RADIOJanuary 23, 2024

Is THIS why Amy Coney Barrett sided with BIDEN on the border?

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Biden administration CAN cut Texas’ razor wire at the southern border. But why would Trump-appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett side with Biden on this issue? Senator Mike Lee joins Glenn to give his thoughts: Is this all a political game? Sen. Lee also reminds listeners that this SCOTUS decision doesn’t stop Texas from doing anything — it only allows the White House to thwart Gov. Abbott’s actions. “Is the Biden administration really, seriously, with a straight face going to say, ‘cut the wires?’” Sen. Lee asks. And how should Texas and Americans react if they had to decide between securing the border and defying the rule of law?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Senator Mike Lee.

Because I will lead and not follow.

I believe and not doubt. I will create, not destroy.

Because I'm a force for good. I'm a force for God.

I'm a leader. And we can defy the odds.

I need your help today.

In understanding the news, and where we go from here.

Because if it's -- if it's not this, it will be something, because we're facing constitutional crisis, after constitutional crisis.

And I am -- I am not sure how to react.

But I know there's a lot of people saying, this is out of line. We should ignore the Supreme Court.

But that makes us them. But what else are you going to do.

First, let's go over what the Supreme Court decided yesterday, Mike.

MIKE: Okay. So yesterday, the Supreme Court issued an order, not an opinion. Just a very brief order, undoing an order that was released by the US Court of Appeals, for the Fifth Circuit, on December 19th.

Now, remember, the Courts of Appeals are -- are numbered throughout the company.

The Fifth Circuit includes the state of Texas.

And the -- the Fifth Circuit, on December 19th. Had issued an order, enjoining the widen administration.

From taking down barriers, put in place, by the state of Texas.

The state of Texas wanted to make sure that -- that they restore some semblance of the rule of law in their state. So put up barriers along the border. Say, we don't want to do this. The Biden administration started taking actions indicating its plans to take down the concertina wire and the other barriers.

So Texas brought suit against the Department of Homeland Security.

And others in the Biden administration.

And said, we want an injunction, telling them, telling the Biden administration, that they may not take down these barriers. The Fifth Circuit Court of appeals, on December 19th, issued such an injunction.

And immediately, the Biden administration, went to the Supreme Court.

And filed an emergency application, to vacate that injunction.

In other words, to undo it.

And they offered a portion of the order from yesterday.

Is just found in a sentence.

It's inclusive of a total of four sentences.

But this one is the operative language.
The December 19th, 2023, order of appeals for the Fifth Circuit is vacated. That's it!

And there's a separate line that says, Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, Justice Gorsuch, and Justice Kavanaugh would have denied the application to vacate the junction.

So with that, the Supreme Court of the United States undid this.

What this tells this. It was chief justice Roberts, along with Justice Kagan, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Jackson, who was in the majority on this.

And that's all we know about their rationale. All we know about what happened.

So all of a sudden, Texas, having won this litigation.

The previous round of litigation in the Court of Appeals.

Is back to square one. Being told, you lose.

And yet, we don't have the analysis as to why, and what this means.

And everything is in a state of disorder.

GLENN: So, first of all, can you explain Barrett's joining the other side.

I mean, any guess to what she was thinking.

MIKE: Yeah. So all I can do is guess. All I can do is offer conjecture. Because there's no analysis.

If I were to guess.

GLENN: Hang on just a second.

Before you go on. Is that up usual. That there was no analysis?

MIKE: It's not unusual. Given the procedural posture in which they find themselves.

In other words, this side of the court's docket. The emergency application court's docket. Is itself something that the justices have to do. As they're doing their other ordinary business. If they're writing opinions in other cases. And they -- they -- because the nature of it. It's a yes or no, up or down thing, most of the time.

So that part is not surprising.

But it's surprising, given the nature of this dispute. And the complexity, and urgency of this. That we would have this.

It's at least difficult to figure out what to do.

So if I had to guess, as to what her analysis might have been. And that of Chief Justice Roberts, it would be that they reached some kind of conclusion. That, you know, we don't want the courts to be weaponized.

We don't want to be perceived certainly as justices as playing only on the team of the political party of the presence who appointed us. And therefore, I, we, speaking, you know, either as justice -- either as chief justice Roberts, or justice Barrett, or both of them.

We're going to decide to side with the Democrats on this one. So that we don't overpoliticize this. But I really find that difficult. To grasp. That they would do it in that circumstance.

And yet, I don't see a good reason. I don't see an explanation, that makes a lot of sense.

It goes much beyond that.

Because I don't understand why it's a bad thing, to have the state of Texas, trying to protect the people of Texas from these swarms of people, who are pouring from across their borders.

Without documentation.

And destroying property along the way. Converting property. As if it were their own.

And destroying it, as they -- as they cross in illegally.

I don't understand what the compelling need is.

Or what principle of law would be violated, by the state of Texas.

Trying to protect the people of Texas.

GLENN: Let me ask you something, the Constitution says that it is the -- the federal government's job to protect the borders.

But they're not doing their job, obviously.

In fact, they're enabling those people trying to come in. And they are enabling drug cartels. Drugs coming over. Killing our citizens.

Criminals coming over. We know terrorists have come over now.

They're enabling those who rape and sell into sex slavery.

I mean, it's -- it's bad stuff. It's not even close.

And what the justices are saying is, Texas, you don't have the right to protect your own borders. That's our job.

Let me -- let me ask you: If a military came over. Let's say these 10 million people all had military uniforms.

But, you know, only a few of them had guns.

Examine it was clear this was an invasion by an army.

