RADIOMay 04, 2022

WHAT'S NEXT: Could packing the Supreme Court END America?

Thanks to the recent leak of a drafted Roe v Wade decision, the U.S. Supreme Court likely will ‘never be the same,’ Kelly Shackelford tells Glenn. ‘I just think it’s going to damage the court permanently,’ the President & CEO of First Liberty Institute explains. ‘We’ve crossed that Rubicon now.’ So, with a ‘damaged’ court, what comes next? Well the left already is pushing to pack the Supreme Court — something Shackelford says could be the END of America as we know it: ‘When [court packing] happens, that first time, you’re done. You’re tyranny.’

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Mr. Kelly Shackelford from First Liberty. How are you, sir?

KELLY: Great, Glenn. It's great to be you with you.

GLENN: First of all, is it illegal to leak this document?

KELLY: I'm not aware of any criminal violation.

GLENN: Okay.

KELLY: Obviously, it's -- it's a really, it's an attack upon the institution of the court. And I don't know if people understand. I mean, the court will never be the same.

I don't know what they're going to have to do now, but the ability of all the justices to have -- these are some of the brightest young attorneys in the country. They bring in new ones.

And the ability just with your own clerks. The opinions you're working on.

I mean, I just think it's going to damage the court permanently. And there's a reason why this has been never happened.

And it's -- we've crossed that Rubicon now. And the court will never be the same.

GLENN: I'm not sure it will change forever, if they put the hammer down on anything that was involved. Wouldn't that send a strong enough message to bring it back?

KELLY: I hope. I mean, number one, are they going to figure out, who it is? I think it's highly likely to be one of the 12 clerks, or the three liberal justices.

I mean, you know, what if, God forbid, it ended up being involved with the justice.

I mean, to me, I think that's impeachable. I just think that people don't understand the -- this is why sort of shooting a rocket, at the Supreme Court, is -- it is something that could -- that we might not return from, as far as the court being able to be what it is.

Which is the ability for justices. I don't know if people know this, Glenn. But what happens is, there's a majority a a dissent. And they voted, just a few days after the argument. They vote. And they start to write on the opinion. The majority writes there. And they share votes.

And people end up being convinced. This is the marketplace of ideas in a different way. It's very important. They want to know what the law is. What does the law really say?

Oh, my gosh. I didn't really think of that. And people switch.

And there's lots to that, that's happened. Where people go to a concurrence, or a consent, or a consent to the majority. And if you can't share the opinions and have that discussion, without people, you know, taking what's being written and taking it out in public, to try to use it as a political tool. I mean, you just destroyed the internal deliberation, going on, and the exchange of ideas.

It's a really horrible thing, what this person did.

GLENN: What about -- what about the idea that it might have been a conservative clerical, that thought maybe they're going to switch to the other side. This will lock them into position.

KELLY: It doesn't make sense on a lot of levels. I understand people think it's really, really cute. Because it locks them in.

Number one, the whole point is that conservatives don't do that. Conservative justices actually restrain themselves -- and no matter what I believe, I'm going to follow what works. What is the original meaning?

The whole philosophy of those people, is not just warp the court into what they want it to be. That's a liberal approach.

GLENN: Right. And that is clear in this -- in this ruling. I mean, that is mentioned several times. That we're not a political body. We can't acquiesce. We have no idea what this is going to do with the American people. But we can't care about that. We have to do what our job is.

And that is to interpret the law against the Constitution.

VOICE: And here's the thing about that, Glenn. Nobody talks about that.

This is a deal. Talk about populism. This is a massive return of power to the people. And away from a few oligarchs who control everything. In a darkroom in the Supreme Court. They weren't supposed to.

It's not the Constitution.

So this is a huge return of power, to people, at the United States. To make their decision, to decide what they think is right or wrong. And not have just a handful of people, tell them what morality is. So it's not talked about that way. But it really should be. This is what the Founders meant.

GLENN: It really is incredible. Because I saw signs last night. Power belongs to the people. And they were protesting. No. That's -- that's what this document says! Now, can -- can this go to -- we know it can now go back to states, as it should be. And they can vote and do whatever they want.

Does this -- can this also just go back to Congress, and have a federal law?

KELLY: They can. They can, if they can pass it. Because, again, the Constitution doesn't speak to it, and therefore it's up to the people. So they can pass a law. But they would -- they would have to do one of two things. They would have to -- you know, in the Senate, get 60 votes. In order to -- it's called filibuster. It's really cloture. They can either get 60 votes. Which they will not be able to do. Or they can destroy the filibuster. And that will be a permanent damaging of the Senate. I mean, the last time they didn't have a filibuster was before Thomas Edison. You know, invented the lightbulb.

So we're talking about. This would be -- change the Senate forever.

Because the reason the Senate is considered probably the most well-known deliberative body in the world. Is because you can't just pass it with raw political power. You have to get some consensus of the other side.

It takes that 60 votes. And it slows things down.

So you only have one party taking over, flipping the country, one major direction to the other. The Senate kind of stops that and makes there be some consensus.

