RADIONovember 13, 2024

Could Trump BOOST the economy by raising tariffs and abolishing the income tax?

During his appearance on The Joe Rogan Experience, Donald Trump floated the idea of abolishing the income tax. This would go hand-in-hand with his plan to raise tariffs, especially on China. Glenn, who has historically been against heavy tariffs, may have been won over by Trump’s explanation. But he wanted to speak with an economics expert to see if the math really added up. Heritage Foundation Visiting Fellow Peter St. Onge joins the program to break down how tariffs work, whether Trump’s plan would boost the economy, and what he must do if he wants to raise enough support to repeal the 16th Amendment.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Oh, yeah.

Oh, yeah. Hmm. Now, we've got a guy, I think he's -- I think -- I think his last name says everything.

Peter St. Onge, which I believe is French!
(music)
STU: What is happening?

GLENN: Sexy, sexy tax and tariff talk from the Heritage Foundation. A visiting fellow. We have Peter St. Onge.

How are you, Peter?

PETER: I'm great. I appreciate that. It is sexy.

GLENN: Yeah. I know. Everybody says it. Everybody says it. So without getting it too steamy in here.

Let's go over the tariffs.

Because I've always been against tariffs. However, I might be wrong.

PETER: Right.

GLENN: Donald Trump is making a good case, when he's talking about getting rid of the income tax. Because tariff -- tariffs will raise the prices of things. Especially, if he does it the way he's talking about doing it.

But if he is getting rid of, or lowering the income tax to, you know, 10 percent, it's such a boon for the economy. That we could make up that deficit, and become a very powerful nation again.

Tell many I'm wrong.

PETER: I think that's absolutely correct.

Yeah. I feel like you're absolutely right.

You know, the vast majority of economists, Glenn, they go after tariffs. And I think they're looking at the trees for the forest here, because if you replace a tariff, which is basically a sales tax. But it's one that focus on his imported goods.

If you replace that with either reducing or in our dream scenario, abolishing the entire income tax. It's absolute rocket fuel for the economy. The reason is because --

GLENN: He just said abolish the income tax. Pay attention, Sara. He just said abolish income tax. Oh, yeah.
(music)
All right. Go ahead.

PETER: Right.

The background music. So, yeah. And he actually started floated abolishing it with Joe Rogan a couple weeks ago. No tax on tips. Then no tax on overtime. No tax on first responders. No tax on Social Security. And it was kind of like he was really flirting with just breaking up with the income tax altogether.

And when he was on there with Rogan, that's exactly what he did. He said, you know, maybe we should go back to the 1800s, when, you know, it was before we had an income tax. Before we had a Fed.

And back then, the federal government had to live off tariffs. And that was the greatest period, not only of economic growth, but of cultural achievement.

It's astounding, what we -- everything Elon Musk does, was invented in the 1880s. Computers.
Rockets.

What's his -- Hyperloop. Every single thing. And it was really the golden age of humanity.

And the key there, we did not have an income tax. We did not have a regulatory state.

We did not have a Fed. So if Trump can take us back there. And all we have to do is an 8 percent sales tax on Chinese socks.

That is the deal of the century.

GLENN: Okay. Let's go over this.

Who pays the tariffs?

American companies or the foreign company?

PETER: Interestingly, during you Trump's first term. He put tariffs on China. And China actually paid up 80 percent of those. So it would issue subsidies to Chinese exporters so they could maintain market share and keep their prices low. So the Chinese government paid the tariffs.

GLENN: Hmm.

I like that.

PETER: So if he does that again, he's talking about hitting China with something like 60 percent tariffs.

And between a ten and 20 percent tariff for everyone else. Now, given Trump's style, he is not going to come and use it across the board. He is going to come and use that as a club.

Right?

So the Europeans, specifically. They act like a fortress. They are brutal to outsiders.

If you want to export something to Europe, they will put you over a barrel. You remember, a couple years ago, the first thing the European Union did was sat them down. And said, nice economy you've got here. Would be a shame if something happened to it. We're going to need a payment from you every single year.

It is literally the Mafia. They do that to Norway. It's all these countries have to fork over billions of dollars to get access to the European market. Now, imagine if we did that. Imagine if we called up Mexico or Canada. And said, hey, listen. We've got this beautiful economy. You guys are settling into it. Hey, why don't you write me a check for 50 billion to keep access? That's exactly what the Europeans do.

So the first thing Trump is probably going to do, given what he did last time. Is he'll call up Europe, and he will do the exact same thing.

You know, I have a 20 percent tariff burning a hole in my pocket. I need you to do some things for me.

But, anyway, even if he does end up applying those to all foreigners, the Europeans are not going to cover the exporters because they're in a deep fiscal hole.

They don't have the money. They're already bankrupt. They're not going to do what China did.