And the federal government decided to say, eh. No. They can keep crossing in.

Would they have the right, to say to Texas, or anybody else, you don't have the right to have a militia, or, you know, call up your National Guard. And push these people back?

Is the Constitution a suicide pact?

MIKE: Certainly not. And specifically, in that kind of circumstance, it wouldn't be. There are two separate provisions of the Constitution, to tell us this.

One is found in article four, section four.

Which says, that the United States shall guarantee every state or Republican form of government

And on application of a state, typically the legislature.

Shall protect each of them from invasion.

So that's an affirmative obligation by the United States.

To protect each state from invasion.

Now, if there's also a -- something that defends in the Constitution. Separate right of the state. To stand up for itself. Upon being invaded.

And that's found in article one, section ten. Clause three.

Once in the provision, that tells the states, a bunch of stuff, that they can't do on their own, without the consent of Congress.

But then contains a carve-out for circumstances in which a state is actually invaded.

GLENN: Yeah. But the only the difference in one scenario -- the only -- the only difference is, in these two scenarios, is 10 million people are coming over.

Not in uniform.

But that's it. I mean, it's an invasion.

MIKE: Right. That's right. And it's no less of an invasion simply because they're not organized formerly, as a military or we don't think of them. They were not a military.

But it's an invasion, nonetheless.

Throughout history, there have been instances of invasions of many countries, around the world. Some are armed, organized invasions. Others are not.

But it's an invasion nonetheless. They are being invaded by people who don't belong there.

And people who have threatened to subvert the order of things.

And the rule of law. As they enter. So the fact that there is an invasion, and the fact that the state of Texas feels the need to protect its own citizens from this. Puts Texas, in my view, in a very solid position.

Now, I assume, that for the four justices who dissented, that is, for Justices Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch, that was their rationale. We are all still grasping to understand what the rationale of the majority is.

Other than as you say, immigration is the thing, that is done by the federal government. And it's not done by the state of Texas.

Therefore, case closed. But that doesn't answer the question. That doesn't answer the article one, section ten. Or the article four, section four question, that we just discussed. And as a practical matter, it leaves the state of Texas, in an untenable position.

GLENN: Okay. So now, Mike, I -- I -- we have to have a serious adult conversation.

And we have to start modeling these conversations, and having these conversations.

And have them as rationale, reasonable citizens of a republic. And as adults.

And if you as a listener can't handle that, then you should go away. Because I think some questions need to be asked. And if not now, very soon on whatever the next topic might be.

You know, Mike, there was a guy named Martin Luther King. I know you know.

And he -- he taught people how to resist peacefully.

And nobody is teaching that. Nobody is pushing for that. Pastors are all out to lunch.

But there are people now, who are saying, we need to go. In fact, could you read Tucker Carlson's tweet? From yesterday.

STU: I don't have that handy, but --

GLENN: Look for it. Basically, he says, where are the men of Texas, standing up.

Well, the men of Texas standing up, I don't know exactly what that means, Tucker.

Because many of us are standing up, and we're speaking out.

At what point do people, are people justified at all to say, yeah. It makes me kind of like them. But we have to stop this.

So, in other words, defying the Supreme Court, and just doing it anyway.

I don't like that.

MIKE: No. But look, the rule of law is important to us.

It's the whole reason why Texas is trying to take this action to begin with. Is to preserve the rule of law.

And for that reason, everything possible needs to be done to comply with the rule of law. And if it means going along with a court order, that one doesn't like, and finding other ways to be persuasive to get something done.

But keep in mind something, Glenn. The Supreme Court's order from yesterday, does not order the state of Texas to do anything.

As I read it. All it says, is that they vacate, the fifth circuit's order, from the 19th of December.

Which had itself, enjoined, the Biden administration from taking down the barricades.

So there's nothing affirmatively that the state of Texas has to do in order to comply with this order from the Supreme Court.

It just lifts the legal impediment from the Biden administration.

That previously told them, don't take down the barricades.

GLENN: Right.

MIKE: So one interesting question is, what exactly will the Biden administration do now?

Is the Biden administration really, seriously, with a straight face. Are they going to say, yes. Cut the wires. Remove all the concertina wire and do all that?

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

MIKE: Glenn, remember something. We have seen in the last month, more people pouring across our border, unlawfully.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

MIKE: Than has ever been observed.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

MIKE: In our nearly two and a half centuries of existence as a nation.

And our Border Patrol agents, and everybody else, who works with them, on this. They're all overwhelmed.

I've been down at the border. Just in the last few weeks alone.

I've lived down at the border. For two years.

I know this area well.

Are they really going to say, this is where we want our efforts focused to be going New Testament, removing barricades. Whose sole purpose is to protect people in the state of Texas. And, frankly, even people who are being human traffic along the border.

Are they really going to say, that's where they are. Bring up the wire cutters. Stop everything else. Stop everything that you're doing.

GLENN: They've already done that, Mike. They've already done that. They were cutting the wires in Texas.

What makes you think they won't do that.

MIKE: They were cutting them. They had to stop for three weeks. In the meantime, Texas put down a whole lot more wire.

And they've got more wire now.

I mean, this really would be a massive undertaking.

And if after -- after the month of December, 2023. Just last month. Are they really going to go back in, and undertake that huge effort again?

If so, this raises all kinds of other questions.

And if so, I think this could end up being the very best thing that a single greatest momentum of producing exercise for the Donald Trump campaign.

Because this is a president of the United States, who loves lawlessness, if this is true the way he wants to do it. And we have to make that point loud and clear.

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.