BLOGApril 27, 2017

Straight Shooting From Rep. Mark Sanford: We're Not Repealing Obamacare

Rep. Mark Sanford (R-SC) joined Glenn on radio today with a refreshing and much-needed approach: telling the truth, even if it's bad news. Sanford explained the reason behind the Freedom Caucus endorsing the latest version of Obamacare.

Enjoy the complimentary clip or read the transcript for details.

GLENN: So there was a disturbing news out of the White House yesterday. Yesterday, the Senate came and was briefed at the White House on North Korea. Some of the senators walked out and rolled their eyes. And they were quoted as saying, well, that was interesting. And not in a positive way.

No real word on -- on what happened, what the plan is. And couple that with another story that's coming out from the White House on how the president is briefed. And this is coming from an ally of Donald Trump inside the White House. And I have to tell you, Pat, your blood runs cold when you hear how he's briefed?

PAT: Yeah. Oh, yeah.

GLENN: I mean, this is one of the most disturbing things I've read. We'll get into that.

Also, a guy who is turning out to be somebody that we can really seemingly count on to tell the truth and to stand up to the weasels in Washington is congressman Mark Sanford of South Carolina. I don't believe he's ever been on the show before. We welcome him, beginning right now.

(music)

GLENN: Congressman Mark Sanford from South Carolina. How are you, sir?

MARK: I'm good. Good to hear your voice.

GLENN: It's good to have you on. Let me just get this uncomfortable moment out from me. Out into the open.

I saw you quickly in the hallway a few years back. And at the time, I was still kind of mad at you for the stuff that, you know, we all went through and you went through. But I have to tell you, you have -- you have taken a situation that could have just destroyed anybody, and you have -- you have a real success and redemption story. And it's really nice to have you on.

MARK: Well, you're very, very kind.

Without going into it, I have been on a journey that involves both the grace of man and the grace of God.

GLENN: Yeah.

MARK: And it's a pretty good journey.

GLENN: Well, we're glad to have you on.

I want to talk about a couple of things. Because you're a free market Libertarian-minded congressman, which are getting harder and harder to find, at least it seems out here in the wild as we're looking in. You saw the tax plan. And you've heard more now, I'm sure, you know, on the Trumpcare plan. How are you feeling about things?

MARK: You know, I think from a conservative or Libertarian standpoint, a lot of us are concerned about where things go next.

A number of us have sort of stuck our finger in the dike trying to hold back the health care bill based on a belief from a process standpoint. Not being ready for prime time. There's a value to the back and forth that -- that may not be comfortable or fun. But there's a real value to that.

And, frankly, some of the consequent results that would have come with that bill in its original form. And on the tax bill, I think a number of us are concerned about its ramifications with regard to the deficit. I think we need to -- I mean, this is a huge opportunity, the idea of reforming taxes, but we need to do it within the context of not simultaneously blowing up the debt and the deficit, which is no longer talked about in Washington, DC.

GLENN: I think this is so frightening. We don't even have a budget. And in the period we haven't had a budget, we've increased the debt by $10 trillion.

You're right. Nobody is talking about it. And I'm sorry to say that the -- the whole economic principle of cutting taxes only really works when you put it in the context of Calvin Coolidge. You must cut spending first. That's the only thing that's going to give all of us confidence that we can relax and spend a little bit and create jobs.

MARK: You're absolutely right. Because what's really interesting, as we both know, a deficit is simply a delayed tax. You're just stacking the bill. But the idea of saying, we'll cut taxes on one hand. But we'll run bigger deficits on the other. The two wash each other out from an economic standpoint. And so the only-fashioned notion of saying, "Wait a minute. Let's begin with the beginning." It was actually Milton Friedman who once said, "The ultimate measure of government is what it spends." Now, it's not the only measure, but it's a pretty important measure because it's from there that we raise taxes to pay for -- deficits may come as a result between the two.

But what it spends is something that's not looked at in Washington, but I think it's still looked at very closely by folks across this country.

GLENN: Well, I will tell you this, as a small business man, we were talking about this yesterday. And everybody on the team said, "Well, you know, that will increase job creation, et cetera, et cetera." And as the guy who actually pays the bills and runs the business, I said, "Not as much, quite honestly, as you might think because I'm still going to hold an awful lot back from for a rainy day because I know the center won't hold. This is a game." The only ones that are really going to spend it are the ones that I think will take those taxes and pour it into the stock market or whatever they can pour it into, that will have short-term paper guns to make more money, but not to necessarily create more jobs, because they know at some point the music will stop.

