RADIOFebruary 05, 2024

‘Don’t be FOOLED’: What’s REALLY in the Senate's new ‘border’ bill

Members of the Senate have reached a “bipartisan border deal.” But is it really bipartisan? And is it really a border deal? Glenn lays out what’s actually in the bill, which Glenn believes is better described as a “multi-billion-dollar war package” that continues to fund the war in Ukraine. Plus, Glenn breaks down what Biden’s new “emergency powers” would be … and they’re insane.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: There's a lot going on.

Let me start with the border news over the weekend, and continue to heat up. Let me give you a few of the touch points here. More governors traveled to the Texas/Mexico border on Sunday. To show their solidarity with governor Abbott and the federal government.

Speeches were given directly at ground zero. And the media is dubbing it Civil War 2.0.

So they were surrounded bit Texas national guard. Military vehicles. Loads of razor wire. Right in Shelby Park and Eagle Pass, Texas.

Now, over on the federal level, the Senate appears to have come to an agreement on they say it's a border bill. But we'll get into the details in a second. It's actually a multi-billion dollar war package. Do not be fooled by the name "border bill."

It's not. Now, it does have some stuff to do with the border. Depending on who you talk to. It's both amazing for the border. And the worst piece of legislation in history. It's weird how something can be both of those things.

Could it also possibly be that all of the border news happening right now is just a song and dance?

Could it be that no one is actually interested at all in solving the border problem?

All the world is, but a stage. And we are merely its players. Yes.

Yes. Yes. That's what's happening.

For decades now, the border has been enormous political Capitol for both sides in Washington, DC.

Republicans love it. Democrats love it.

And they never really cared about the impacts to our communities. And to our states.

Why would they suddenly start caring about it now?

Well, because it's so bad. Uh-huh.

So we sent our Blaze originals documentary team down with the border, convoy.

And, boy, did they learn a lot.

They were with the convoy. But the convoy led them to all kinds of other discoveries. With about the standoff at the border between the state and the feds.

We found something shocking, that no one is talking about.

We're being duped by all sides.

Here's one piece I can give you today.

Consider this: Did you hear about a -- a secret meeting?

Did you hear that while reports of record amounts of illegals were pouring over our border -- this was in December -- Secretary of State Blinken held a secret meeting with Mexican officials, in Mexico City.

Now, it was reported that he traveled there.

But the full context of the meeting, were not disclosed.

We have no idea. Why is that?

Was there an agreement that was made?

Were concessions handed over?

If so, what did we give up?

Why isn't this meeting discussed in the media, when they talk about Civil War, 2.0. Or when the Senate hails a landmark border deal.

What happened in Mexico?

Could all of this just be a charade for the people?

Our Blaze orange documentary team might have the real answer for you. The full report is coming out in a couple of weeks. But we will have more on this, on our Wednesday night TV special. This is all breaking news. In -- in our world.

And we'll give you all of the full tails, as we -- as we gather everything. And make sure it's all buttoned up.

Now, the senators revealed 118 billion-dollar emergency National Security Supplemental Appropriations Act.

Wow! So it's an emergency, and it's about national security!

So what did we get?

Well, 118 billion-dollar national security supplemental -- supplemental appropriations act.

Would give $60 billion in aid to Ukraine.

Wait. Wait. What?

So it's 118 billion.

Half of it goes to -- I thought -- wait. Wait. Emergency national security.

Supplemental bill. I thought that national emergency was the border?

Because wasn't that why he needed emergency powers?

The border?

So half the money goes to aid Ukraine. They also allocated $20 billion into securing the US southern border.

Okay. So say. Wait. So three times the amount, goes to Ukraine.

Also, $20 billion for the border. $14 billion in security assistance to Israel.

And just to make it all fair. $10 billion in humanitarian assistance for civilians caught in the conflict zones of Gaza.

Oh, well, that's -- okay. Wait. What?

Four and a half billion. Or almost 5 billion to support key regional partners in the Indo-Pacific to deter China.

Two and a half billion dollars to support US Central Command operations in the Red Sea.

2.3 billion for Ukrainians. And other refugees displaced.

400 million for the nonprofit security grant program, which helps nonprofits in places of worship, to make its security enhancements.

Uh-huh. Uh-huh. It would also require the Department of Homeland Security to nearly shut down the border.

Now, listen to this. Nearly shut down the border.

What does that mean exactly?

Well, it means that we're not going to shut down the border.

But nearly do it. Now, not today. But that -- they can do that, if the migrant crossers, increase more than 5,000 a day.

On any given week. Or if the average daily encounters reach $4,000. 4,000 people a day, this a one-week span.

So if there's 4,000 people, for six days, they can't shut down the border.

I'm sorry. They can't nearly shut down the border.

At a rate of 5,000 illegal immigrants entering the country, that would mean more than 1.8 million illegal aliens would be coming into the country every year.

But remember, I haven't gotten to the nearly shut down the border.

This is their solution today. To let in an additional 2 million people come in across our border.

Okay. We're a little sick of the 4 million, I think. We're a little sick. Let's slow it down. Let's just do 2 million. Oh, okay.

Now, Chris Murphy from the -- the Democrat from the great set of Connecticut. I mean that, being here. It's a lovely, lovely state. What they've done with the trash, is just wonderful. It really is. A requirement of the president to funnel asylum claims to the land ports of entry when more than 5,000 people cross a day. This is what Murphy is saying, on X. The border never closes. But claims must be processed at the ports. This allows for more and more orderly humane asylum processing system.

