RADIOJune 14, 2022

This SCOTUS case could MASSIVELY alter far-left strategy

It’s decision time for the U.S. Supreme Court, with 29 opinions expected to be delivered from the SCOTUS justices in the next few weeks. No major decisions (like Roe v. Wade for example) have been announced yet, but there is one case that Glenn says could ‘change everything.’ Glenn and Stu discuss the climate change case that centers on the EPA’s authority, and they explain how it could drastically alter the far-left’s current strategy to use powerful, federal agencies to bypass Congress.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Welcome to the Glenn Beck Program. We are so glad you're here. It is Monday. And we have some Supreme Court hearings -- or, opinions come out. So far, nothing real controversial or real important. I mean, they're -- they're all important. It's just an honor to be nominated to be an opinion of the Supreme Court.

(laughter)

GLENN: But nothing that is controversial. That we know of. So far. Has the fourth one come down yet?

STU: Yeah. We have on an Alito opinion. Everybody get excited. It's in the Garland versus Gonzalez case. So not the Dobbs case, that would affect Roe vs. Wade. Which is kind of the Alito case we're looking for.

GLENN: So the Gonzalez case?

STU: Yeah. Huge one. So immigration law again.

GLENN: What was -- wait a minute. This was the immigration law one?

STU: Not the one about the remain in Mexico provision, which is one of the bigger cases that we're looking for in this session. However, it's not that one. We're getting multiple other unrelated immigration law decisions. Which, again, there's 29 of these. The American people, generally speaking, care -- care about maybe five or six of them. We talked about the abortion one. Which is obviously the biggest ticket. The gun -- the Second Amendment case, we talked about as well, which is another big ticket item. There's a big climate change one, decision that we expect here soon. Which is about whether the federal government. This is a big one. If you want to go back and listen to Glenn's interview with Mike Lee, you guys probably hit on this, certainly concept. I do remember that. But I don't know if you mentioned this one specifically. But basically, the idea is, do these administrative agencies get to make up all of these rules, or does Congress have to do it? And, of course, Congress has to do it. We've just developed this new policy, to say, what if Congress makes the decision? And they say, our decision is that the administrative hedge to make all these decisions for us. And that's the way our countries run right now.

GLENN: This is game-changing. If the Supreme Court comes out, it's my understanding, you know, we should have Mike Lee on every day this week. Just have him in reserve just in case. But it's my understanding that if the Supreme Court says they can't just fiddle with this. That laws have to be made by Congress. And I don't know how the constitutional Supreme Court wouldn't find that, seeing as though it actually says in the Constitution, those words. That Congress makes the laws. Not the administration. If that happens. That changes everything. Really, truly, everything.

STU: Yeah. It's like, you know, if somebody said -- you know, our overlords said, Stu, you have to make a decision. And I said, I will make the decision. And my decision is Glenn should decide. That is obviously not the --

GLENN: I've been in meetings. I believe I've been in meetings, where that has been happened.

STU: We're not -- we're not affected by the Constitution at this company. I can do whatever I want.

GLENN: We're not. Stu, I need a decision from you. My decision is, Glenn, that you are to make that decision. Oh, thank you. Okay. Good.

STU: I just learned from the government. But that's obviously a problem. And when it comes to climate in this particular case, it's about whether these administrations. Like the EPA can put all these restrictions on power plants, in -- en masse. Like, basically, oh, all these power plants have all this rule. Instead of actually regulating each individual one. This would be a huge knock in the way leftist activists would make changes based on their climate change theories. So that is a big one.

GLENN: And it -- yeah. It also would go to, for instance, can the CDC. Was it the CDC that just said, everybody has to wear masks. No. You don't have the right to do that. You don't make those kinds of laws. Was it the CDC? Or, which one?