MARK: Uh-huh.

We're in the fourth longest economic recovery in the history of our nation right now. And if you believe in, I guess what the statisticians call regression to the mean or what everyday folks call the law of averages, to your point, it won't go on forever. I think, again, it could be very helpful in terms of competitiveness of this country.

GLENN: Yeah.

MARK: I think it's an incredible opportunity. These opportunities don't roll around often.

And this is the fourth time in the history of our republic that Republicans have held the House, Senate, and White House. But I think we need to do it within the context of making sure we're watching on the spending front. And our budgets become more and more unrealistic as each year goes by. And they get harder and harder to -- to, in essence, bring to ballot over a 10-year time frame.

And it's important that, again, we do talk at some level about this old-fashioned notion of accumulating debt and deficit.

It is amazing right now -- it's almost like the three monkeys about hear no evil, I speak no evil, I think no evil, with regard to debt and deficit. It is something that is just not focused on in DC right now, but I think has real implications in terms of value of the dollar, in terms of future inflation, and ultimately our way of life.

GLENN: So let me ask you a couple of things on, the Freedom Caucus stood against -- and you stood against Obamacare. I'm sorry. Obamacare and Trumpcare.

MARK: Yeah.

GLENN: When Trumpcare was being pushed, you were actually threatened by Team Trump. They said that, if you didn't sign up, they would challenge you in the primary of 2018. And from what I understand, you said, "Go ahead." Now they're saying that the Freedom Caucus is starting to come on board. Is there something that we can actually look at, that is possibly decent?

MARK: Yeah. It's represented in this MacArthur Amendment whether or not that will ultimately get us up and over the top, I'm not sure. But I think that the Freedom Caucus -- well, I know the Freedom Caucus has come on board based on the belief of, one, let's tell the truth to the American public. The truth is we're not repealing the Affordable Care Act. Even though there had been a lot of fanfare when we had a Democratic president and it couldn't go into effect, you know, 60 votes to that effect in the House of Representatives, the bill that made its way all the way to the president, a lot of chest-beating saying, "We've got to repeal. We've got to repeal. We've got to repeal." When push comes to shove, now that we have the chance, they were not willing -- the conference was not willing to bring that bill forward.

And I think that the allies that I deal with in the Freedom Caucus pushed awfully hard on that, saying, wait. This is something that is clear consensus in the House, the Senate. We've done it multiple times. But for whatever reason, that isn't where we were. This other bill moved forward. It wasn't, as I say, ready for prime time. It had a number of different deficiencies that I think would have hurt people who rely on the individual marketplace for their insurance.

And in essence, this MacArthur Amendment was an experiment in federalism. Getting it was called title one. And title one is really the central nervous system of what drives up cost in the individual marketplace and what, frankly, drives the Affordable Care Act. And our fight in --

GLENN: What is title one?

MARK: Title one basically deals with insurance being insurance. So if I said to you, we're going to -- you know, I'm going to give you great insurance. You know, great insurance. You have a 200,000-dollar house. But you've got to buy a million and a half dollar policy. You would say, that ain't great insurance for me. It might be great insurance, but it's not great insurance for me. Great insurance is the insurance that fits for me and for my family and those that I love.

And so what title one gets at is, all the different provisions that prevented insurance from being insurance. Insurance is not being able to buy your homeowner's policy when the house is on fire. You have to buy your homeowner's policy ahead of time to be covered.

And what the Affordable Care Act did is it said, you could wait until your house was on fire to buy a homeowner's policy. So title one was, again, letting -- preventing insurance from being insurance. And it was our belief that if you were ever going to, again, affect the cost of insurance for that small business person out there struggling to make it and struggling with fewer choices and rising premiums, you had to let insurance be insurance.

And so that's what the fight has been about. And what this MacArthur Amendment did was it said, okay. We'll split the baby. And we'll do a federalism experiment. States that want to let insurance be insurance, they can do that. States that don't, won't. If Vermont wants to go to a single-payer system, they may. If South Carolina wants to go to a more market-based system, they may. And that I think is the most you'll be able to get out of the conference. And at that point, the Freedom Caucus folded the cards and said, I guess, as of yesterday to be exact, we'll sign off on that particular measure. And that's where things are right now.

