RADIOJune 09, 2025

Insider scoop: Russ Vought reveals Trump’s plan to CRUSH deficit spending

Amid the heated debate between Donald Trump and Elon Musk over the “Big, Beautiful Bill,” Trump’s Office of Management and Budget director Russ Vought joins Glenn Beck to clear a few things up. Is raising the debt ceiling a terrible move? Where are all the DOGE cuts? What happens to Trump’s agenda if the bill isn’t passed?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Russ Voit, how are you, sir?

RUSS: I'm doing well, thanks for having me.

GLENN: You bet. It's great to have you on. Yesterday was a tough day. Do you know, has the president has his phone call yet? Are they coming back together?

RUSS: Well, I think the president made some comments to the press this morning, that, you know, he's not looking to have a phone call any time soon. But, you know, I think he's expressed his disappointment yesterday, with regard to some comments made by Elon. Look, Glenn, we're moving forward.

And Elon has been an important ally and patriot throughout all of this. And we've got a job to do. And I think that's what we're most focused on right now, is making sure we can get the word out on this bill, get it across the finished line. Make improvements where we can, but get this thing home to the American people.

GLENN: So I agree with both the president and Elon Musk. I know there are things in this package that are really important. I think the president understands. And Elon doesn't understand, that politics are involved here.

And I don't know Elon was not going after the Democrats and saying, why don't you care some more. Come on. Come on. Help us.

But the president is now putting in a rescission package.

What does that mean? And what is that going to do to this bill?

Well, again, two things I would say. Just going back to your initial comment there.

I think the argument that the fiscal challenges of the country are so bad and we need to do as much as we can. I think there's alignment.

There is total agreement.

I think the issue is how much -- and it's to your second part. How much does this bill. This is not a budget bill.

People get confused because they think if they're using the budget process, it's an agenda bill, that uses a budget process.

It's not a budget resolution. It's not a fiscal picture. It cannot by law, include cuts to discretionary spending, which are all the DOGE permanent cuts. Right?

So that is something that has to be considered elsewhere.

And we're in the process of doing that.

So we just sent up our first recisions bill.

We will send up more.

This one is 9.4 billion.

Why is it so small?

It's small specifically because of the politics you mentioned. Which is that Congress hasn't passed these bills.

And we can do a lot of things ourselves, that we can do in Congress.

Procedurally, this is where you have people come into the party and the coalition.

They don't know the procedures of government.

If Congress does not pass a recisions bill, we lose the ability to just not spend the money. And use some of our tools, that this president is now talking about.

That we are polishing off, that we have not used since the 1970s, to just not use the money.

And so we had this whole side of effort on discretionary spending, making the DOGE cuts permanent. A lot of different ways you can do that. We're in the process of doing that.

That is another piece of the puzzle, fiscally. That you will not get from this reconciliation bill.

GLENN: So why are -- is -- Russ, I know you know this.

And I'm an infant compared to the way your understanding is. So please help me understand.

But we are -- we are up against the wall, with a gun to our head, when it comes to printing more money. Or borrowing more money.

And we've got to cut this budget. Can you explain to the audience why -- why we have to be careful on this.

We can't just go in. And maybe I've seen this wrong. But I don't think we can just go in and just take an axe to everything, until we get the economy to light the match in the economy.

Am I wrong on this?

RUSS: I don't think you're wrong. I think we can do both. But for people, why the bill is so important. So you cannot have a conversation of reducing debt and deficits when the economy is not going, period, end of story. It is a vital foundation. The economic growth gets you all of the way to where we need to go? No, it does not. But the notion that you're ever going to reform these big programs like -- that are welfare and social safety net without a growing economy. You can't impose a work requirement, when there are no jobs.

So this bill, and this is where our main thing that we're trying to correct factually. If you correct for CBO's artificial baseline. That assuming tax relief will expire.

They don't assume that. They assume spending is eternal.

