearrange my afternoon. I'm really busy.

So we -- we keep that risk, at arm's length.

And now we're eliminating it!

Because AI is always fine.

Machines never cry. They never ask for a ride to the doctor, or to the airport.

You don't have to sit with them, after -- you know, I'm waiting for some test results to come in. Would you sit with had he.

No. It doesn't have to.

It will sit with you, because it has nothing else to do.

It's part of -- we bury this human part of us, because of convenience. And it's weird.

Because our economy makes everything easy. Except, all the things that actually matter. Because I don't know if you can make those easy.

You know, we can get groceries, in an hour.

Get them delivered. I used to saw somebody -- is it Walmart or Costco? Somebody is delivering things by drone now.

Just dropping it in your backyard. I mean, wow. I mean, you can get anything. Movies in seconds. Opinions in a second. But friendships? Actual friendships? They're slow!

They're in inefficient. They're messy.

It's -- it happens in the blank space between the calendar blocks. The -- the spaces that we're -- we all have learned to hate, I guess.

We've optimized our life, to the point where love and -- falling in love, all that. Is like a bug in the system. And part of it is habit as well.

Fear and habit. I mean, our kids know, the non-stop playing on the gaming. The endless scroll, it's just hallowing out inside. They know that. They know.

But the loop is sticky. It was geared to be sticky. The short hit of engagement, you know.
Beats the slow growth of a relationship.

And I think we're all becoming experts at something that we should just at least notice. And that is, we are all experts at almost connecting.
I'm almost connected. How are you?
I'm not having a good day.

Is there anything I can do?

No. Okay. I'm almost connected.

The other part is pain. That stops us from being human, I think.

I mean, I'm a recovering alcoholic. And, boy, I know this one.

I know the hard truth.

We will not change. We can be in pain. But we will not change, until the pain becomes absolutely unbearable!

I went to -- I went to a store, to look at a bike the other day. And I sent a picture of this bike to my wife, and she said, I don't know who has my husband's phone.

But where is he?

Because I'm not going to do that -- I'm not going to -- I'm not riding a bike. I'm not riding a bike. God wouldn't let us invent cars. Okay?

The bikes.

She came home one day. And I was swimming in the pool. She was like, what is happening to you?

And I'm like, my back is killing me so bad. I've got to exercise.

Okay!

Well, that's -- at 61, that's a genius move.

Finally!

Until the pain becomes unbearable, until the comfort of staying the same is more painful than the cost of change, we don't do it.

You know, real question on AI is: With AI, will we -- will we feel the real pain that it is going to cause humanity soon enough, to change?

Or does the machine just soften the edges, just enough, that we just adapt downward? You know, just -- they're lowering the temperature, a few degrees at a time.

You never notice the temperature drop. It's just slowly.

That's the danger. That's the real danger.

Not that a chat bot runs your life.

But it -- it makes a diminished life, tolerable.

It's an anesthesia. Let's just sleep a little bit.

An imitation of companionship. That never asks for anything in return.

And never interrupts.

You know, she probably likes it more than her daughters. Because her daughter probably has edges, she doesn't like. The AI will get rid of all those edges.

And if we're not careful, the lonely will not just be alone.

They'll be alone with an elegant coping mechanism.

So, yeah. I -- I want -- I want to warn the line of humanity being blurred.

I'm going to argue.

And you'll hear a lot of this.

Personhood. Personhood is really critical, that we pay attention to this.

Presence.

Really important.
But that's only really half of the sermon, given by the man that's least qualified to preach to you. The other -- the other half is -- is a question.

Is THIS the Left’s new “1619 Project”?

The New York Times recently published an op-ed titled, “Abolish the Senate. End the Electoral College. Pack the Court.” This article calls for “a new Constitution” that would change the very fabric of the Founding Fathers’ vision for America, akin to how the 1619 Project tried to rewrite America’s history. Glenn Beck explains how our governmental system works and why it’s a much better option than direct democracy.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: All right. This is such an amazing story. That is coming now, from the left. And the New York Times. On let's -- let's change the Constitution.

Let's change. You want to give me a quick. I just lost the story. Can you give me a quick update on this one?

JASON: The title of this. Well, kind of like you hinted. Speaks for itself.

The title is this: Abolish the Senate in the electoral college, and pack the court. It's a discussion on what -- I mean, it's almost like they're doing a 1619 Project.

GLENN: No.

STU: But instead of focusing on that, now they're trying to change the history of why the Founders created our government the way they did.

And it's a complete abomination. I mean, the Founders pretty much saw government as an evil. A necessary evil. But they did everything in their power to limit it as much as they could.