GLENN: Mark -- we're talking to Congressman Mark Sanford from South Carolina who is showing some real spine and some backbone and standing up for some real true conservative principles. I'd love to talk to you about the future of the party and where you think this is going and the -- and where Trump is going. But one of the pressing issues that I think we need to talk about is North Korea.

What is the temperature in Washington for North Korea? We, for the life of us, cannot come up with a way that this ends without at least a million dead.

MARK: Yeah. You can draw some really bad doomsday scenarios. There was actually a closed door Intel briefing yesterday afternoon on the Hill for members of Congress on this particular topic. And without going into that, I would just say that -- I -- I think we want to be careful about rattling this particular saber --

GLENN: No, I know.

MARK: At this point, North Korea does not have the capacity to bring harm to domestic US. And I think we need to put things within that particular framework as we look at and access threat.

GLENN: Do you believe this administration is looking at it like that?

MARK: I -- I think that they are most worried about what might happen there. And I think that they're thinking about preemptive -- preemptive steps to prevent something from happening.

GLENN: That doesn't sound good.

What is -- with everything, Mark, that is going on, the economy -- I have a woman on who was inside the Dallas fed. She wrote a great book. I don't know if you've seen it, called Fed Up. She was in Wall Street. And then she was one of the chief researchers for the head of the Dallas fed here in -- and saw, you know, 2008 coming a mile away. And she was laughed at until it happened. And then she was promoted.

And what she sees coming now is an absolute disaster financially. With that -- with the world on the edge, with -- with Russia and with a press that is no longer trusted, a government that is no longer trusted, what -- what keeps you up at night? And what keeps you optimistic?

MARK: What keeps me up at night is exactly -- I will make it a point to find this book Fed Up. It's fascinating.

But, you know, I would just presuppose that her philosophical alignment is to the right.

GLENN: Yes.

MARK: But whether you're right or left on this issue -- I mean, it was interesting that Erskine Bowles, who was, you know, Clinton's former chief of staff at the time of the Bowles/Simpson commission, remarked that, you know, look, we're looking at the most predictable financial crisis in the history of man.

If you think about Admiral Mike Mullen, former chairman and joint of chief, his observation was -- when asked, what's the biggest threat to the United States? Not the Chinese. Excuse me -- not the Chinese, not the Taliban. But his answer was the American debt.

And so whether it's somebody who is a firsthand participant in the way that the fed works, with the right position, somebody from a military position, somebody from the left, the thing that we're not talking about right now is indeed the build-up of the debt. There's an interesting book if you have insomnia called At This Time, It's Different.

GLENN: Oh, yeah.

MARK: And it was written by a professor from Harvard and a professor from Maryland, writer, and wrote often. Some of their methodologies have been questioned. But their largest premise is accurate. And they look at the last 800 years of financial history, as it relates to governments, and what they found is that in every instance, civilization has got to a tipping point where -- and they had to decide, do we go back to what made us competitive and perhaps a world power in the first place, or do we stay on this happy, but ultimately unsustainable cycle of upward government spending and consumption? And nine times out of ten, they chose the easy path. They said, well, this time it's different. Of course, it never was. Gravity always works. And it was the seeds of that civilization's undoing.

And so the thing that keeps me up at night is the way in which there's not a focus on the implications of the debt and the deficit for every working American.

GLENN: So I will tell you, I am working on a book based on history, on that very thing.

MARK: Hmm.

GLENN: And I will tell you that -- I found it very hard to stay optimistic once you know history. But I have found what keeps me -- helps me back to sleep at night, what have you found that puts you back to sleep at night?

MARK: Engagement. You know, I think that people aren't dumb. At times in politics, we can fuse -- and I think even the president -- I say this most respectfully confuses -- they think it's about us. It's not about us. We're simply receptacles for people's ideas and ideals and the advancement of those ideas. And I would say that this election back in November was less about Donald Trump than it was about people's absolute mind-numbing frustration with the way that Washington was working for them.

GLENN: Yes.

MARK: And so if we just simply separate ourselves just a touch -- it's not about me. It's about these ideas that people are ginned up on.

GLENN: Yeah.

MARK: What I will say is that we all ought -- right now, you walk into a restaurant, many times it used to be the sports channel that was up.

GLENN: Yeah.

MARK: Nowadays it's a news channel because people are focused on politics. And I think to that degree, engagement is exciting.

GLENN: Yeah. Congressman Mark Sanford from South Carolina. Thank you very much. And, by the way, thank you for holding out for Nikki Haley. If we wouldn't have had you, we wouldn't have had her. She's doing a great job in the UN. But thank you for everything. We'll talk again soon.