STU: Technically, they didn't say that. They had a recommendation that said that. Because we are protected. Because we have a structure of government, that protects us from agencies making those sorts of regulations on their own. They can't just put a national regulation to enforce masks. If you go back and look at the details. Even of the shutdowns, Glenn. I mean, the shutdowns -- everybody remembers a shutdown as this big federal shutdown. They remember Donald Trump in front of the country saying, 15 days to slow the spread. Everybody remembers that press conference. But at no point, was there of law behind every state you need to shut down. And you remember states like -- like South Dakota. And Iowa. Not doing it. They didn't -- they didn't do that. A lot of people decided to stay home, on their own. But there was not a nationwide shutdown at any point during the pandemic. That actually didn't happen. And so that's because of the structure of our country. Right? That is foundational to why we've been a success. Because these states are able to do different things, whether we like them or not. And so the left would love this to be centralized. They just, of course, don't have that right.

GLENN: If you remember, however, when it comes to Obamacare, do you remember reading that? Because that's the one bill where I think we all read all 3,000 pages or whatever. Oh, my gosh. And do you remember how many times almost on every page, it said, the secretary shall make the laws or the rulings on X, Y, and Z.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And the reason why Congress has done this, is because they want to go, it's not us. It's not us. We didn't make that law. I don't have any control over that law. And our Founders -- the one thing they did miss is they thought that human beings, because this is the way it normally works. Human beings would claw for power. And so they think and broke the powers up, between these three branches. Thinking, that they would never give away their power to the Supreme Court. Or to the administration. The administration would never give it to Congress or the Supreme Court. But they're all such weasels, that they don't want to actually do anything. They don't want to make any hard decisions. And so they're all like, yeah. Let some faceless, nameless bureaucrat, that's never been elected to dogcatcher. Let him make the decision. That way, we can go, I don't know who made that decision. That's weird. We didn't make it. It was somebody in the EPA. You'll never know their name. Okay. That's not the way it's supposed to work.

STU: Yeah. No. It's not. You're supposed to be able to hold people accountable for the terrible things that they do. This is something the government does all the time. Unfortunately, no matter what this ruling is, it will not unwind all that craziness. It will at least limit the environmental activist sort of agenda, on this approach. And that would -- that would be certainly positive. It does look like, we will not get the huge, big ticket cases, today.

GLENN: I wouldn't think we would.

STU: Yeah. It would have been very surprising, if we did get that. It does not look like -- it looks like there will be one more coming down. But it will not be one of the big ones. So I think we'll get more decisions on Wednesday this week. Who honestly would know though?

GLENN: Yeah. We do.

STU: I feel like they changed these rules every ten seconds. As you point out, in the case of Obamacare, which also broke in the middle of the show. Every news agency, reported that wrong, when that happened. If you were listening to any radio show. Any news broadcast. You thought initially Obamacare was completely overturned. And I -- we were the only ones who actually got that right when it happened. Because everybody was --

GLENN: We were like, wait a minute. Hold on just a second.

STU: Yeah. They skipped to the bottom. And looked at the names. And were like, okay. It must be this. And we went through that, as quick as possible, live on the air. And say, wait a minute. That's not what this says. Everybody is reporting, it got overturned. It didn't. The Medicare point of that, was kind of a false, you know, was a juke to one side. And everyone bought that. And wound up flat on their face that day.

GLENN: Well, also, I think we learned our lesson. If John Roberts wrote the decision. It doesn't mean it went for the conservatives. You better spend a lot of time, looking at every word, that he wrote. I just made the same mistake, kind of. I said, oh, it's Amy Coney Barrett. And so it must be for the -- the -- the conservatives. That's not always true. And that's what people do real quick, while they're on the air, like I did. But hopefully, she's pretty solid. John Roberts, I -- I mean, he's even -- is he anything other than a politician, at this point? I wouldn't call him a liberal. I wouldn't call him a conservative. I would call him a politician.

STU: It seems to be what he sees his job as. He sees his job as head PR operative for the Supreme Court. Like, how do we make people like us more? How do we keep our reputation strong? Well, how about just looking at the damn Constitution, and making an honest decision.

