RADIOOctober 14, 2024

EXPLAINED: Could Democrats DISQUALIFY Trump if he wins the election?

Democrats like Rep. Jamie Raskin have threatened to use the powers of Congress to keep Donald Trump out of the White House if he wins the 2024 Election. But is it even possible to disqualify him? “MoneyGPT” author James Rickards joins Glenn to explain how this could be done if Trump is declared an insurrectionist and why January 6th, 2025 might be a historic day. Plus, he explains why he believes Americans should prepare for the possibility of an “Acting President JD Vance” …

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Jim Rickards, he is the Money GPT author, Strategic Intelligence editor.

He is a guy who historically has been calling all the big ones. All the big disruptions in our society in our economy.

And, Jim, I don't think -- I mean, I've heard you be pessimistic.

I don't think I've heard a more stern warning than the one you're giving right now.

JIM: Well, thanks, Glenn. It's great to be with you. Yeah. I don't think of myself as a pessimist. I'm an analyst.

And I just tried to be realistic. That's kind of bad news. So be it. I try -- and I have a lot of readers and followers. And so forth.

And listeners on our show today.

And I just try to get it right. And I'm looking at the election. Of course, everyone is.

You know, come November 5th, I remind people, the election is pretty much over already, with the early voting and all that. So we know that.

The drop boxes and the mail-ins. So people understand that. But we'll get to November 5th.

I don't think we'll know on November 5th, or even that night or early the next day. You have the usual trouble spots. Philadelphia, Maricopa County. I don't know what's going on there.

But they seemed to ship the ballots off to the warehouse. But beyond that, most Americans are not familiar with the actual electoral calendar, so to speak. And it was devised in the late 18th century. People were like, well, why does it take from November 5th to January 6th, 2025, to figure things out?

Well, you know, back in the 18th century, they got around by horses and carriages and all that. It just took time. But anyway, when you get past that, let's say Trump wins. That's not a short thing. It will be a close election.

But my -- my models show Trump winning. So he gets more than 270 electoral votes. So we come up to December 17th, when they actually count those votes in the state capitols. And there will be disputes and litigation. Let's say we make it. I'm just kind of looking ahead, as far as we can. To January 26, 2025. Everyone is spun up about January 6th, 2021. We know what happened.

But this is January 6th, 2025. Those electoral votes go to the House and the Senate. Now, here's the key. And this is why Trump's campaign in places like New York and California. He's not going to win New York and California. But they're fighting over House seats. Is if the Democrats take the majority of the House of Representatives, which is possible. There are only a four or five-vote difference right now.

Led by Jamie Raskin. They're going to pass a resolution, saying Trump is an insurrectionist under Section 3 of the 14th amendment.

Now, a lot of people say, now, a lot of people say, wait a second. Didn't the Supreme Court throw that out?

Not exactly. Colorado and Maine tried to kick Trump off the ballot on that grounds. It went to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court said, states cannot do it.

They couldn't do it. Nor could any other state. They explicitly said, there's a federal issue, exactly.

So now you passed this resolution. What happens?

Trump's votes would be disqualified. Let's say he has 300 electoral votes.

And pick a number over 270. Those are disqualified on the grounds of he's an insurrectionist. So then what happens next? Well, now, nobody has 270.

Because in this scenario, Kamala Harris doesn't get 270. Trump does. But he's disqualified.

So now the election goes to the House of Representatives.

This, by the way, is happening before 1800s. 1824, and then 1876. We still can't figure out what happened.

But it has happened before, so but now you flip over for the 14th Amendment, to the 12th Amendment.

I happen to be a lawyer. So enough of a geek to able to read all this stuff. Now you're at the 12th Amendment of 1804. And what does that say?

Well, the House votes could choose the president. There's a couple of caveats. One is they could only vote, someone who got in the top three electoral votes. This is, you know, back in the day.

So maybe three or four people get electoral votes in 1968.

George Wallace got electoral votes in 1968. Top three. But there's only going to be one. If you disqualify Trump, no one else is going to win a state. And Kamala Harris is the only one you could vote for. Because top three. But she would be the top one. Because that's it.

GLENN: Why wouldn't it go to J.D. Vance? Why doesn't he take those?

JIM: Well, I think that's what's going to happen. But you have to sort of follow. The 12th Amendment is a playbook. That's where it will end up. I agree with that. But you have to kind of look at the sequence.

