RADIOFebruary 05, 2024

DEBATE: Should America elect a modern-day Franco?

Glenn has been hearing growing calls on the right for America to elect a modern-day Francisco Franco. But he warns that if you know the FULL history of this Spanish dictator, you might think twice. Glenn and Stu “debate” the alleged “pros” and cons of Franco. Many have touted Franco’s love for his nation and apparent positive effect on tourism. But he also executed over 100,000 people and buried them in mass graves, abducted babies from families who disagreed with him, enacted Martial Law, seemed just fine with thinning out the Spanish population, and persecuted Protestants. So, Glenn has some words of caution for those on the right who may consider themselves Franco fans: “He was an evil dictator who committed atrocities…that is NOT America.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So for some unknown reason, I said hey, let's do a debate on the good things and the bad things about Franco, Stu immediately said, I want to do the pro-Franco stuff. Because he's -- I didn't realize this, Stu. You're a big fan of Franco.

STU: No. This is all fraudulent information. And you would like that to be known. That he at that Glenn is lying as usual.

GLENN: That's not what America is hearing right now. But we'll go with that little lie of yours. So we looked at.

And I wanted to get somebody to debate the other side, like Stu. Because, you know, he's pretty thorough. He's a fact-based guy. And so I thought, let's get him. Because the facts are I think you can verify this. The facts are overwhelming in Franco's favor.

STU: I would not verify that. Actually, I feel the opposite, frankly.

GLENN: Really?

STU: Yes. And maybe we should start with, why?

Why would we be debating the positives and negatives of Franco? What would be the purpose of that, and why would that occur, in 2024?

A week before the Iowa caucuses.

Why are we talking about Franco of all people?

GLENN: Well, Francisco Franco, you might remember him. He was the head of the Spanish state.

He was what you might call a dictator.

And a lot of people now, it seems, in America, are starting to say, you know, we should have somebody like Franco. That just comes in. And stops all this nonsense.

And I'm thinking to myself, no. No.

We shouldn't have somebody like Franco.

Unfortunately, a lot of the people that are debating this. And are -- who are cozing up to the idea of an American Franco, are conservatives. And I don't -- you either don't know who Franco is, or I wouldn't classify you as a conservative, but maybe that's me.

Maybe that's just me.

STU: And I, of course, feel the opposite. I feel that he was great. And did a great job in his --

GLENN: Right. That's so convincing, Stu.

STU: In his 36 years of being a dictator. I think that's an appropriate amount of time.

GLENN: Yeah. So you're doing a great job so far.

Okay. So here's the thing. Some of the stuff we gathered. Polling, for instance, shows that he's not so bad, to many of the people in Spain.

And in Italy. You know, neither was Mussolini.

You know, as long as you went along with him.

Some of this stuff, comes from the Madrid Center for Sociological Research. A government research center, showed that the majority of the Spanish public now acknowledged that Franco did both good and bad things.

Now, I'm going to ask for a definition of the word bad, because I'm not sure -- I mean, the term bad does that include extermination camps, Stu, or not?

Do you think?

STU: I'm typically of the opinion that they're universally bad. Extermination camps. Never a good idea.

GLENN: Okay. But is that maybe -- I don't know. A significantly understating the -- the badness of extermination camps, or genocide. Or crimes against humanity?

STU: I consider them suboptimal, Glenn.

GLENN: Suboptimal. All right. Okay.

See, we have the right guy to debate the Franco side.

Should we like to start, or should I start?

STU: You go ahead, Glenn. You have that tough task to make Franco look bad.

GLENN: I know. I know.

Okay. So now both sides of the debate. Both good and bad, Franco. They will admit that he committed massive atrocities during the Spanish Civil War.

His nationalists raped Republican women and shaved their heads. They rounded up half a hill people. And put them in concentration amps. A large portion of these prisoners did forced labor or made to fight in Franco's army. And he executed another 100,000 people during the war.

So right off there, I think, I don't think I'm on the Franco train.

STU: Really? The train is an interesting --

GLENN: Well, I thought so.

STU: Use there.

You know, again, I will attempt my best here.