GLENN: Right. During the podcast with Mike Lee. We talked about that. And he said, John Roberts is a direct product of the FDR packing the courts. He said, the chief justice at the time, that was a constitutionalist. And was voting for the Constitution, he said, he suddenly started voting with the administration. And he was doing it, because he didn't want anymore attacks on the Supreme Court. He thought that that would hurt things. And that is exactly what, you know, he -- John Roberts is a legacy. He is sitting as the guy running the Supreme Court. And he feels his job is to make sure that nobody attacks the institution even more. And I will tell you, the way to get attacked, the way to discredit the institution, is to start veering from your path constitutionally. And that was the really big problem with -- with Obamacare's decision. He actually rewrote the law from the bench. The -- the best that the Supreme Court can do, is say, look, this is wrong. And if it was written this way, it wouldn't be. And then send it back to Congress. Basically telling them, wink, wink, nod, nod. You know, we -- we -- we can't pass this. But you can change this, this, and this. It's like, you know, you're turning in a test paper, and the teacher says, yeah. You know, if you just would have answer this had way on this question, this question, and this question. You would have had an A. You know, if you want to resubmit it, you could. That's what John Roberts did. No. I'm sorry. That's usually what they will do. John Roberts actually just changed the answers on the test. He just changed the law, and rewrote it. Absolutely unconstitutional. All right. Back in just a second, with more.

Will Medicaid cuts KILL Americans? Glenn reveals the FACTS!

Democrats claim that the Big, Beautiful Bill will take Medicaid and Medicare away from many Americans and even “kill” people. But is any of this true? Glenn Beck and Stu Burguiere review just the facts and explain who’s actually affected by the changes.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Can I address some of the hyperbole around the big, beautiful bill, just a little bit.

If there's anything in the big, beautiful bill to worry about, it's the increase in spending.

Because the spending ourself into oblivion is an actual threat.

To the country. But that's not what anybody is talking about. What everybody seems to be talking about is the tax cuts. Which were already there. Or the tax cuts like no tax for tips. Which you would think the party of the little people. You know, the Democrats. Would all be for. But they're not.

Because they're not party of the little people anymore. And those had to be offset.

Okay. Offset. By what?

Well, by cutting spending. But cutting what spending?

Not cutting spending. Let me just say this. If I said, you know, I made $250,000 a year. And this year, we were going to spend $300,000.
Okay?

And you would say, immediately, Glenn. You can't do that.

And I would say, I've been doing that for 30 years. Okay. You might say, the bank is not going to give a loan.

But then if I came to you and said, yeah. I'm spending $300,000 a year. And my wife and I make 250 or 200,000 a year. But, you know, next year, I was going to spend $500,000.

Did you get a raise? No. I didn't get a raise. I still make 250,000 dollars a year between my wife and I.

But I'm going to spend 500 and not 300. And then somebody came in, like an accountant with some muscle.

And they said, Glenn, you cannot spend $500,000 a year!

Would it make sense if I went back to spending 300, not 200, which I had.

But 300, which I had been spending every year, would it make sense to you to -- for me to say, my children are now going to starve? My children are now going to starve.

Look at the austerity program that I am on.

My gosh, they just -- no. They didn't cut anything. They must cut thinking.

They cut the increase inning spending.

That's what they cut.

And, Stu, could you please explain Medicare.

I mean, all of the people. I know they warned us.

I didn't believe the death squads would actually go out.

And, you know, they want these people off Medicare so badly.

Or Medicaid.

They just sent out death squads. Trump is not waiting for them to die, because he's not waiting for them to get their prescriptions now he just wants them slaughtered in the street.

STU: Yeah, that's the efficiency of the Trump administration. He wants these people dead so badly, he's just killing them in the streets. Actually, no, none of that is happening.

And the Medicaid cuts as you point out, are largely cuts to future increases that have not occurred.

The biggest chunk of this is the work requirements. You've heard this, Glenn.

And, you know, I went through this. And I was like, this can't possibly be what they mean.

I said, wait a minute. When they say work requirement cuts, what does that mean?

So I dove into it a little bit. Basically, what they're saying, you, if you're an able-bodied adult, so that does not include old people, does not include people who are sick and can't work. And it also does not include people who have small children, even if they are able-bodied.

And when I say small, I mean 12 and under. So if you have a 12-year-old. You're completely exempt from this.

But able-bodied adults.

GLENN: Okay. On people in wheelchairs.

STU: No. Gosh, again, I know this is tough. Yeah, this is where it gets difficult.

GLENN: Wait. I'm having a hard time following this. What now?.

STU: So you're an able-bodied adult, that does not have small children.