MARK: Looking forward to it.

GLENN: Congressman Mark Sanford.

RADIO

INSIDE Trump’s soul: How a bullet changed his heart forever

“I have a new purpose,” then-candidate Donald Trump told reporter Salena Zito after surviving the assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania. Salena joins Glenn Beck to reveal what Trump told her about God, his purpose in life, and why he really said, “Fight! Fight! Fight!”, as she details in her new book, “Butler: The Untold Story of the Near Assassination of Donald Trump and the Fight for America's Heartland”.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Salena, congratulations on your book. It is so good.

Just started reading it. Or listening to it, last night.

And I wish you would have -- I wish you would have read it. But, you know, the lady you have reading it is really good.

I just enjoy the way you tell stories.

The writing of this is the best explanation on who Trump supporters are. That I think I've ever read, from anybody.

It's really good.

And the description of your experience there at the edge of the stage with Donald Trump is pretty remarkable as well. Welcome to the program.

SALENA: Thank you, Glenn. Thank you so much for having me.

You know, I was thinking about this, as I was ready to come on. You and I have been along for this ride forever. For what?

Since 2006? 2005?

Like 20 years, right?

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

SALENA: And I've been chronicling the American people for probably ten more years, before that. And it's really remarkable to me, as watching how this coalition has grown. Right?

And watching how people have the -- have become more aspirational.

And that's -- and that is what the conservative populist coalition is, right?

It is the aspirations of many, but the celebration of the individual.

And chronicling them, yeah. Has been -- has been, a great honor.

GLENN: You know, I was thinking about this yesterday, when -- when Elon Musk said he was starting another party.

And somebody asked me, well, isn't he doing what the Tea Party tried to do?

No. The Tea Party was not going to start a new party.

It was to -- you know, it was to coerce and convince the Republican Party to do the right thing. And it worked in many ways. It didn't accomplish what we hoped.

But it did accomplish a lot of things.

Donald Trump is a result of the Tea Party.

I truly believe that. And a lot of the people that were -- right?

Were with Donald Trump, are the people that were with the Tea Party.

SALENA: That's absolutely right.

So that was the inception.

So American politics has always had movements, that have been just outside of a party. Or within a party.

That galvanize and broaden the coalition. Right? They don't take away. Or walk away, and become another party.

If anything, if there is a third party out there, it's almost a Republican Party.

Because it has changed in so many viable and meaningful ways. And the Tea Party didn't go away. It strengthened and broadened the Republican Party. Because these weren't just Republicans that became part of this party.

It was independents. It was Democrats.

And just unhappy with the establishment Republicans. And unhappy with Democrats.

And that -- that movement is what we -- what I see today.

What I see every day. What I saw that day, in butler, when I showed I happen at that rally.

As I do, so many rallies, you know, throughout my career. And that one was riveting and changed everything.

GLENN: You made a great case in the opening chapter. You talk about how things were going for Donald Trump.

And how this moment really did change everything for Donald Trump.

Changed the trajectory, changed the mood.

I mean, Elon Musk was not on the Trump train, until this.

SALENA: Yeah.

GLENN: Moment. What do I -- what changed? How -- how did that work?

And -- and I contend, that we would have much more profound change, had the media actually done their job and reported this the way it really was. Pragmatism

SALENA: You know, and people will find this in the book. I'm laying on the ground with an agent on top of me.

I'm 4 feet away from the president.

And there's -- there's notices coming up on my phone. Saying, he was hit by broken glass.

And to this take, that remains part of this sibling culture, in American politics.

Because reporters were -- were so anxious to -- to right what they believed happened.

As opposed to what happened.

And it's been a continual frustration of mine, as a reporter, who is on the ground, all the time.

And I'll tell you, what changed in that moment.

And I say a nuance, and I believe nuance is dead in American journalism.

But it was a nuance and it was a powerful conversation, that I had with President Trump, the next day. He called me the next morning.

But it's a powerful conversation I had with him, just two weeks ago.

When he made this decision to say, fight, fight, fight.

People have put in their heads, why they think he said it. But he told me why he said that. And he said, Salena, in that moment, I was not Donald Trump the man. I was a former president. I was quite possibly going to be president again.

And I had an obligation to the country, and to the office that I have served in, to project strength. To project resolve.

To project that we will not be defeated.

And it's sort of like a symbolic eagle, that is always -- you know, that symbol that we look at, when we think about our country.