Franco, at least when you're thinking of the Spanish people, at least half of them. Specifically, you did keep them out of World War II. By kind of remaining neutral. Somewhere right.

STU: Now, some might note, you didn't get invaded. You were less likely to be invaded by Hitler. When you did things that Hitler didn't mind all that much. Which was not necessarily a positive. But I am telling you, it's a positive, that, hey, he remained neutral in World War II. And didn't get invaded.

GLENN: Okay. All right. Okay.

But he was busy for a while there in his own Civil War, and the public affairs officer for Franco's forces told an American reporter, quote, you know what's wrong with Spain? Modern plumbing. In healthier times. Spiritually healthier. You understand.

The plague and pestilence. They could be counted on to thin the Spanish masses. Now with modern sewage disposal, people just multiply too fast. And the masses are no better than animals, you understand.

You can't expect them not to become infected with the virus of bolshevism. After all, rats and lice carry the plague. So he had a good understanding of servant to the people.

STU: Sure. You could say that. However, we've all become so indoorsy these days. You know, when it's 32 degrees, we don't even go out to outhouses anymore.

The outdoor plumbing was a better approach.

GLENN: Was it?

STU: Yes, much better. And I think we should go back to that.

GLENN: So get rid of modernity, like toilets.

STU: Yeah. Modernity, that's an interesting word. I feel like we've used that with the Russian figures over the past few years. They said, get rid of modernity as well.

GLENN: We have. And some Christian nationalists as well.

STU: Well, what you're not talking about was foreign investment was encouraged, and tourism was promoted.

And by 1962, per capita income for the nation's 33 million people reached 300 dollars per year.

GLENN: Holy cow. Holy cow.

STU: So, I mean -- you didn't point that out, when you -- imagine how went, if we could have gone to outhouses.

Probably would have doubled that number.

GLENN: I hate to throw a monkey wrench into the deal. I wasn't really concentrating on the tourism.

STU: Okay.

GLENN: Because after -- after the war. Franco was responsible for the torture, murder, and -- and covert burial of an additionally 114,000 Spanish citizens.

He just -- he just targeted people, Republican loyalists. Atheists.

Jews. Intellectuals. Liberals. Academics. Protestants. But you can see the Protestants. You know.

Anarchists, freemasons, socialists. Catalent, and Basque nationalists. Communists, homosexuals, and trade unionists.

So -- and they just -- they opened up mass the braves all around Spain. And relatives couldn't mark the forgave or anything else.

They just dumped them in, or covered them with dirt.

STU: Say what you want.

But we wouldn't have this nationalist problem, if it wasn't for all this indoor plumbing. And I think Franco nailed that, by the way.

GLENN: Right. Right.

STU: But you did mention an interesting word there.

Communist. You see, he was an anti-Communist.

He was an anti-socialist. He opposed a lot of the things that we oppose today.

Which somehow is supposed to be a reason enough to love the guy. And that's why I'm making this positive argument for Franco.

GLENN: So wait.

STU: But he did oppose communists it's true.

He did oppose socialists. Of course, I don't want to point out some of the other figures in Europe at the time.

Who also hit that standard and maybe -- are not thought of so positively.

GLENN: Wow. It sounds like you're not convinced he's a good guy.

STU: No. I just told you he was against Communists.

GLENN: Now, let me see if I can flip Stu on this one. You know, the children from Republican families were taken. And they weren't killed.

They were just abducted. Renamed. And given to supporters of the Franco regime.

An estimated 300,000 babies were also stolen from hospitals. And undesirable parents. And then they were sold to approved families.

STU: Have you heard any of the dumb names, parents are naming kids these days? They should be captured and renamed. That's the only way we could save our society today.

Yes. And Franco is one of the few people, who knew that.

And I'll tell you this, Glenn.

He did promote strong Spanish national identity. And culture. And this seems to be honestly what people --

GLENN: But he was kidnapping babies.

STU: Seems to be -- yeah. Sure.

And opposing indoor plumbing. But it seems to be what people do like. Just like me. Who is arguing the pro Franco side.