Green new deal, spending through that, is assumed to continue.

Or the preparations. All the woke bureaucracy. All of that. But if you have tax components. All of those are presumed to sunset. Right?

So that is a fundamental. We've known this for decades.

The way that DC screws.

And misassess as our bills.

So you've got to pass this, otherwise we will have a recession. That said, this bill actually cuts spending. It has $1.7 trillion in savings.

Reduces the deficit by $1.4 trillion.

It is the biggest mandatory savings proposal in history in the 1997s.

We were only talking with the work requirements and Bill Clinton and the Republican Newt Gingrich House when we're talking about $800 billion in savings. Has the problem gotten worse? Yes, it has. But this is historic levels. And that's not even talking about the DOGE cuts.

So I think we can do all of them. But we've got to figure, oh, what's the bill doing? What's the maximum that we can do with it? The art of the possible is the three-seat majority in the House and the Senate. We are willing to go further, but we also know the bill has to pass.

And we -- the -- those are small majority. This is not 20-seat majorities. That's a real political constraint that you reflected earlier.

I'm very bullish. Glenn, I think at the end of this year, if this bill passes, and the cuts are maintained in it, we can end the year with a pair time shift on the mandatory spending.

And a paradigm shift on discretionary. We might have a first chance to actually cut non-defense spending by serious levels through the ability to just not spend money, or to send up recisions that don't need a congressional or permanent on through your pocket recisions.

That would dramatically change, and here's the thing: It would lead to results. What has caused the problem that we have. Is fiscal utility.

We don't get any wins. Let alone big wins. This is giving us big wins. It's why we will be able to change the trajectory this year.

GLENN: So the argument against that is it's raising the debt ceiling by $4 trillion.

So why do you say we can raise the debt ceiling, add another 4 trillion in debt, and yet, at the end, have a big win by the end of the year?

What is in this bill, that is not connecting here?

RUSS: So any bill that you would have ever had, the Republican's budget, Rand Paul's budget. Whatever -- no matter what bill you cut, TAP and Balance from yesteryear, any of those bills act over a ten-year period.

And so over that ten-year period, you're giving to low balance levels. Right?

In the media, you all of them assume that in the short term, debt limits.

The debt is going up, while you make progress.

The debt limit. The debt ceiling is a warning sign.

It itself does not create debt.

Now, it is something that historically has been used. The president has views. And we agree that, we haven't gotten anything out of the debt limit.

In 20, 30 years. And so the notion that it should be done outside of reconciliation and Republican votes, is a -- is something that we've been challenging as an administration, that this is not serving our interests. This bill extends the debt limit.

But at his include what can historically -- if you ever got anything historically from the debt limit extension. It would be already in this bill.

That's why we're so excited about this bill.

GLENN: You know, I saw something from Goldman Sachs last week. And they said, we are dangerously close to not being able to sell our debt.

And then having to finance ourselves, and raise the -- you know, the -- you know, the interest that we're having to pay.

Do you know -- do you have any idea how close we are to that number, before this thing?

Because I think we're just really on the edge here. Where is that number? How close are we?

RUSS: I don't think anyone knows. And I don't think you can ever know. And I think this has been with us for a long time. And we obviously see the extent -- no one is arguing back against that. And no one is arguing back to the critics of -- of debt and deficit, at all. But I think what I would push back a little bit, you know, on -- I'll add Moody's to the list as well. Is that, the meta point is true. It's also one that you've been making for 20 years. And the conservative movements have been making. This president has been making. The point is true: The timing of these analysis I think are for a purpose.

And so Moody's kind of made that determination 15 years ago, in the Obama administration, they chose not to.

They chose to do it right before House passage on an agenda bill, that has incredible importance to the American people. And I think the president is getting his trust in that vein. And the notion that Goldman Sachs does not have a sense about the way the baselines work, is also not true.

And so I think what you have going on here.