Now, this -- this article, this opinion.

Whatever it is. Seems to argue, exactly the opposite.

What's really amazing to me, they actually have the balls, to mention things like the Federalist papers.

And then turn around and then title this thing, in the electoral college.

I mean, it's argued specifically, not only the need for an electoral college.

But why!

GLENN: So you know, what's amazing to me, they make several points in this article, where they are like -- the electoral college.

Trying to say, it's only a democracy, if we have no electoral college.

Well, we're not -- we're not a democracy.

We are a republic.

And democracies fail every single time.

There is no such thing as a true democracy.

Where everybody is voting on every -- you know, on every item.

They fail every time!

You have a democracy. And the reason why the left likes it.

Is because you can convince. Look at New York.

You can convince people of something like communism. And then that's the last election, that you will have, in country after country. That's what happens.

The people are voting -- you know, they vote in. And they're like, you know what, this is the answer to all of our problems.

This is the answer to cancer.

And then you don't have another vote again. You don't -- you don't have it.

You don't have the republic. First of all, you can't vote on every single thing!

You can't.

Because you don't know all the ins and outs of everything.

So you have to elect somebody, that is as close to you, as possible.

And you elect them, first, in the House.

Of representatives.

The House of Representatives. The reason why there's only a two-year term on those guys, is because that's the closest to you. The Congress is the one that is supposed to control the purse strings.

But that's not try anymore.

You want to know why our spending is out of control?

Because Congress no longer does its job.

Congress no longer controls the purse strings.

So they've given that up, because they haven't done a budget or anything else. And nobody is holding anybody responsible for the spending. What you're supposed to do is every two years, when they get out of control on spending, you can vote them out with, and say, nope. Don't want any of that. It's the closest to the people. That's why they have to run every two years.

Then the Senate, which the progressives have already changed, and he makes a case in here, again, in the New York Times' editorial, that we're not -- we haven't done enough to the Senate. In 1913, the -- the progressives, under Wilson, they decide, they're going to change the Senate from the way it was originally, in the Constitution.

The way the Founders did it, was remember, they want the people.

But they also were really concerned about the federal government.

So they wanted the states to make sure the states were represented.

So no -- everyone knew that no -- Texas is not going to vote for something, because New York wants it, and it's not good for Texas.

If Texans are elected by the state, they only represent the state. Right now, you have Chuck Schumer. Why does he raise money in California?

Why does he -- why are these people running around, even on our side, all around the country? Why do we care? Here's why we care: Because they no longer represent the state. It's just another higher level, I guess, of Congress.

We already have that body. Now we're supposed to have something that protects the individual states.

Well, the progressives didn't like that.

Because they need a democracy.

And they want an all-powerful federal government. And so, they abolish that from the Constitution. And the 17th amendment changed the way that we vote for senators.

So they've already screwed it up once. This is what progressives always do. They'll fix health care. And then they'll say, and it's so broken. Now it's even worse. So let's fix it again.

No, you guys should be left out of it. Okay?

You guys should not be fixing anything. Because you don't know your butt from your elbow. So they're already changing that. Now they're saying, that that has to be changed even more. Because it's not representative.

Well, no. Because it's supposed to equalize.

The reason why we have 400 -- what is it? 434 representative, it's more than that now. That number changes, as our population grows.

So the population grows. You get in your area, you'll get more Congress people. Because it represents the people.

The Senate only has two senators, from Delaware, or California.

And this article is saying, that's not fair. Because there's more people in California, than there are in Delaware.

Well, if you do that, then you completely erase the states. Then Delaware, Wyoming, Idaho.

All of these other states that have small populations, the only ones that matter, will be California, Texas, New York, Florida.

That's it. They'll make all the decisions. Now, you in Nebraska, do you want New York and California and even Texas, making all the decisions for you?

Of course not.

Of course not.

That's why the Senate has two senators.

Not 50 senators for California.

Two, the same as your state. They've already undercut the -- the state power, one time.
Now they want to cut it, completely! And make it into another representative body of the people.

That's not what it was for. They knew that Congress would react quickly. The House of representatives would be so connected to the people, that they would act quickly.

And they could do really stupid things, because when there's a panic, these elected officials want to move, because their constituents are yelling at them!

And it wouldn't necessarily be the right thing. So they wanted to balance that, with the state power!

The state, those senators, were elected by the legislators, in that state.

Which I don't love!

But it might bring things back into play, where we don't care about Chuck Schumer anymore.

Unless you live in New York.

You only care about your senator!

Because they were the balance, from the public saying, we've got to put the Patriot Act in!