GLENN: No small children.

STU: You would be required to get Medicaid, to work 20 hours a week.

Now, you might --

GLENN: Twenty hours a week.

STU: Or 80 hours a month.

GLENN: Or 80 hours a month.

That's almost half a full-time job.

STU: Now, you might say to yourself. And this is actually true.

Some people can't get jobs. Right?

I'm sure, there are people trying to get part-time jobs. And maybe can't get them.

Those people will just lose their Medicaid. Well, as you may understand.

Of course not.

Because what you have to do then is go through a process, that you're basically telling them, you're attempting to get a job. Or you're volunteering somewhere, to meet that requirement.

So basically, you have to fill out -- yeah. It's like unemployment.

You have to at least fill out some paperwork here.

GLENN: It's the exact opposite.

Let me see if I have this right.

It's the exact opposite of unemployment which we've had forever.

Which if you're looking for a job, but can't get it. You can still have unemployment.

But it's the exact opposite. Right?

Especially if you're nursing sextuplets.

STU: Again, you're not very close to the truth.

You're a little bit off on this one.

GLENN: No. Huh!

STU: By the way, Glenn, you might say to yourself, wait. How is that a Medicaid cut?

Because they're not cutting anyone's eligibility here. Unless they don't want to meet the requirement.

Of course, there's always been requirements to all of these programs.

So meeting the requirements have always been part of getting on to Medicaid.

This requirement, if you decide basically not to do it. And not participate. And not fill out the paperwork.

Then, yes. You will lose your Medicaid coverage.

What they're saying, hold on. All right.

GLENN: No. I just want to make sure I have it right.

STU: Yes.

GLENN: If you are blind, you're deaf.

STU: No. Again, no.

GLENN: You have no friends, and you can't get out of the house, and you've been on Medicaid, somehow or another, you signed up for that. But now, you don't even know, because you can't hear the news. You certainly can't fill out a form. Because you have no eyes.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: They just come in and rip your Medicaid away?

STU: No. None of what you said is accurate.

Though, it is calm considering some of the accusations -- comparisons made bit left right now.

But, yeah.

So if you are an able-bodied adult that decides, you know what, I don't feel like filling out the paperwork, or I don't feel like going to job interviews, or I don't feel like volunteering, then yes. You could lose -- but that's what they're saying the cuts are.

They think 317 billion dollars worth of people will not bother doing those things. For whatever reason. Maybe because they had more money than they said. Maybe because they're lazy.

Maybe because -- I'm sure there's some case where some -- I don't know.

I can't think of the case.

GLENN: Blind person.

STU: Because the ailments are covered here.

But, yes. Maybe it's some particular skin color. Then they would reject you.

I don't know.

And it's not just that. There are other cuts. For example, some of the cuts are, they're eliminate duplicate Medicaid enrollment.

If you happen to have Medicaid.

GLENN: I can't double-dip.

STU: In two different states. They're going to try to stop you from having it in two states.

And instead, make you have it one state. Uh-huh.

GLENN: Hold on just one second.

I have two legs. I have two arms. I have two eyes. I have two nostrils. I have two ears.

I can't have two Medicaid coverages. It's insane!

STU: I know.

It's really, really brutal.

GLENN: I have two kidneys. I can only have one kidney now, you know, repaired?

STU: Now --

GLENN: Is that what you're saying?

STU: That's not what I'm saying. But, yes. I'm sure that's what's being reported out there by Dana Bash.

Another one, I will give you here, Glenn. They talked about immigrants.

You know, immigrants getting on their Medicaid cut. Now, this is tough. What this bill does, I want you to hold on to your hat here, Glenn.

GLENN: Okay.

STU: If you have green card holders and other certain immigrants, some will lose their coverage. Or actually, sorry, eligibility will -- retain for those people.

Certain other immigrants may lose their coverage. The current law says, all who are lawfully present.

That will kick in after a -- how many year waiting period?

Let me guess, it's a five-year waiting period.

So it will be the next president who has to deal with this, when future Congress will just put it right back in. And it's not a savings at all.

And then you have Medicaid death checks. They're going to require --

GLENN: They're checking on whether your debt? Look at this! It's crazy.