Now, in the House. Here's the interesting part: There are four to five members. But you don't vote by member, you vote by state delegation. So Texas would get one vote. I live in New Hampshire. We would get one vote, the same as Texas. The Republicans control a majority of the state delegations by a bigger margin. They barely control a majority of the House. But when you go by state delegations, it's more like 20, 22.

The Republicans have a substantial majority. But the problem is, you can only rote for Kamala Harris, no matter what. Because nobody else has any electoral votes.

The answer then, 12th Amendment says this, it's for the Republicans that they have the big cajones to go out and stand out on the mall, in the snow.

And then the House will ask it for them, and the 12th Amendment says, you can't do anything what we're talking about, if you don't have a quorum.
If you lack a quorum, then what happens? The 12th Amendment says, the vice president becomes the acting president.

Now, J.D. Vance would not suffer this disqualification, going back to the insurrection.

So J.D. Vance would go become the acting president of the United States. If the House acted for him. And I described this, Glenn. It's all in the 12th Amendment. It's in the 14th Amendment, it's been litigated years past.

It sounds crazy. But just think what we've been through the last months.

You know, two, maybe three assassination attempts.

A coup d'etat on Joe Biden. A nominee who didn't get one vote in two tribes.

Not one vote, in the primary. So there's enough craziness to go around. So, again, I'm just reading the Constitution and applying it. It's happened before. And as in the 1800s, we ended up with Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, who were bitter enemies and opposing parties. But that's what happened.

And here you could have Kamala, J.D. Vance, worst case. Or J.D. Vance is acting as president. If the Republicans walk off the floor, and they lack a quorum.

GLENN: Jeez. This is craziness! You know, one of the reasons we were successful. We had cheap energy. Don't have that anymore. Well-educated populace, we don't really have that anymore. Cheap labor, we don't have that anymore.

And a stable country. If this happens, what happens to the economy?

JIM: Well, the stock market, you know, it can -- there are bull markets and bear markets.

It goes up and down.

The one thing the stock market hates is uncertainty.

What we just described is maximum uncertainty. I give gave you a scenario. Just laid out in the 12th Amendment, 1804. But you can bet that every step that I described, will be litigated in some manner.

So -- and -- and the courts want nothing to do with this. And when you go back to 2020, you know, the New York Times and all these people say, well, there were 15 cases.

And all of them were decided that there was no voter interference. That's not what the court said. The courts dismissed all those cases.

Either on standing, jurisdiction, timeliness. They went to all these procedural things, to get rid of the cases. But the actual fraud was never litigated. They're doing a lot of the forensic analysis since then. And that's just the question that, hey. You, Congress. State -- state legislatures.

You have to figure it out. You don't want to be involved in this. They still feel burned by Bush versus Gore in 2000. Having said that, they have a job to do. And I think these things will end up in their laps.

If you put the courts to one side, and just go by the playbook on the 12th Amendment. Now, this is all what happened in the 1800s, you would have ended up J.D. Vance as acting president.

GLENN: And because the Congress can say, that he's an insurrectionist. You don't need a trial?

I mean, he's never been charged with insurrection.

JIM: Of course. You're right. And I agree completely. But the 13th amendment -- sorry, Section three of the 14th amendment. Hasn't been litigated since -- well, we had the case last summer.

Colorado and Maine.

Before that, you have to go back to the 1930s.

And even -- of course, that was designed.

That came after the Civil War of 1968. It was designed to disqualify confederates and federal officers, et cetera. Over the years.

Section five, section three is the insurrectionist clause. But section five, powers to Congress to make laws, to interpret section three.

They sometimes -- I don't know the exact date, sometime in the 1920s.

Congress granted full amnesty to Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis. They said, they were not insurrectionists. So there has been legislation. It's been litigated in recent decades.

If you're willing to cut Robert E. Lee a break. I don't know why they wouldn't do it for Trump.

GLENN: Well, they did that. They did that to heal. That's why we have these statues of Robert E. Lee. The north said, build a statue. These are heroes for you as well.

They didn't prosecute these guys, because they said, we have to come back together, as a nation.

Nobody is going to do that, this time.

JIM: That's exactly right.

The bitterness is where -- sorry to say that. It's there.

By the way, the leader of this. He's open about it. And kind of the Constitution. The legal homework.

The guys said, this is what we're going to do, is Jamie Raskin. Another congressman in Maryland. Most people, they're worried about election fraud on November 5th.

They should be. I think Lara Trump has done a good job. I think they mobilized 500 lawyers. They're on that. Republicans are finally waking up to the fact, that you may not like it, but you have to do it.

But this is much further down the road. This is the endgame. This is the final lawfare attack.

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.