Got that? So if it's more than 5,000 a day, then they have to be processed at the ports. That's the nearly closing the border.

Oh! Okay. Well, that sounds really bad. This is what -- you know, Lankford came out. And he was like, everybody was saying, this is much worse than what we said it was going to be. I challenge the people that come up to me and tell me, what is worse?

Well, you know, he's kind of right. Remember when the media was saying, oh, it has none of that stuff in the bill. That's an outrageous -- that is disinformation. That those things were in the bill.

Yeah. Lankford is probably not worse. You've confirmed everything that we said was in it, that you all were saying, wait until you find out what's inside the bill.

Because that's not in the bill. It's in the bill!

Oh, my gosh.

You know, when people like Lankford, who needs friends?

Seriously, who needs friends?

I'm a little confused. I'm going to have to get with the speaker's team on -- to find out what part would be worse, than what we had expected, based on the actual text!

It's not worse! It is the text that we said it was, and you said it wasn't. Oh, my gosh. Stu, can you just take over for a second. Because I'm going to have an aneurysm.

STU: Yeah. On that point, you're totally right. There was this pushback, on people negotiating and Lankford being key in this room. Saying, oh, you guys are just acting off of rumors.

You're acting off of internet posts. You're acting off of false reporting about what's in this bill. I would never allow this to be in this bill. Then they released the text of the bill.

And I mean, to the number. Almost every single part of it is exactly what was reported.

I mean, it's bizarre.

I will say, when you get to the point of, talking about it being worse, I would include this. In the worst subscription.

Tell me if you agree with this. There is a provision in the bill, that would allow the president. You know, you might be -- you may not know. Joe Biden is currently the president of the United States.

Okay. So this would be under his authority. There's a provision in his bill, that would allow the president to suspend the shutdown authority. It says, quote, it authorizes the president to suspend the border emergency on an emergency basis.

For up to 45 days, if it's in the national interests.

So what do you think happens when we get across this 5,000 barrier?

Every time, he at least suspends it for 45 days, and God only knows if he can do it consecutively in perpetuity. That's probably what will wind up happening. Though, I'm not sure about that detail.

Look, Glenn, you look at the bill. And there are things in there. That would theoretically make the situation a little bit better.

There's asylum improvements that I think could be part of an eventual bill.

GLENN: Yeah. I mean, why even discuss.

It's a nonstarter because of things like this.

According to the bill, if you cross the border, illegally. You get arrested.

And then Department of Homeland Security, they decide, that you're entitled to protection. They're now able to give you automatic -- automatic employment authorization.

STU: Yeah. Until you have your asylum hearing. Now, a couple of parts, in addition to that. They say the asylum hearings will come fast. So no more 2030 court dates. Do you believe that?

I mean, this is the problem. I don't believe that. Now, if they -- they say it will supposedly bring this down to months, instead of years, for asylum.

That would be a legitimate improvement on what we have --

GLENN: Except, I don't think it's by judges.

I think it's by the Department of Homeland Security, is it not?

STU: I think it's by the US citizenship and immigration services. It kind of shifts a lot of it, at least over there.

But again, do I believe that they will actually accomplish that?

No. They also have tougher asylum requirements. And this could be a legitimate one, Glenn.

But think about this in a real country, that does the -- the things they say they do.

They would include three bars to eligibility. Okay?

Number one. Criminal history. So if you have criminal history, no asylum for you. Okay. Totally legitimate.

Number two, could they have resettled in another country on the way to the US.

Yeah. Okay. If you actually implemented it, that would be a great improvement. Number three, could they have settled somewhere else in their country. Okay. Perfect. That would be a legitimate thing to do.

That would be an improvement over our system. And it would be a rational way to decipher these claims.

No one believes they are going to do these things. No one believes that this is actually going to happen. When they're ignoring dozens and dozens of other laws that are already on the books. Why would we believe that they would suddenly just implement this one part of this one law that would improve the system.

And they have no trust for the people. And they have no national reason to be trusted. And that is a bigger part of this problem.

Not to mention, they put in there, that the US -- or, the president of the United States, could just suspend the authority.

So at some points, they say. It's required, to shut the border down.

At the same time, to say, he has a 45 window to supplement this at any point.

GLENN: Yeah.

His emergency power is to shut this bill down at any time.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: If he feels it's in an emergency or in our best interest, he can shut this bill down.

We all thought he was saying he needed emergency power to shut the border down. He's not. And their response is, well, he's nearly shutting it down.

Only 1.8 million people can come across the border in a year. Only 1.8.

STU: Right. Now, they are pushing back against that number. You know, the way they are wording it is that it doesn't mean they're allowed in. 5,000 are not allowed in. They are saying that, single adults would be detained.

And families would be released via ATD, Glenn.

Alternatives to detention.

GLENN: Ah.

STU: A little ATD going on.

GLENN: Yeah. A little ATD.

STU: To me, even if you're detaining them in the United States, you're still letting them into the United States.

GLENN: And we're feeding and clothing and caring for people. That we shouldn't be feeding, caring or clothing.

I mean, this is just insane.

STU: The expansion of the detention capacity is only 16,000.

So, again, this is a few days under this system. Where else -- where do people go again? We will be in the same crisis situation all over again.

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.