If you take -- if you destroy the filibuster, we're going to see court packing. We're going to see Puerto Rico becoming a state. DC. I mean, we're not going to recognize our country.

I think I've mentioned this before, with your audience, even, Glenn. But if people don't understand -- once you do court packing once, your country is over.

So this is the kind of stuff that would happen, if they do get rid of the filibuster, as Bernie Sanders and others are advocating today. Because they know they'll have to do that, if they're going to push through a new law. A new Roe v. Wade by federal mandate.

GLENN: And is court packing just one justice? Or does there have to be several? I don't know who would go five to five.

KELLY: It's four. They already filed a bill to add four justices to the Supreme Court.

So it would add four. Which would then make the liberals have the majority. And they would just start doing whatever -- basically, like a super legislature. But the problem is within once you do it, the court is over. It's just a subsidiary of the majority party in power. And there's no rule of law anymore. And you don't have any rights anymore. You have whatever right the majority party wishes for you to keep, and that's why --

GLENN: And you never really go back.

KELLY: You don't. You look at -- and people wonder what happened to Venezuela. That's what happened.

Argentina. We can go through lots of countries. People don't understand. But when it happens, that first time, you're done. You're tyranny.

And really, a dictatorship is where you go. So it's something they tried in 1936, '37. FDR did. Because he did not like the fact that they were not getting his new deal through. But even his own party turned against him, before it was over.

And said, this is tyranny. We're not going to do this in this country, and it failed.

But it's very dangerous. And it's something they can only do. If they destroyed the filibuster, which would be what they had to do to pass a Roe v. Wade in federal statute.

GLENN: So that is the thing that, you know -- you know, I'm looking at here.

I'm not sure they released this to do anything, but to pour fuel on the fire, right now.

Why wait until summer? Power fuel on the fire right now. To get court packing done. And the end of a filibuster. I think it has more to do with that, than the judgment from the court. Would you agree?

I think it's both. Probably. They're hoping that they can intimidate one of the justices. This is the beginning of what I've been predicting for months. I think we were just together recently.

And I said, this is coming in June. When these decisions start coming down.

And I think they're going to go for court packing in a frenzy. I think this is going to be their new election approach. Because they obviously are not working well under the current polling, and et cetera.

And I think this is going to be their attempt. And we're seeing just a sort of release of that. In addition to, I hope they can intimidate one of the five justices, that supposedly are on this opinion.

It only says Alito, but, again, part of the leak was that four other justices, not the chief. But four of the other with them. So my hope, is that they can pick off a Kavanaugh, or a Barrett, who will lose their nerve. I don't think that will happen. I think this would entrench them even more. It will just destroy. Everybody would know that they changed their -- their principled opinion, because of pressure.

So I don't think that's going to happen. So I agree with you. Long-term, this is their strategy, and this is what they're going to do.

GLENN: Kelly, can you hang on for just a second?

I want to talk to you about the other cases that are coming up in June, and the impact that they will have.

We will do that in 60 seconds.

GLENN: Kelly Shackelford is on the board of trustees of the United States Supreme Court historical society.

He's earned his law degree from Baylor University.

And he's also the president and CEO of First Liberty Institute.

If you are thinking about donating money to any cause, I can highly recommend First Liberty Institute. They can use your money, and they are winning and actually leaving permanent marks.

It's FirstLiberty.org. So, Kelly, we have been in front of the Supreme Court. We were talking. And you said to me, we're probably more free. By the end of the summer, we will be more free, religiously speaking, than we have been in our lifetime.

You also said, because of Roe vs. Wade, and the other opinions that you think are coming down the pike, that the left is going to lose their mind. What are the other cases?

Well, obviously you've got Dobbs. Which is the Roe v. wade, which we're now seeing the precursors too. And, by the way, the way this works, is the court issues all of its opinions by June, because the session will end. And they will mostly leave the country and speak and teach and stuff. Other places. So the opinions are out by the end of June. You would expect Dobbs to be issued that last week, probably.

GLENN: Hang on. Let me ask you a question. Why don't they just finish it now, and make it official?

KELLY: They might. They might. I don't know how far along they are. Because what we saw was an early draft. But if I'm the chief, I think I might move it along now. And say, we'll get this out quickly. So all this nonsense will stop. But it normally will be late. But in addition to Dobbs. You've got a Second Amendment case, which will be -- I think in favor of the Second Amendment. And against the New York restrictions. On guns.

GLENN: Which will do -- which will do what?

KELLY: It will just bolster the Second Amendment, and say that these types of restrictions are unconstitutional. Because there is a Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. And this violates that fundamental right. I think you're going to get that kind of -- I think we're going to -- we argue it's a major school choice decision in September. And, you know, it's expected, the way the argument thing. That we're going to win that case.

GLENN: Which would mean, what?

KELLY: Which means any time, there's any school choice program, anywhere in the country, you cannot exclude religious schools or religious choices from the parents.