Is that he did have a bit of a -- he had a national streak, which has some equivalent here in the modern movement on the right.

And also, he did -- (cut out).

Hmm, well, I mean, if you had a good name, then maybe you would change your opinion once the government assigned you your new name. Which was much, much better than your old name. I will say though, you know, Glenn, once he aged. See, here's the thing.

People look at this and say, look, did Franco do some bad things?

Sure, some people will say that. But they will also note that it was a trying time.

A difficult period after the war.

And he -- and the country was collapsing. He needed to act in that way. And once he paged -- he did release and relax some of those rules.

Police -- you know, beating people over the head for no apparent reason.

Declined by like, I don't know. 13 percent or something.

And he did allow some free market reforms.

Now, some would point out, hey, maybe he would put the free market reforms in because they're good. You don't just wait for 30 years of a dictatorship before you do those things.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

STU: But, hey, later on in life. He aged. And he calmed a little bit. And isn't that wonderful?

GLENN: Well, still didn't allow any freedom of the press. But also, he -- I mean, employment. If you were unemployed, you could get a job. If you were a Franco supporter. But people were required to get a -- a certificate of good behavior from local officials.

So you could get a job, which kind of sounds like what we don't want to happen here.

STU: Well, I mean, some would say that. There's certain people out there, that would make claims.

GLENN: I think -- I think while you're making very good points. I think I will just leave it at this.

Only Cambodia, known for the killing fields.

Only Cambodia has more mass the braves and anonymous victims, than Franco's Spain. So...

STU: Well, anonymous victims because they rejected their new names.

GLENN: Right. Thank you. Well, Stu, I -- I mean, I thought you made a lot of good points on Franco. Because there's a lot of them out there, as you well know.

STU: Well, you know, I'm a passionate supporter, apparently of Franco.

GLENN: Yeah. You almost slipped there and said Hitler.

STU: Well, no, I didn't. But I know what you mean.

Too many similarities there to be ignored.

I don't -- look, we had -- we had a lot right, I think in this country, you know.

And I feel like we're at the point where we want to throw a lot of the things that we did correctly, out the window.

Because we perceive this as a period of things not going our way.

There's a reason why we've been a country that has been this powerful for a long time.

Those principles are the ones that got us here. And it just feels like if we were to go back and embrace them a little bit, maybe we wouldn't need to have a 40-year dictatorship.

GLENN: I don't know. Those can be fun.

The -- for the dictators, usually.

The -- the -- what's happening to us, right now. And the reason why Franco. People are starting to say. We need a nationalist. And a religious dictator.

No. We don't. We need one as much as Iran needs one.

You -- oh, wait a minute. They already have one. Oh, I'm sorry.

So some other country other than Iran. We don't need that. We shouldn't want that.

That's a very deprave danger to anyone and everyone.

Because that's a dictatorship, that can just eliminate those whom they deem problems.

I don't want that on the left. I don't want that on the right. I don't want that here, there, or anywhere, Sam I am.

The reason why this is happening is because things are becoming uncontrollable. The -- the government has gone so far awry, that people believe that only an unconstitutional dictator can save the country.

And that's not true. All you have to do is return to the Constitution. If you return to the Constitution, all of it comes back.

Now, you can't give everybody the freedom that they think they have now. Like, I have the right to go in and -- and loot stores.

No. No. That won't stop, until you start enforcing the local laws and the laws of the Constitution.

Once you do that, we fix ourselves

People are overthinking all of this stuff.

You're going need to a very, very unpopular president. Or a president during a war, that's why everybody wants a war so much.

That is able to do things under a War Powers Act. Which is terrifying to me.

I would much rather have a president come in, and just say, I'm a one-term president. But I am going to put everything on the table. And I'm going to get rid of this huge administrative state.

It's gone. I don't want it. It's not constitutional.

Once you get past some of those things. It's amazing how you fix your town. You fix your state. You fix your country.

I don't understand why especially conservatives are talking about Francisco Franco. He was an evil dictator. That didn't do some bad.

He committed atrocities.

And every dictator commits atrocities. Because they force people into compliance.

That is not America.

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.