But a lot of those tariffs, especially the ones from China, are probably going to keep getting paid by China. Because exports to America are what they live on. If they lose that, it's game over.

GLENN: And we should not be empowering them, quite honestly.

Now, here's why. Here's why I have possibly turned around.

I'm willing to listen to tariff talk, because in my -- in my cute little head, I keep thinking that all of the -- when you have an extra 20 or $30,000, that you're pulling in, every year. Whatever it is, you are paying in income tax. And everything -- everything goes down that's made here in America.

If you're not paying that income tax. You have a lot of extra buying power, which means, most of Americans, will spend that.

And will grow our economy, which will put more taxes. Well, we don't have taxes. So that wouldn't work.

How does it work, when you don't have taxes? Go ahead.

PETER: Yeah. So just kind of running into the numbers. The first thing that happens, if you get rid of income tax altogether. So I estimate you get about a 20 percent jump in incomes in the US.

So it would be something like $15,000 for typical families. That's what you get off the bat. The typical family currently has about 18,000 in income tax, and then you knock off about 3,000 for the tariffs.

There's a variety of estimates on that. But that seems to be the cluster. So you get a 15,000 raise, because the economy is growing faster. You get an 18,000 raise because you don't have to send your income tax to the government. People don't realize how much they're paying to the government.

Right? A lot of it is tips. But, anyway, you've got -- what do they call it?

Withholding. So, anyway, that's 33. I call three for the tariffs. 30,000 dollar raise per year, 2500 a month. Now, currently, the median American take home is about 58,000.

Okay. Which is about 76, minus the income tax. So you go from taking home 58, to taking home 88. Right? That is a massive difference.

And that sort of sets the stage.
(music)

GLENN: Hold. Hold on. You go from 58 to 88. Oh, yeah.
(music)
Ding-dong. Pizza deliveryman. Anyway.

STU: Why is that the part you like so much in his movies? It's interesting what he is excited about.

GLENN: All right. Go ahead.

All right.

PETER: No. I love it. And it's true. You know, if you're making 88. You can go to Vegas. And things happen in Vegas.

GLENN: Yeah. Right. Right. Creating jobs.

PETER: Right. Yeah, well, and so that's the fun part, right? Is you mentioned earlier, that if you're not paying income tax, then production in the US is cheaper.

So instead of the Chinese socks coming in -- you know, they used to come in at $6, now they're at $9. Fine. But China is paying for that, so they're probably still coming in at six.

But, meanwhile, American factories can make socks for less, because they are not paying the income tax.

There's a very good chance that we will see a lot of that manufacturing, even if the Chinese government pays for the tariffs.

GLENN: And that means, also because the economy -- we're building factories. We're doing things ourselves, because we can.

Everybody's pay goes up. Because we need more workers. Right?

PETER: Exactly. Exactly. And then there's actually mass deportations, then the socks will actually go American.

So you've got two possibilities, right?

One of them is that China covers the tariffs. In which case, it's a free lunch for us.

China is, what?

Putting us about 500 billion -- well, their share would be -- let's say 300 billion. So that would be fantastic. Thank you very much.

Or China does not cover the tariffs, in which case China is priced out of the market. America pays no income tax, so they're cheaper. By the way, every headquarter on earth would try to move to the United States. If you're paying no income tax on the single biggest economy on earth, everybody will be trying to move here. Including the Chinese companies. The worst-case scenario, the Chinese don't cover it.

They get outcompeted. And it all comes back to America. And if it's only Americans living here, then Americans will be swimming in jobs.

GLENN: I mean, this is just -- this is big.

How -- how much --

PETER: Oh, yeah.

GLENN: He has only floated this on the Rogan show. How real do you think this is? Because I know he loves tariffs. I know he loves tariffs.

PETER: He loves tariffs. And he hates the income tax. So it's beautiful. It's like a -- it's just like the perfect Newton president.

STU: Peter, isn't the complication here, that he can essentially do what he wants with tariffs. But he can't do what he wants with the income tax. And that becomes the heavy lift here?

PETER: Right. So he would need Congress to play ball on the income tax. And Congress is very tight, as we're all discussing at the moment. There's a ton of RINOs over there.

So that's going need to the pressure and the passion that people showed during the campaign, that millions of Americans showed. We have to put that on the RINOs.

GLENN: Yeah. I think that if he did, you know, a tour even. And was just all about income tax. You just have to say to people. You go from 58 to 88 in take home pay. I think a lot of people will be like, you know what, I love that.

STU: I agree. But you're not going to get -- obviously, in theory, you could put it into a reconciliation bill. Right?

At least a massive reduction.

You couldn't -- not a constitutional amendment, unfortunately.

That's what I would prefer.

Repealing the 16th.

GLENN: Yeah. Me too.

But you could capture American's imagination with this.