And that will make clear, that school choice has to be fair. And that everywhere it's going on. And there's a lot of programs out there. The exclusion of the religious schools is over. And so at a -- that will cause a lot of religious schools to come into being, because now there will be resources, that the parents have to choose what they think is best for their kids.

So that will be a big decision. Because the Kennedy case, which we just argued a week ago, Monday. That's a huge case. And it looks like, it's going to be even bigger than expected. Depending upon how they write the opinion.

Again, this is a coach. She was fired for going to a knee after the game, to say a 20-second prayer, thanking God for the privilege to coach the young men, he coached. It's the first time the court has ever had a case, on the free exercise. Or religious freedom rights, of a teacher. A coach. Anyone. So there's never been a decision on this. So it will affect a lot of people that way. But what people didn't expect. During the oral argument within the court the bottom into a discussion about possibly ending the Lemon case. Which has been around for 50 years. And if people wonder why our whole lives, we've seen attacks on nativity scenes, and menorahs, and veterans memorials with religious symbols. And Ten Commandments monuments, and all that.

It's not because the Founders said anything about that. It's because of this really bad case 50 years ago. And it's been the weapon of choice. For secularists now. For 50 years. To wipe our society clean of religion. And it's pretty clear that maybe a majority of the justices are about to say, that's over. And that's a sea change. If that happens as well.

GLENN: Jeez.

KELLY: So those are just a handful. And there's some others as well.

Finance. There's the border case that was argued this last week. So all this stuff is coming down, at the end of June. And my guess is, the Marxist left is not going to like these things.

GLENN: It is amazing to me, as -- as we are traveling down this road, where the country seems -- the government seems to be going in entirely the wrong direction.

And you're kind of losing hope.

That the Supreme Court now rides in, and is doing remarkable things, that, quite honestly, I think would find favor in the eyes of good. It's -- I mean, hopefully it buys us some time.

KELLY: Yeah. And, you know, what it's doing -- is these justices aren't themselves. Politicians. They don't go one way or another. But they're going back to the original meaning of the texts of the Constitution. Which takes us to our founding.

GLENN: Yeah.

Kelly Shackelford, president and CEO of First Liberty Institute. You can find it and donate at FirstLiberty.org.

I highly recommend that. That's the thing about constitutional judges, it doesn't always cut your way. Because it's all about freedom, and rule of law.

Will the Big, Beautiful Bill’s Medicaid changes really “KILL” people?

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

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

Because the spending ourself into oblivion is an actual threat.

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

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

Okay. Offset. By what?

Well, by cutting spending. But cutting what spending?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Look at the austerity program that I am on.

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

They cut the increase inning spending.

That's what they cut.

And, Stu, could you please explain Medicare.

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

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

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

Or Medicaid.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But able-bodied adults.

GLENN: Okay. On people in wheelchairs.

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

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

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

GLENN: No small children.

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

Now, you might --

GLENN: Twenty hours a week.

STU: Or 80 hours a month.

GLENN: Or 80 hours a month.

That's almost half a full-time job.

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

Some people can't get jobs. Right?

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

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

Of course not.

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

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

You have to at least fill out some paperwork here.

GLENN: It's the exact opposite.

Let me see if I have this right.

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

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

But it's the exact opposite. Right?

Especially if you're nursing sextuplets.

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

You're a little bit off on this one.

GLENN: No. Huh!

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

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

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

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

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

Then, yes. You will lose your Medicaid coverage.

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

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

STU: Yes.

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

STU: No. Again, no.

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

STU: Hmm.

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

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

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

But, yeah.

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

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

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

I can't think of the case.

GLENN: Blind person.

STU: Because the ailments are covered here.

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

I don't know.

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

If you happen to have Medicaid.

GLENN: I can't double-dip.

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

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

GLENN: Hold on just one second.

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

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

STU: I know.

It's really, really brutal.

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

STU: Now --

GLENN: Is that what you're saying?

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

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

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

GLENN: Okay.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

STU: It's brutal. It really is.

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

STU: No.

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

When will you leave these people alone?

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

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

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

Liz Wheeler demands Trump FIRE Bondi after Epstein list debacle

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They're the good guys. We trust them.

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Why?

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

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

LIZ: Through that door.

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

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

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

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

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

LIZ: Yes. We need more evidence.

GLENN: That's reasonable.

LIZ: One piece of evidence.

It's not enough.

GLENN: Yeah.

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

GLENN: So may I just interject here.

LIZ: Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Listen.

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

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

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

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

VOICE: Not yet.

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

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

So who has Jeffrey Epstein's?

VOICE: Black book? FBI.

GLENN: But who?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, no.

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

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

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

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

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

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

VOICE: Liz, they're both very clear.

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

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

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

So how do we go from here?

VOICE: Yes. Listen.

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

Epstein was convicted of that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Possible.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The INCREDIBLE TRUE Story of Benjamin Franklin

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Whatever.

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

And have a beer with.

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

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

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah. He could.

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

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

MARK: Yes. Deborah. That's correct.

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

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

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

GLENN: Right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can you quickly tell that story?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: I don't think --

CHIP: Just like you are saying.

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

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

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