He said, that's why I said that. I didn't want the people behind me panicking. I didn't want the people watching, panicking.

I had to show strength. And it's that nuance -- that I think people really picked up on.

And galvanized people.

GLENN: So he told me, when he was laying down on the stage.

And you can hear him. Let me get up. Let me get up.

I've got to get up.

He told me, as I was laying on the stage. I asked him, what were you thinking? What was going through your head? Now, Salena, I don't know about you.

But with me. It would be like, how do I get off the stage? My first was survival.

He said, what was going on through his mind was, you're not pathetic. This is pathetic.

You're not afraid. Get up.

Get up.

And so is that what informed his fight, fight, fight, of that by the time that he's standing up, he's thinking, I'm a symbol? Or do you think he was thinking, I'm a symbol, this looks pathetic. It makes you look weak.

Stand up. How do you think that actually happened?

SALENA: He thinks, and we just talked about this weeks ago. He -- you know, and this is something that he's really thought about.

Right? You know, he's gone over and over and over. And also, purpose and God. Right? These are things that have lingered with him.

You know, he -- he thought, yes.

He did think, it was pathetic that he was on the ground. But he wasn't thinking about, I'm Donald Trump. It's pathetic.

He's thinking, my country is symbolically on the ground. I need to get up, and I need to show that my country is strong.

That our country is resolute.

And I need people to see that.

We can't go on looking like pathetic.

Right?

And I think that then goes to that image of Biden.

GLENN: You have been with so many presidents.

How many presidents do you think that you've personally been with, would have thought that and reacted that way?

SALENA: Probably only Reagan. Reagan would have. Reagan probably would have thought that.

And if you remember how he was out like standing outside.

You know, waving out the window. Right?

After he was shot.

GLENN: At the hospital, right.

SALENA: Had he not been knocked out, unconscious, you know, he probably would have done the same thing.

Because he was someone who deeply believed in American exceptionalism.

And American exceptionalism does not go lay on the ground.

GLENN: And the symbol.

Right. The symbol of the presidency.

SALENA: Yeah. Absolutely. And I think that affects him today.

GLENN: So let me go back to God.

Because you talked to him the next day. And your book Butler.

He calls you up.

I love the fact that your parents would be ashamed of you. On what you said to him.

The language you used. That you just have to read the book.

It's just a great part.

But he calls you the next morning. And wants to know if you're okay.

And you -- you then start talking to him, about God.

And I was -- I was thinking about this, as I was listening to it. You know, Lincoln said, I wasn't -- I wasn't a Christian.

Even though, he was.

I wasn't a Christian, when I was elected. I wasn't a Christian when my son died.

I became a Christian at Gettysburg.

Is -- is -- I mean, I believe Donald Trump always believes in God, et cetera, et cetera.

Do you think there was a real profound change at Butler with him?

SALENA: Absolutely. You know, he called me seven times that day. Seven times, the take after seven.

GLENN: Crazy.

SALENA: Talked about. And I think he was looking for someone that he knew, that was there. And to try to sort it out.

Right? And I let him do most of the talking. I didn't pressure him.

At all. I believed that he was having -- you know, he was struggling. And he needed to just talk. And I believed my purpose was to listen.

Right? I know other reporters would have handled it differently. And that's okay. That's not the kind of reporter that I am.

And I myself was having my own like, why didn't I die?

Right?

Because it went right over my head.

And -- and so I -- he had the conversation about God.

He's funny. I thought it was the biggest mosquito in the world that hit me.

But he had talked profoundly about purpose. You know, and God.

And how God was in that moment.

It --

GLENN: I love the way you -- in the book, I love the way you said that as he's kind of working it out in his own he head.

He was like, you know, I -- I -- I always knew that there was some sort of, you know -- that God was present.

He said, but now that this has happened.

I look back at all of the trials.

All of the tribulations. Literally, the trials.

All of the things that have happened. And he's like, I realized God was there the whole time.

SALENA: Yes. He does. And it's fascinating to have been that witness to history, to have those conversations with him. Because I'm telling you. And y'all know, I can talk. I didn't say much of anything.

I just -- I just listened. I felt that was my purpose, in that moment.

To give him that space, to work it out.

I'm someone that is, you know, believes in God.

I'm Catholic. I followed my faith.

And -- and so, I thought, well, this is why God put me here. Right?

And to -- to have that -- to hear him talk about purpose, to hear him say, Salena. Why did I put a chart down?