STU: It's brutal. It really is.

GLENN: You're going to kick all of the immigrants off in five years.

STU: No.

GLENN: And then you're checking to see if old people are dead!

When will you leave these people alone?

STU: I know. So, anyway, we can go through this stuff all day. But as you point out, most of this stuff is not at all, what the left is saying it is.

It's not the desperate Medicaid cuts that are going to ruin everybody's lives. A lot of them are just really common sense stuff, making sure you don't have them in two states. I don't know what the positive argument is for that. But they'll make it.

GLENN: Well, they don't have one. That's why they don't make it about that.

Liz Wheeler BLASTS Pam Bondi’s Epstein deception

The Department of Justice and FBI are now claiming that there NEVER was any Epstein client list and nobody else needs to be charged. But what about Attorney General Pam Bondi’s previous claim that the list was on her desk?! BlazeTV host Liz Wheeler, who had been given one of Bondi’s ill-fated “Epstein Files” binders, joins Glenn Beck to discuss how the MAGA movement should react to the claims made by Bondi, Kash Patel, and Dan Bongino.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Liz Wheeler. Liz wrote to me early today. Let me see if I can -- may I quote you here, Liz?

LIZ: Yes, you may. Thanks for having me, Glenn.

GLENN: Okay. Yeah. You bet. She said, give me one good reason why I shouldn't scream for Pam Bondi to be fired today? And this was at 5 o'clock in the morning. And I said, I'm sleepy. But I don't think I can.

I don't think I can give you a reason not to -- not to call for her firing today. But I want you to explain, why do you feel this way?

LIZ: It's not something that I say lightly. I didn't say it immediately after the White House, Epstein binder debacle. And I want to very prudently and judiciously make this case to you today and to make this case to President Trump too. Because Pam Bondi has become a liability to her administration, despite her loyalty in other areas. So let's start with the announcement from the Department of Justice last night.

A lot of us have a lot of questions about this announcement. It just doesn't ring true with a lot of us. We see a lot of evidence before our eyes that contradicts what we're being told without evidence to believe by the FBI and the Department of Justice. And it grates on us.

Because like you mentioned, we are friends with Kash Patel and Dan Bongino.

They're the good guys. We trust them.

And yet, we have to use our critical thinking faculties and look at the evidence before our eyes.

So it smells fishy. You'll notice it says nothing about whether Jeffrey Epstein was an intelligence asset.

Which, as you mentioned, Alex Acosta, the attorney who cut the sweetheart deal originally with Epstein. Said he was, before Accosta's emails mysteriously disappeared. So we have questions about that.

There are also outstanding, important questions about Kash Patel and Dan Bongino's definitive pronouncement, that Epstein killed himself.

I'm sorry. I don't think the video that they released proves definitively that they were stating that case.

GLENN: Why?

LIZ: Because it does not show what's happening in the cell. It just shows the cell door. We don't actually see him kill himself.

GLENN: Right. But we know that nobody came in.

LIZ: Through that door.

GLENN: Where are they going to go true, the little bars? Little drag la? A little bat.

LIZ: I don't know what the internal cell looks like. I don't know what they have. I don't know if they have fire escape routes. I don't know if they have adjoining doors. I don't know if they have emergency exits. I don't know if that video was doctored or not.

I don't know enough about that, to simply take that one piece of evidence.

GLENN: Okay. So that's a good point.

Just show us the room. Show us what's inside the room.

LIZ: Yes. We need more evidence.

GLENN: That's reasonable.

LIZ: One piece of evidence.

It's not enough.

GLENN: Yeah.

LIZ: The other thing, I wonder with Kash Patel and Dan Bongino are relying too much on the FBI's prior investigation to the FBI of old is a reliable narrator. I don't know who conducted those investigations, or if it was done soundly. I doubt it was done soundly.

GLENN: So may I just interject here.

LIZ: Yes.

GLENN: I talked to Dan Bongino a few weeks ago about this off-air. And, Glenn, we are turning over every stone. We are going to get to the bottom of it.

We are -- so, I mean, he led me to believe that, and I believed him. And I still do.

That he was using new resources. Opening the investigation in -- in a new way. Following it closely.