Is the reality of our fiscal situation, and people continuing to rightfully educate on that.

I think, in the financial community, or some of the watchdogs, there is a timing aspect that is specifically designed to use the -- the legitimate concerns, to take down a bill that is otherwise fantastic. On the -- on a dishonest basis.

And that's one of the reasons we're working so hard to get our message out.

GLENN: I know your time is really tight.

Can you just tell me specifically, what are the things in it, specifically that you say are fantastic? That maybe people don't know.

RUSS: I think the biggest thing is the level of welfare reform that's in this bill.

The Medicaid reforms. The work requirement in Medicaid, to get people back into the workforce. The food stamp reforms. Both tightening the work requirement, and giving states a share of the cost of that -- of that program.

$1.7 trillion in mandatory savings. And then the second aspect of it is, you talk about the DOGE decisions.

And the only spending in this bill, is spending that is specifically designed strategically that is conservative. And -- like border security.

If that's an appropriations process, we're headed towards a shutdown. It looks like the first term. We can't actually have a non-defense fighter. We're cutting because we're fighting for the wall.

This bill criticizes that type of spending, so that it clears the field, strategically for us to have a massive fight on non-defense spending in the appropriations process.

We have talked very rarely about that dynamic, but I think it's one that your audience will find very exciting.

GLENN: Russ, I so appreciate the fact that you are there with the president.

I know the president has earned the right to get his -- we're, what? 120 days or something into his first term. I think he's earned his right to get his way.

I am worried about the debt and the deficit. But I do trust you. And I give my support to the president.

And I hope that we can get past yesterday, and move to get things moving in Washington.

Because I think if this doesn't pass. I haven't heard a better idea from anybody.

I've just heard noes. We've got to get moving on this.

Or we're in trouble.

Deeper trouble than we are right now.

RUSS: Well said. Thank you, Glenn. I appreciate you.

GLENN: You bet. Russ Voit, office of budget and management.

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

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

Watch This FULL Episode of 'Glenn TV' HERE

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

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

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

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

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

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

Like, whoa. Whoa. Whoa.

You want people to die that you disagree with?

Where are we now on the scale of Civil War?

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

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

Okay?

Here's step one.

Step one. Loss of civic trust.

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

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

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

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

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

Political disagreement is normal!

Identity conflict is fatal!

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

Have we crossed this one into step two?

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

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

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

And that -- does what?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Churches. Churches are useless. Useless.

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

Are you ready for this one?

Parallel information realities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

We can't agree on facts, right?

Crime rates. Border numbers. Inflation. Election security.

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

Social media algorithms are creating customized political universes.

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

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

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

Loss of neutral rule of law.

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

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

Are we there yet?

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

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

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

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

History is really cold and unforgiving on this point.

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

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

Are we there?

I think we are.

Step six. Normalization of political violence!

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

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

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

Calling for his children to be killed.

Was called on it, never apologized.

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

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

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

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

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

The rise of militias and parallel forces.

When a state loses he is monopoly on force.

Countdown accelerates. So where are we on this one?

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

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

Right?

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

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

Entirely!

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

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

Step eight. The trigger event.

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

So where are we?

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

Political assassination or major attack.

Supreme Court decision that ignites mass unrest.

Financial crisis or dollar crisis.

A state federal standoff turning violent!

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

This is the point of no return.

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

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

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

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

Know where you are.

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

Step five, happening!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where the hell are you?

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

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

You don't own that right.

I don't own that right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

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

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

GLENN: Yeah. No.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's already out!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Terrible story.

STU: Yeah. She passed away.

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

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

GLENN: Is ridiculous.

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

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

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

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

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

They pointed out, this is not new information.

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

You're presenting this as a new scandal.

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

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

Oh, okay. All right.

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

GLENN: No.

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

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

Said, it was nothing!

GLENN: Right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Get it out. Lance this boil.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why is no one talking about that?

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

Huh. Interesting.