I'm like, sir. I don't know. I thought you were Ross Perot for a second.

He never has a chart. And he laughed. And then he said, why did I put that chart down?

By that term, I never turned my head away from people at the rally. That's true.

That relationship is very transactional. It's very -- they feed off of each other.

It's a very emotive moment when you attend a rally. Because he has a way of talking at a rally. That you believe that you are seeing.

And he said, and I never turn my head away.

I never turn my head away.

Why did I turn my head away?

I don't remember consciously thinking about turning my head away. And then he says to me, that was God, wasn't it?

Yes, sir. It was. It was God.

And he said, that's -- that's why I have a new purpose.

And so, Glenn. I think it's important, when you look at the breadth of what has happened, since he was sworn in.

You see that purpose, every day.

He doesn't let up.

He continues going.

And it brings back to the beginning of the book.

Where you find out, that there was another president that was shot at in Butler.

And that was George Washington. And how different the country would have been, had he died in that moment.

And now think about how different the country would be, had President Trump died in that moment. There would be --

GLENN: We're talking to -- we're talking to Salena Zito. About her new book called Butler. The assassination attempt on President Trump. And it is riveting.

And, you know, it is so good. I wish the press would read it. Because it really explains who we are, who Trump supporters are. Who are, you know, red staters. It is so good at that. She's the best at that.

RADIO

The REAL reason Pam Bondi should RESIGN

Glenn Beck makes the case that Attorney General Pam Bondi should resign over her handling of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation - not because of any potential cover-up, but solely because of how incompetent her rollout of the investigation has been.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Okay. I want Pam Bondi fired. I want Pam Bondi fired.

STU: This escalated quickly.

GLENN: And here's why. Here's why. Do you release a tape that is supposed to be the evidence, do you release the tape, and then let the public find out for themselves, that there's an edit in the tape?

STU: That's an excusable mistake. I mean, I don't know that she did it, I guess.

GLENN: You know what, it could have been just a digital jump in the tape.

It's a minute lost. Okay?

So let's just say -- let's just give them every benefit of the doubt, and say, it was just a digital jump in the tape.

Okay?

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Do you not put an intern on it, just to say, watch the clock!

And make sure there's no jumps or edit in the tape.

Because we know.

STU: Everyone is going to watch.

GLENN: 300 million people will be watching it. And somebody will take the time to watch the clock.

So watch the clock.

Is every minute accounted for? You didn't do that? You didn't do that.

STU: I think you can pretty easily say, that if you wanted to, right?

And your goal was -- you wanted to edit out -- it would be very easy to edit in a minute of footage.

GLENN: Correct.

STU: And that no one knows. Just make the clock continuous.

GLENN: Correct.

STU: It would be clear.

If you were trying to cover that, it would be --

GLENN: This is incompetence.

STU: However, highlighting your point to incompetence. At the very least, if you have a jump, you say at the beginning. There's an error at this point.

This is -- we know this is there.

You know, the fact that you release it as proof without acknowledging that minute is -- I just don't understand how you can make a mistake like that.

When your goal here is supposedly to put everyone's mind at ease.

I don't know. I don't know.

But there's more to it, than that.

GLENN: Hang on just a second.

Let me go back to before we leave. Just this one.

Remember when I said yesterday, your wife finds receipts for you buying presents at Tiffany's that she never got.

That, you know, you were in a hotel that she never came to.

You were -- you were not coming home for dinner. You had long weekends and everything else. It doesn't mean you were cheating.

STU: And a traveling jewelry investor.

GLENN: Right. But she -- she should demand the evidence, because it -- you don't want that hanging there. On your relationship.

It will just fester.

Now, you give her the evidence. But then she finds out that, oh. Well, it's the wrong receipt.

It was a -- it was a receipt, you know, that you explained away. But what you -- what you used as proof, was not the same receipt.

You were like, no.

See, honey. This is when we went to the hotel, together.

And she looks at it. And she's like, oh, okay.

And then she has it for a while. And she looks at it.

Like, wait a minute. The date is different on this one. This is not the same receipt.

That's a problem! That's a problem.

And it doesn't mean that he was cheating on you.

It just means. What the hell is going on?

Are you this stupid?

STU: And it would certainly make you have legitimate questions about --

GLENN: It just makes you question things for. Now, if it wasn't for the jump in the tape. And I'm not even going to call it an edit. Because I don't think it was an edit. I think it was jump in the tape. As if the jump in the tape wasn't incompetent enough for you, listen to this one. Jason is here with us.