And I do believe Dan Bongino is one of the good guys.

LIZ: I do too. And I've been told the same thing by high-ranking officials in the FBI. Who I trust. They're trustworthy people.

I do think, that it might not be possible at this point, to piece together everything, because we know there have been reports of evidence, destruction.

So my issue with that definitive statement was the definitive nature of it.

This 100 percent happened this way. Epstein killed himself. Instead of saving, we don't have enough evidence to piece this together, or the evidence we have points to this.

All that being said, though, I want to talk about what happened last night.

Because this brings to us attorney general Pam Bondi, who just months ago said she had the Epstein client list on her desk.

When I went back to look at that video, the clip of her on Fox News, again, this morning, to make sure that there was not context that I was lacking, that there was not bungled phraseology, maybe nerves being on the air.

I went back and listened to it. She said definitively, she had the Epstein client list on her desk.

Now, fast forward to yesterday, she says that it doesn't exist, that they don't have it.

That is a really big problem. If I'm president today --

GLENN: Okay. Let me play this, from Bondi. This is back in February. Here is the actual statement she made.

Listen.

VOICE: The DOJ may be releasing the list of Epstein's clients. Will that really happen?

VOICE: It's sitting on my desk right now, to review.

That's been a directive by President Trump. I'm reviewing that. I'm reviewing JFK files. MLK files. That's all in the process of being reviewed, because that was done at the directive of the president from all of these agencies.

VOICE: So have you seen anything, that you said, oh, my gosh?

VOICE: Not yet.

VOICE: Okay. Well, we'll check back with you.

GLENN: Okay. So now let me take you back to Kash Patel. Because something similar was said to me. Here he is. Cut 12.

So who has Jeffrey Epstein's?

VOICE: Black book? FBI.

GLENN: But who?

VOICE: Oh, that's under direct control of the director of the FBI. Just like the manifesto from the Nashville school shooting. The Catholic school. We still haven't seen that, right?

It's not the Nashville police or PD saying, we don't want this out. The FBI airmailed into that operation and said, this is not getting out. Because they do that because this is another government gangster operation.

All these local law enforcement communities get funding from the DOJ and FBI from local programs. And if you don't cooperate, you're not getting your million dollars for this.

That's a lot of money from these local districts. That's how they play the game. That's why you don't have a black book.

GLENN: Because the black book, it's not just sitting. That's Hoover power times ten.

VOICE: And to me, that's a thing I think President Trump should run on. On day one, roll out the black book.

And not just that, on day one, all the text messages and communications we were told were deleted. On day one, play the rest of the video of the pipe bomber.

You know, he needs -- one of the reforms I talk about in government gangsters.

Is you need a central node to be continuously declassifying. This is another thing they do. They overclassify.

They are not telling you -- as a former number two in the IC, they overclassify 50 percent of the stuff there to protect the Deep State.

Oh, no.

You can't see that. Nothing to see here.

Gina was a master at it. Of doing it. And we haven't seen half of the Russiagate report we wrote. Still under lock and key.

On how the ICA was originally constructed. We went -- we put 10,000 man-hours against John Brennan's team that did it.

And we found out why they came up with their bogus conclusions. We couldn't sell it with the world.

Because we couldn't talk about it. And the government cancers came in and buried it.

All of these things, there needs to be a continuing central power whether it's the White House or off-site that says, every request that comes in.
Just right out the door. As long as it's not awe major threat to national security.

VOICE: Liz, they're both very clear.

It existed. But Pam Bondi did not say, she had any names in it.

She kind of made me feel like she hadn't really looked at it.

Kash Patel gave me the impression, he had seen it. Or at least he knew about it.

So how do we go from here?

VOICE: Yes. Listen.

People care deeply about the Epstein files because there was a grisly crime that we know for a fact that was committed.

Epstein was convicted of that.

It wasn't speculative. He was convicted of that. People feel that there's evidence of a cover-up. Not -- we're not inventing a conspiracy. There's evidence of a cover-up of this crime.

Pam Bondi as attorney general has exacerbated this trust. And it gives me no pleasure to say this. Because I like to give the benefit of the doubt to people that are on our side.