STU: Yeah. I think that's pretty -- that would be pretty great.

I do think you would have issues with some of these, as you point out. RINO-type republicans, who would complain about all sorts of things.

Including deficit stuff. Right?

They would say, we're going to lose all this income.

GLENN: All right. Let me take a break, and then let's talk about the deficit, Peter. All right? Peter st. Onge. He -- hmm. I'm not going to hold it against him for being French. I mean, somewhere in his past, somebody had sex with a French person. Okay. Let's -- let's move past that. He's with the Heritage Foundation. A visiting fellow.

STU: This is definitely the weirdest interview he's ever done. And he's regretting every minute of this.

GLENN: He's like, this is the end of my career and my credibility.

GLENN: Okay. I think I've got this number from you, Peter.

But a -- tariffs would bring in about 900 billion.

Almost a trillion dollars.

But our -- we're spending now, I don't even know how much.

$4 trillion a year? Some crazy number like that.

So how do you bridge the gap?

PETER: About six and a half.

GLENN: Six and a half. Okay. Good.

STU: There's a bit of a gap.

GLENN: There's a five and a half trillion dollar gap.

PETER: So income tax itself is taking about two and a half trillion.

And then you've got -- what? You've got payroll. You've got excise. Things like gasoline and cigarettes, things like that.

You've got capital gains. Corporate income tax. Those hopefully would be folded into an income tax repeal.

You put it together. You're looking at 2.4 trillion in lost revenue. And then you've got 900 in tariffs. About 1.5.

Now, the economy grows 20 percent, then you're going to get about 500 billion more from payroll tax and from excise. So you're looking at a net loss of 1 trillion. Now, I personally would prefer to get rid of the payroll tax as well.

STU: Yes!

GLENN: Pernicious.

PETER: It's not as bad as the income tax. Because the income tax is on top of it. It also varies on how much you produce. The payroll tax is a flat tax.

So, you know, in a perfect world, we're not taxing work at all. We're taxing bad things, not good things.

In the grand scheme, you know, in the terms of incentives, get rid of income tax first. Then we can have the next conversation, which would be getting rid of the payroll tax. If you're just going to the income tax, you're talking about 2.4 net of the tariffs. Net of the economic growth. You're talking 1 trillion. So you would be cutting 1 trillion out of a budget of about six and a half.

Now, Elon is -- he's talking about his department of government efficiency.

He's floating 2 trillion.

So I haven't seen the math on those.

I don't know where it's coming from.

I agree whole-heartedly.

I'm certain we could get a lot more than that.

It's cutting out the parts of the military, that is part of our country.

Bring them home. Put them on the border. Divert the Navy that patrol our waters. Stop invading other countries.

That would be a very easy 800 billion, if we look at countries like Japan or UK, which the UK has a functioning military. It has a Coast Guard.

Although, it doesn't use it.

About the whole kit. They spend less than hundred billion.

Of course, you can cut welfare for able-bodied people.

Which the government tries very, very hard to hide how much it spends on welfare. But it's easily over a trillion.

The cost of illegals themselves, which very conservatively is about 150 billion a year. Maybe closer to 350 billion by some estimates. Because, again, they're trying to hide the costs.

Pharmaceuticals. Right?

That's going to be coming into focus with RFK here. But there is a ton of waste and corruption in pharmaceutical payments. Those are something like 20 percent of our economy.

But really, you know, if you sort of zoom out, you're very familiar with the Tenth Amendment.

There are precisely four agencies that are authorized. Right? State, justice, defense, treasury with both offices.

So strictly speaking, if we had a Supreme Court, that actually read the common sense language in the Tenth Amendment, almost the entire thing is gone. You would slash everything. Personally, I would keep Social Security and Medicare because they've already been paid for. That's a complicated issue. I think you have to make sure people are protected, because they already got ripped off on the way in. But aside from that, almost everything they do, from DEI, to just -- to the Federal Reserve, all of that is unconstitutional.

You slash that down, and you are -- gosh, you're probably more than 3 trillion down.

GLENN: So do you think we have a shot at doing that?

Is he putting the team in, around him to do something like this?

PETER: So the closest we have, I follow Polymarket very closely. They've got odds on pretty much everything out there. The sort of tip of the spear on income tax repeal is starting with tax on tips.

Right? That was the one that he most clearly promised.

And so that's kind of a proxy for whether we're going to start hacking away at the income tax. So tax on tips, is currently running 38 percent on Polymarket.

That's the number I'm watching. That's encouraging. Because it means, it's not just talk.

That people with capital, believe it's the real.

But for sure, Congress will play ball.

GLENN: Yeah. Thank you so much, Peter. We'll have you on again. Great explanation of this. Peter St. Onge. He's with the Heritage Foundation. You can follow him @PeterStOnge. Good luck spelling Onge. I mean, just saying.

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.