Hi, Jason.

JASON: Hi, Glenn. What a morning, wow.

GLENN: What a morning it is, wow.

So, Jason, what else have you found?

JASON: Okay. So the more and more we looked at this tape.

I started looking.

It was weird. Because it looked like a janitor's closet.

Door 26.

And you were like, shut up, this is not a janitor's closet. I don't know what this is.

But I was like, I can tell you, there's a woman that looks like a janitor that comes out and supposedly the person that that they're saying is his cell. Which they're not, by the way. This was people on social media was saying, this is his cell.

Was coming out with a trash can.
So I looked around to see, if there was any confirmation of what this cell was.

I found an OIG report from the Justice Department two years ago, that shows the camera angle, and the one camera that was actually working.

So you can see the diagram, and I think we actually have it if you're watching this right now. There's a diagram that shows where this camera is.
It shows where Epstein's cell is. And the big thing that stands out, Glenn, is this camera does not even have eyes on Epstein's cell at all. Like, not at all.

STU: Incredible.
JASON: There's four different wings here. There is a service wing. And that's what we're looking at, with the Door 46.

That's a service entrance, or staff entrance. Now, you can't see on the lower level of Epstein's cell at all.

So this is what it makes it look even crazier for that one minute that's missing.

And I will say -- that okay. Let me just say it this way.

I've spent years and years and years, looking at surveillance and security camera footage as you know, in my previous job.

I've never seen an over one-minute jump right at a time that would be very, very I don't know, just convenient.

I've never seen that before. In all my years looking at these things.

STU: There's no reason. Why would you say that minute would be convenient? You're just saying, that one minute being gone could be convenient.

JASON: It's convenient in this entire time frame.

Based on this camera angel.

It's convenient, that 60 seconds would be great for someone walking across that lower level.

60 seconds would be perfect if you wanted to conceal the fact that someone would have worked across that area. That's why --

GLENN: Here's why -- here's why I didn't buy into this, at first.

Okay. Sixty seconds, to open the door, kill him. And then leave.

Okay?

But look at the diagram. If you look at the diagram, where the camera is, there is a -- just a -- maybe a foot space, where the camera is not able to see. Where there is a door, from the staff area.

Okay?

STU: Are you looking at -- because I think -- it's hard to tell from this.

Are you looking -- is this diagram the top floor or the bottom floor.

Jason, do you have any idea?

JASON: So I think Epstein is on.

STU: The upper floors. Right.

GLENN: Okay. So I'm looking at where the staff area is, okay. See the yellow triangle and the red box, where it's his cell.

STU: Yes.

GLENN: Okay. So there is one way out of the staff area. And it's right below the camera.

STU: Like underneath the floor, essentially, of where the camera is.

GLENN: Yeah. On the floor. If the camera is up on a ceiling. Is that what you -- what -- you're saying.

STU: Yeah. The camera is -- the camera is from on the second floor, shooting down.

And the evidence that they're basically proclaiming here. And this is true.

You know, what Jason is saying, is true.

That you can't see the door of the Epstein cell. What you can see is a common area, that in theory, you would need to cross to get to the cell.

STU: What you're saying, Glenn. The camera does not actually show 100 percent of the potential paths to get there. Right?

JASON: It doesn't.

STU: If you cross right in front of the banister here on the bottom floor.

GLENN: There's no way you will see.

Okay. So wait a minute. I just want to make sure. We are talking about the same thing. If you look at the videotape, it's the white room, down stairs.

Right? And so it's where the garbage can is, down there.

STU: Below that.

GLENN: So Epstein's room would be below the garbage can.

STU: No. Epstein's room, if you look out -- the area that you can see.

And I apologize for radio listeners here that aren't seeing the visual. But I want to make sure we get this right.

There's an open area, where the banister is, and it shows the common area behind it. Right?

If you go on the right side of the common area from our view.

Outside of the view, to the right. Is where the entrance to the cell is.

The stairs up to the cell.

GLENN: So all you have to do. You don't have to cross the floor.

Why do you have to cross the floor? You can go through the door. You can go through the door, and see. And just stay against the wall.

STU: Yeah. I guess, maybe.

And Jason, maybe you know this.

Maybe it's explained somewhere else in the report.

Is it possible that they're saying, all the other entrances, to get to that area, have cameras. So they didn't see anybody walking into those areas.

GLENN: Why wouldn't you show the other --

STU: Right.

GLENN: You know, this is not proof that anybody did anything.