But going back to that day in the White House, this February. I haven't told this part of the story before.

Attorney General Pam Bondi, when we met with her. We weren't at the White House to meet with her. We just met with her while she was there.

Pam Bondi bragged to us about making that cover sheet on the binder, the one that read the most transparent administration in history.

She said, she had made it. She had printed it. She was proud of it. She placed it on that binder.

Glenn, to call that a severe lack of judgment would be the understatement of the year. There is no way, in my mind, and I've tried every way to Sunday, to square that behavior with the announcement that we got last night with the Department of Justice.

Pam Bondi told us at the time, she said, I've requested the Epstein files, the files in the binder, were the ones given to me. Nothing was in them, she told us at the time. Then a whistle-blower told her, she told us. And said the FDNY was hiding other files. That's the story she had told us, that there's been a Deep State cover-up. So at the time, after we were given these binders, we waited. Right? You give your side the benefit of the doubt. Maybe Pam Bondi will come up with the goods, even though the rollout was botched to say the least.

But she -- this is another thing I have not discussed publicly before. She said, she had not seen the FDNY documents at the time that she was telling us about them.

I asked her directly that day in the White House. When she said, a whistle-blower told us about these truckloads of FDNY documents. I said, have you seen them? She said no, she sent the request and they're brining them to her.

So contextualizing all of this, suddenly this seems like unforgivable behavior.

How could she give the American people -- not just me. I don't care about how this impacts me. How can she give the American people those binders that contain nothing, while at the same time, bragging about the cover sheet that she made.

The most transparent administration in history. And tell us that the FDNY had the real goods, that the binder was just proof of a Deep State cover-up. That was the real story she told us. Only now to say, sorry, there's actually nothing.

So it leaves us with this situation. What are the options? The options are, well, was she herself set up by some Deep State FBI officials trying to make a fool of her? It's possible, maybe even probable.

GLENN: Possible.

LIZ: But here's the thing, if you're smart, if you're savvy, if you're sharp enough to be Attorney General of the United States, you verify such information.

You don't assume its veracity and publicize it for clicks. And that's what she did.

So then we get to the point, that we think, okay. Well, what does this say about her judgment?

Is she just click thirsty? Is she wanting to be a Fox News star? Did she get out over her skis, trying to make news, being a mega champion with those binders, that maybe she had not verified the contents of, and she definitely hadn't verified the contents of the FDNY truckload. You can't square this announcement with the binders. With the binders in February, unless you allow for the idea that Pam Bondi could be operating in a way that is unacceptable, when on Fox News. Said she had a client list on her desk to review, when she hadn't looked at the documents.

And was just saying that to be a television star. I say this. In somewhat sorrowfully. If I'm President Trump, I would not tolerate this behavior anymore. She's become a liability to the administration. I think the administration is probably just now coming to the realization of how much goodwill this whole debacle has cost them with their voters.

And Pam Bondi is not worth it. She's a liability. It's time to move on.

The INCREDIBLE TRUE Story of Benjamin Franklin

Was Benjamin Franklin the greatest and most modern Founding Father? This July 4th week, “The Greatest American” author Mark Skousen joins Glenn Beck to tell the incredible and true story of Benjamin Franklin.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Dr. Mark Skousen, friend of the program, friend of mine. America's economist.

He is -- he has written a new book on the greatest American and the greatest American, he says is Ben Franklin. And I tend to agree with him. He's at least in the top five greatest Americans. Welcome to the program, Mark. How are you?

MARK: I'm doing well. We're out here in the Mediterranean Sea right now on a cruise, but isn't it great technology that even Ben Franklin would love?

GLENN: You know, I don't think people really understand the genius of Ben Franklin. I mean, there's this great article in the times of London.

I don't remember when. But he was going back to London. He was going to challenge the king.

And he was going back. And they said, don't let his boat come in to dock.

Because he's been working with electricity, and he has a ray gun, and he will vaporize, you know, all of London.

I mean, he was -- he was the Elon Musk of his day, but he was almost more magical, because people didn't understand it.

Back then. What did you find in writing this book about Ben Franklin, that you think most people just don't know?

MARK: Well, this is the thing. So when I wrote the greatest American, I thought to myself, everybody -- lots of books have been written on his biography.