No.

The Senate should be able to say, no. That takes power away from the states, and gives an all-consuming federal government, all kinds of power to them. No! And then when those two houses, both the state, and the peoples living in the states, could agree, then it goes to the president. And the president is only supposed to veto when he feels it's unconstitutional.

Not because he doesn't like it. Not because his party tells him. But because it's unconstitutional. You don't have the power to do that. However, Congress can say, Mr. President, I'm sorry. You're wrong. And they can with, three-fourths, they can vote again and pass it in the House, with three-fourths.

Or they can take it to the Supreme Court.

And the Supreme Court is only supposed to decide whether it's constitutional.

Look at the damage that the left and the progressives have done, to this system.

It was brilliant. The powers in the House, with the people. The power -- they always say, when there's a problem: Follow the money, right?

The money is the power. So they've taken that power, to create laws, and given it to the executive branch, the presidential branch. They stopped doing passing a budget. We haven't had a budget since George Bush. They stopped passing a budget.

So they have no real power left in them, anymore. Then they gutted the state, with the -- the Senate. And then, they made the president, they made him into the -- the veto power into whatever his party says.

They've completely revamped this thing.

Already!

And it's not working. Why?

Because they've bastardized it.

If the president -- they can't get it done in the House. They can't get it done in the Senate. And have and they can't get it done by the president.

Then they've expanded the power of the Supreme Court.

And now the Supreme Court can legislate from the bench.

They can say, well, you know what, I think what they meant was this!

No. That's not your job.

That's not your job.

Your job is to say, this is constitutional. This is not constitutional.

To give you an idea of how weak the Supreme Court was supposed to be, when the designers of the Capitol put together the three branches of government, they -- they didn't include a space for the Supreme Court.

You know where the Supreme Court, until FDR.

The Supreme Court used to meet in the basement of the Capitol! They didn't have any space. They had the basement of the Capitol.

But FDR wanted to make sure that the Supreme Court could rule the country. And if he couldn't get it passed in the House and the Senate, he'd get it through the Supreme Court. That's why he put them on a pedestal. And that's why he tried, exactly what this article is saying, to do. Pack the Supreme Court!

What does that mean? That means: What we're going to do here is, we're just going to load up on Supreme Court justices. We have nine Supreme Court justices. That's not in the Constitution.

You can have seven. You can have 12. It's not in the Constitution.

But our tradition is, there has been nine Supreme Court justices.

So we all accept that. When you start -- imagine, lefties, how would you feel if Donald Trump said, we're going to pack the Supreme Court? I'm going to add five more Supreme Court justices right now.

What would you do? What would you do? You would lose your mind!

Why? Because you know he would pack it with the people that would just agree with him!

That's not what the Supreme Court is supposed to do.

That's why, if Donald Trump said he was going to pack the Supreme Court, I would be against it, and I would be a leading opposition voice of Donald Trump, on that. If that's what he wanted to do.

But you're suggesting that, as something that would be good for the country.

It would not be good for the country!

And, by the way, once you have packed the Supreme Court, you get up -- there's some countries that have 47 Supreme Court justices.

They just keep putting them in. Until they can absolutely control it.

Once you pack a Supreme Court, you destroy the country.

That is the last gasp of a republic. Or of a country.

You pack the Supreme Court.

So they've changed absolutely everything. And in this op-ed, he's also suggesting, that, you know. Another thing we should do is we should just add states.

Let me just add states.

We'll just keep adding states. Again, packing the Senate. What? What? When you say, we want to -- what is the thing, they want to reimagine America? Refound America.

You're not refounding it. You're working on something completely different. That's not America.

JASON: Yeah, the other headline on the main headline is why the left can't win.

I'm adding my own ellipses here. Dot, dot, dot, without a new Constitution. That's how radically they're thinking on this. Just insane.

GLENN: I mean, it -- but it's true!

They don't like the outcome. They don't like the fact that they almost had us. They almost had us. They have -- they have taken and twisted education. They took and twisted the media. They made the -- all -- just groups that are marching at their orders.

Teaching, and using propaganda. And brainwashing techniques. To teach these twisted views. And then reinforce them in the media.

They had that. It wasn't enough!

Before, they had music. They had the movies.

It wasn't enough.

They just keep gobbling and gobbling and gobbling.

And the reason why they're out at this point, is because we're on to them.

They figured it out. The people will always -- you know, we -- we will always be late, but we'll always figure it out. And then we'll do the right thing.

They're trying to take away all of the escape doors. All of the exit doors. They're trying to lock them all down, so you can't get out of this nightmare hell house, that they're building for us.