STU: No!

GLENN: This is proof, they're -- Pam Bondi needs to be fired.

Who is rolling this out?

The Little Rascals.

Panky, look, I've got some videotape. What are you doing? This is ridiculous!

This is such absolute incompetence! Incompetence.

STU: It's incredible. The fact that they would release that because I think everybody had the same -- even Jason, as a super-duper skeptic on this, even you had the assumption that what they were saying was, the green doors were the cells, or at least the cell area.

GLENN: Right, that's what I thought.

STU: That's what everyone thought, when they saw it. Now, to be clear, the report, as you pointed out, Jason. Previously had stated in June, this diagram that shows they're talking about the common area.

So that's not like -- but like, they, A, should have been very clear about that. What they're talking about is the common area.

They shouldn't put that in the announcement.

GLENN: Stu, we're going upstairs today.

Okay? To my house. And, you know, I have that balcony, upstairs by the fireplace.

Where you haven't -- like at midnight last night.

Because it's like a day's journey from anywhere.

GLENN: Right. But we're going to go upstairs. And you put a camera, okay? Down into the great room.

STU: Right. You want to recreate it in your house.

GLENN: I do. And I want to show you, I can get to places in the room, as long -- because there's a whole floor.

The balcony shows part, but it doesn't show the door.

I can -- wait until -- I got to prove, that we're going to do this live on YouTube, or something on -- maybe on X today, as soon as we get off the air.

Because I -- this is ridiculous.

STU: It's unbelievable. Again, it doesn't prove that this -- you know, he was killed.

However, it is -- the fact that they're releasing a video that has this many holes to it, to a passing -- again, the person you're trying to make feel better about all of this is someone very interested in the detail of it. Right?

It's not someone who has a passing interest. You're not releasing this to some person who kind of knows who Jeffrey Epstein is. This is intentionally designed to try to push down some weird argument as a conspiracy theory.

GLENN: You're also -- also -- and, you know what, I'm not arguing anything.

I'm arguing this is incompetence.

STU: Yes.

GLENN: I'm not arguing that he killed himself.

Or he didn't kill -- I don't know!

I don't know. I don't know.

But this isn't helping.

You know, not only are you saying, that these people have some interest in it.

Well, you know, these people are interested in the details.

No!

You're releasing it to a bumbling of people, who many of them have the details. But many of them are hostile to what you're saying.

So you better have a buttoned up case.

STU: Right.

GLENN: You better not have anything that they find out later, wait. Wait a minute.

What?

STU: Right. And it could be -- you know, you could make the couple of arguments that you probably could make here.

One, they don't actually care about this. And they're annoyed they have to deal with it.

So they threw it out there.

Terrible incompetence. If that's the truth. That's inexcusable.

The other thing they might argue. And this could be part of it.

There were reports at least, that this got leaked. That this came out essentially earlier than they wanted it to.

So the rollout was not as planned, as they thought it was going to be.

Axios reported this exclusively. Now, it's possible, they linked it to Axios.

It's not exactly a typical location of a Trump leak.

GLENN: Who? The Justice Department, or the FBI? That's what I want to know.

First of all, this administration has no leaks. We just bombed Iran without any leaks.

STU: Yeah. Different -- different wing of the government. Still, I get what you're saying.

GLENN: Yeah, right.

STU: A lot of this has been tight.

But there does seem to be.

You know, there's a lot of big personalities. There's always reported squabbling going on.

Who knows how this was released and who didn't.

That may be true. That part of the rollout was heard.

Right? Because it was released when they were ready. That might be true.

It still doesn't really explain. The video is a video.

They definitely posted it. They posted it like that. They posted it -- they had a memo that explained what the video was, and did not mention anything like that. That mentioned the --

GLENN: That's all you have to do.

Hey, there's a one minute jump. Here's why it's there.

STU: Again, even with that explanation, which would making me happier.

Right? That it's available.

It still wouldn't make a person who believes in this theory.

GLENN: Right. I can tell you -- I can tell you for a fact, nothing is going to satisfy everyone.

STU: Right.

GLENN: But you at least have to try to make the easy things go away.

RADIO

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.

Glenn's Show Prep

Straight Shooting From Rep. Mark Sanford: We're Not Repealing Obamacare

INSIDE Trump’s soul: How a bullet changed his heart forever

Transcript

The REAL reason Pam Bondi should RESIGN

Transcript

Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell's Connections to Intel Agencies

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

Transcript