So what I did was I came up with 80 chapters on how he is the most modern of all the Founders. And how he could talk about the modern issues of today, whether it's trade or taxes or inflation or war. Discrimination. Inequality.

I have a chapter on each one of these, in the greatest American.

And, you know, he was a Jack-of-all-trades.
And the master of all, on top of it!

So one of the things I thought would be really cool, if you put my book, on every coffee table in America, and people came in to visit, they would look at this book. And there might be an argument, as you say, as to who is the greatest American. Whether it's George Washington or Elon Musk, or what have you.

GLENN: Whatever.

MARK: When they see the picture of Ben Franklin, they sit there and nod their head. And say, wow. This is the guy I want to sit down with and talk to.

And have a beer with.

Because if you sat with some of the other Founders, they would get in an argument with you. Or they would refuse to answer the question. Or what have you.

But Franklin was willing to talk to a janitor, as well as the king of France. And that's pretty unique.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah. He could.

He was an amazing guy. So tell me, in your research of him, you know, you always hear that, oh, Ben Franklin was a notorious womanizer, and everything else.

And he abandoned his wife. Deborah? Was that her name?

MARK: Yes. Deborah. That's correct.

GLENN: Did that -- what's true, or what's not true about that?

MARK: So he certainly was the most liberal-minded when it came to the sexual revolution.

That's why I say, he's the most modern of the Founders. Because he was not prudish like John and Abigail Adams, who thought he was a reprobate. And sinner. And not a churchgoer. And stuff like that.

GLENN: Right.

MARK: So, yes. He was -- the ladies loved him. And he loved the ladies.

There's no question about that, that he was a bit of a playboy. And, in fact, he even admits in his autobiography, of having an illegitimate child, William. But then he settled down. He married Deborah. And, yes, Deborah and him, they did separate because -- and it was really more her fault than his, because when he went to London as a London agent, she had extreme aversion to going out on this -- the seas. It was a dangerous time period.

So it's kind of like people don't like to fly on airplanes today. So they did grow apart. There's no question about that.

But they maintained their -- their love for each other.

And, as a matter of fact, when Franklin died, he's buried right next to Deborah. So I think that's an indication of their -- their love and so forth. But they were very different personalities. She was very focused on -- on more of the home issues. She was not a public intellectual.

She would not feel comfortable in the same conversations that Franklin would have with scientists.

And with public thinkers, and stuff like that. So they definitely differed in their personality.

GLENN: The -- the story about his son William is one of the saddest chapters.

I mean, you know, Thomas Paine kind of looked at him as a father figure. And he -- you know, Ben Franklin did have a son, William, as you said. And they -- they had a really bad falling out.

Can you quickly tell that story?

MARK: Yeah. So I have a chapter on that very issue. Because who were his enemies, and he did have a number of enemies, including John Adams, at one point. But in the case of William, he, Franklin, arranged for William to be the governor of New Jersey. And he maintained his loyalty. He was a loyalist. Billy was throughout the American Revolution!

And at the end of the American Revolution, or during the American Revolution, Franklin writes his son and he said, it's one thing to -- we can differ on various issues.

But when you actually raise money, raise armaments to attack me, this was beyond the pale.

This is not something that you should have done. And then at the end of his letter, he says, this is a disagreeable subject!

I drop it. So you can feel that emotion, that anger.

And, yes. He removed him from -- from his will.

So there -- there -- Franklin got along with almost everyone.

And I have a whole chapter on how to deal in the greatest American. How to deal with enemies and be how to make your enemies, your friends.

But this was one example where he just couldn't cross over and forgive him. For what the -- for what we had done.

GLENN: I don't think --

CHIP: Just like you are saying.

GLENN: I think I would have a hard time doing that too if my son was raising funds and military against me. It would be kind of hard to forgive.

Mark, thank you so much for your work. It's always good to talk to you.

The name of the book is by Mark Skousen. And it is called The Greatest American. It's all about Ben Franklin. If you don't know anything about Ben Franklin, you will fall in love with him. You will absolutely fall in love with him. Mark Skousen is the author. The name of the book again, The Greatest American.