RADIOJanuary 16, 2025

Female Veteran Says Pete Hegseth is RIGHT About Women in the Military

Congresswoman and Air Force veteran Anna Paulina Luna joins Glenn to clear up one of the Democrats' biggest lies about Trump’s Defense Secretary pick Pete Hegseth during his confirmation hearing: "Pete never said that he didn't want women to serve in the military. In fact, it's quite the opposite. But I have the same agreement in that there are certain roles that women SHOULD NOT be subjected to in the military." Plus, she discusses why she’s hopeful that the Trump administration will reveal the truth about UFOs and the mysterious New Jersey drones.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna from Florida. Welcome to the program. How are you?

ANNA: Hey, Glenn. Happy to be back on.

GLENN: Yeah, it's very good to talk to you. So you were in the Air Force?

ANNA: I was.

GLENN: And what did you do in the Air Force?
ANNA: I did air field management, and worked with actually my first installation, was the B-2 stealth bombers of flight plans, a lot of inspections, a lot of readings. Did not serve in combat.

However, I definitely have an opinion or two on women in combat.

GLENN: I would like to hear it.

ANNA: First of all, during the confirmation hearings. They were incredible.

And they were trying to walk them into these sound bites. The one thing I kept hearing from the Democrats was, they were taking his comments out of context, in regards to women in the military.

So Pete never said that he never wanted women to serve in the military. In fact, it's quite the opposite.

But I have the same agreement, in that there are certain rules that women should not be subjected to in the military. So in a lot of foreign countries, you will see there will be women-only sniper teams. And/or women-only teams that will see combat. Now, I preface this by saying, that there is a study that has been done. And shows that when women have been placed in harm's way. That the natural instinct for men was to protect that woman. And that's the right thing to do.

That's that, quote, unquote, toxic masculinity that the left tries to mess with all the time --

GLENN: That is human nature. We're born with that, but go ahead.

ANNA: Right?

And so when you have though, a woman that let's say, plays on a Special Forces team. They come under fire.

Hypothetically that woman gets hurt. Instead of focusing on the mission, as it would be, the men then would in turn, go to protect that woman.

And it could ultimately result in, A, more casualties, more people getting hurt, and then also jeopardize the success of the mission.

And so I think when we're looking at military policy as a whole, we need to take these things into consideration. But it's very easy because Pete is a white male. For them to try to demonize him and treat him as this anti-woman, you know, alcoholic womanizer, which is simply not the case.

Other thing, and the reason why I wanted to show my support for him. Was, look, Pete is a Christian. He has the Jerusalem cross tattooed on him.

That does not mean he's a Nazi. That does not mean he's a white nationalist. So what I've been telling reporters. If Pete was so anti-, you know, anti-minority.

Anti-, you know, anything to do what we stand for and value in this country, why would you have the same -- because they don't really have a response to us.

GLENN: Yeah. All right. So do you agree with him? Because I took from him yesterday, something else about the military. I have no problem with women in the military, with an exception of the natural order of things, where I think men -- I have to tell you, if -- if one of the guys was captured by, you know, al-Qaeda. I would do everything I can to make sure that one of the members of my team, you know, were safe. And I would do everything that we should do. However, it's different if I know that the woman member of our team, has just been captured.

I -- it takes on a different meaning to me. Because I know what's going to happen to her, in compared to Tom or Tim.

And I think that is a natural instinct, that you cannot get rid of. And you don't want to.

The second thing, that I think that Pete is talking about. And we saw this in the fire chief, in -- in Los Angeles.

Where she said, you know, I -- you know, I'll talk to people. They'll say, well, you can't lift my husband out of our burning house.

And her response was, well, you know, he got himself into a place he shouldn't be.

So why should I?

Okay. So that's ridiculous. As long as a woman can physically do exactly what is required of the male, then I don't have a problem with that. Do you agree with that?

ANNA: I would say, though, there's this aspect of psychology. And certain situations. Where I don't think women should be placed. So right now, what we're seeing, is -- you know, those are all great points, Glenn.

The military standards, currently. There are different standards for women and for men.

That's just a fact. But there are also different requirements for different jobs. Right?

If you can go in, for example, to be a fire firefighter, you're required to lift X amount, whether or not you're a man or a woman in the military.

But in that sense, I would say that, when you're talking about conditions where you're living in a field. When you're talking about conditions, when you know that there is going to be a psychological aspect and component. It doesn't mean that women aren't as good as men.

I think there's been cases, where women can be better snipers than men are.

Depending on what you're looking for job-wise.

What I will say, as far as my perspective is concerned.

I don't think women should be required to register for the draft.

I know that Senate Democrats were pushing that.

And I also think that women should not be placed in certain combat roles in the military.

GLENN: Agreed. Agreed. Agreed.

Let me switch topics with you.

You were one of the biggest advocates for the UAP. UFO disclosure.

Any updates on -- on that hearing, the updates on the New Jersey drones.

And were you able to get David Grusch into a skiff and get a classified briefing? And if so, what was your takeaway?

ANNA: So I was not able to get Grusch into a skiff. In fact, they were blocking that, by not re-activating his security clearance. And so I'm hopeful with the new incoming administration, especially because as of right now, you know, Marco Rubio led to his confirmation for Secretary of State.

GLENN: Yeah.

ANNA: And they have been in the Senate, one of the big advocates and supporters of looking into UAP's -- a/k/a, UFOs. And then everything else associated with that.

Now, what I will say, is that I've been grossly disappointed and disgusted by how the Biden administration handled what happened with the Chinese spy balloon, which to be clear is different than a UAP.

The fact is, some of these drones are likely tied to not just hobbyists. But probably more nefarious actors.

Even if we had that information, shared in the public. I don't believe that the Biden administration would have done that.

Because of how I saw, how they handled the drones.

In the United States. And collecting intelligence. Nonetheless.

It was a Chinese intelligence operation.

You know, I had one of my colleagues Van Drew, who actually made an admission on television, that it was adversarial drones. And then you saw the Intel community come out. But Van Drew would not just make something like that up.

So you're seeing kind of this rift occur with the intelligence community, and then people that do want the American people to simply know the case.

I think this is probably the topic of longer discussion. In regards to what a UAP is. What's interesting, Glenn. And I know you look at these things through a lens, as do I.

As a Christian, first and foremost. But what's interesting, when I was questioning Grusch.

I actually asked him, well, what would you consider, in so many words -- is this like a physical ST?

And he kept calling things inter-dimensional beings, if we're specifically referencing UAPs, and so I think that that just aligns in perspective, to think about this from.

I think there's a lot. You would have talked about this even ten years ago.

Your political career would have been over. People would have said you're a conspiracy theorist.

I can tell you, this is probably the number one question I get. No matter where I am at in the country, people come up. They appreciate it, because everyone is curious. So I'll leave you with that.

GLENN: So let me just -- let me just follow that here, just a little bit.

The inter-dimensional beings, that could be spiritual. That could be a quantum being. Any idea what he meant by that?

ANNA: You know, I actually tried to pull on his string. And he didn't want to go there.

And I can also tell you, when I was talking to him, with a group of other legislators on the phone, prior to the hearing.

That he did make the omission. That he was actually in fear of his life. And that something happened, where he tried to kill him.

So I don't know if that was associated. But he did not want to go into that any further.

And so based on my investigation. Based on what we're told in the hearing, I would say that it does not seem like it would be a good thing.

He gave me the impression. That this was nefarious.

So take it for what it's worth.

It's inter-dimensional.

I think quantum could be, you know,

GLENN: Right.

ANNA: We're on the same page there.

GLENN: So it is so bizarre that this kind of stuff is happening.

And we're not being told. Donald Trump said that he would talk about the drones. On Tuesday.

He said, give me a day, to get settled on office.

And he said, I'll find iota the drones. And I'll tell the American people.

If that's China. Should we know, the American people?

ANNA: I think it would be well within his wheelhouse.

And I think he wants the American people to start to trust their elected officials.

It goes to so much deeper than just have someone in the White House on your side. Right?

Because we know that -- and from what I've gathered, because remember, there's been bipartisan and bicameral meetings in the Senate, the House. And Democrats and Republicans have all been working on this together, to get some answers and information.

And there is a certain level of stovepiping that we've seen with information. And then also too, the aspect of, I as a sitting member of Congress. Who sits on oversight and foreign affairs, was denied access by a general at the Air Force base, to whom I responded. Who gives you the right and authority to tell a duly elected member and group of Congressmen, that they don't have access to a program that we write the damn checks for?

You have no authority to deny us access.

And so that conversation, probably not comfortable for that general.

GLENN: How did that end?

ANNA: Well, he left.

He actually got up in the middle of our meeting and went on TDY. Which any military member will tell you, never happened. He left the meeting.

He left the state.

He got up and left.

GLENN: Wow! Did you ever get an answer?

No. Representative Gaetz and Representative Burchett were also there to witness this.

I never seen that happen. And remember, I was in the military.

He literally got up and left in the middle of the meeting. Said he had orders in Georgia, and he never came back.

GLENN: Are you -- are you concerned at all about some of the conversations. We just saw another video from James O'Keefe.

Where he's talking to somebody who was -- I think he claimed to be in the FBI.

Said, he and others were meeting with generals. To make sure that they had a control on Donald Trump.

Are you -- are you confident at all, this time around, Donald Trump will be able to route that.

VOICE: Oh, most certainly.

And I will say, that has a lot to do with the confirmation of the Secretary of Defense.

You know, top down.

Last time president Trump was in office. I think there was a lot of trust in people, to do the right thing.

And then he realized that the Deep State was real.

And there were people running, regardless of whether he was a Republican. Or whether they're Republicans or not.

That they were working against his agenda. Because they didn't like what he stood for.

What we're finding, there is going to be a setup to go through these generals. That, A, discharge military members based on vaccinations. And boards.

The fact is, if you're a general and you're pushing wokeness ideologies.

Or you're trying to undermine subjective o the commander in chief, you have no place in the Department of Defense, period.

And so those people conspired, and I look forward to that. Because I can just tell you from a congressional perspective, Glenn. I actually had an amendment in the National Defense Authorization Act to remove DEI for military training.

And I have friends still in the military. So someone at Ramstein Air Base actually sent me an email of an officer there, that was directly undermining what we did. Congress has removed DEI.
So we're renaming it. Please, proceed with the training.

Guess what, that person is also going to be fired. And that's really how you're going to be at the DOD --

GLENN: Good. Good.

If you could hold for 60 seconds, I need to take a network break and come back. I want to ask you about Cuba. What the Biden administration just did. And also about Tulsi Gabbard. And how you feel about her and her nomination.

Back in just a second with Anna Paulina Luna, Representative from Florida.

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.