RADIOAugust 22, 2022

Expert predicts Donald Trump’s ‘MAJOR’ news after FBI raid

President Trump recently teased on Truth Social a ‘major’ announcement ‘pertaining to the Fourth Amendment’ and concerning the FBI’s recent raid of his Mar-a-Lago home. So what could Donald Trump be planning to do next? Journalist John Solomon, author of ‘Fallout,’ gives Glenn his best guess. Plus, Solomon details more information concerning the raid, and he recaps FBI corruption that’s existed for DECADES: ‘This is an agency that has…a very big history of abuses. Time and time and time again.’

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: John Solomon. Welcome to the program. How are you, sir?

JOHN: Great to be with you, Glenn.

GLENN: It's great to be with you. We are living in insane times. I remember we -- you know, we've talked for years now.

Did you -- did you ever really believe that it would ever get like this?

JOHN: I didn't, no. Yet, we've had this great American experience for 246 years. And I think back to that speech you gave at CPAC on February, and all the things you said, somewhere along the way, we jumped out of the roots of this great country. And we're in a place now, that doesn't resemble the America that we all grew up in. It's a very troubling time.

GLENN: Yeah. So I think a lot of people during the last couple of weeks, have learned a lot about what to do, and what to expect, when you're served a warrant at your house. It's actually a good way. It's God's way of teaching us the Constitution, I think. What happened with Donald Trump, is, again, I believe a horror show. There's no way he is selling secrets. You know, nuclear secrets to Finland, this is ridiculous.

It does now seem to appear, to be a shot across the bow because he was trying to release documents, that showed who was involved in the Russia hoax. Is that true?

JOHN: Well, listen, there is this long six-year battle between the FBI and Donald Trump. And of course, it starts with Russia collusion, which we now know as completely contrived and political investigation, but had no predicate, no merit whatsoever.

As the presidency is coming to an end, as Donald Trump is leaving office on January 19th, 2021, he declassified the documents, the FBI never wanted out in public.

They didn't want these documents out. These are the ways they handled their informants. What they do before they sign the FISA warrants. What they were telling the court, versus what they knew internally.

That just inflamed the FBI all the more. And for the last year, as I reported. The FBI secretly grabbed those documents. The president declassified them. He ordered them to be released. In the last hour of the Trump presidency, I'm told at 11 o'clock on January 20th, 2021, the FBI and the Justice Department grabbed those documents. They made up an excuse. Saying, hey, we left a couple of Privacy Act pieces of information in there, from the declassified documents.

Let's grab them. We'll fix that, and we'll release them. They grabbed them for 19 months. They kept them from the American public despite a lawful order of a sitting president.

GLENN: Unbelievable. So he had the documents, but they hadn't been redacted?

JOHN: They were redacted. They were completely ready. They were declassified. All the declassified markings. At the last minute, the Justice Department raised an issue that maybe there was a piece of information there still covered by the private sector. Let's go look at it real quickly. It looks like it was really just an excuse to grab the documents.

GLENN: All right. So did he have those at Mar-a-Lago? Do we know? Is that what they were going off of?

JOHN: No one has told me -- I haven't found anyone who told me that they had the documents there. And, of course, I've asked the president. Do you have the documents?

He's told me no.

That's why he gave me permission as a journalist, to go to the non-public section out of the national archives to try to find these documents.

That's what led us to the discovery just three weeks ago, that these documents had been grabbed by the Justice Department. And a secret hand, grabbed them and put them in the Justice Department.

GLENN: So you haven't been able to find them?

JOHN: No. We know where they are now. There's two sets. There's a classified set at the national archives. I can't see them. Because I don't have any security clearance, nor does anyone else in normal America.

Right. I could have -- that's probably not advisable. And then the second part, is there is a set with the Justice Department. And I'm taking multiple actions to try to force the Justice Department. And I hope to have really good news later this week. I've been negotiating with the archives. They have been working with the Justice Department. I have a sense, an inkling, that we might get these documents in the near future.

GLENN: All right. So what was it that the FBI do you think, was looking for?

JOHN: It's a great question, right. The first possibility is maybe what they said, is all that it is. Right? This is a dispute between the archives and former President Donald Trump, and they actually went through this unprecedented means to get documents back, by raiding his home.

I haven't found any other great explanation for people. And I think when people look bang. If that's all this was. If this was a dispute over documents, there is a civil process, that could have been followed. And that means they will have criminalized a dispute over paper. And with some serious issues involved. And I think there's another part of this, Glenn, that we haven't been able to dig into. I'm really working on now.

It is impossible for this sort of a dispute to go on, and for it to become criminalized without the Biden White House -- there's just no way, the way the system of government works. So what was the Biden/White House's role in these conversations?

I think that's the next big shoe to drop. I don't know what it is. But I'm determined to find out what it is. The way government works, you have these issues of privilege. You have these issues of I would dispute, between the current administration, the past administration. The Biden White House had to be in the loop

And I don't think their story adds up.

GLENN: Well, I have to tell you, just on common sense, and the way the world has worked in America. There's no way a decision that large, that would come back to the White House, eventually, and affect the presidency, not just Biden and Trump. But the entire presidency. There's no way the Justice Department doesn't call and at least give a heads-up. Am I wrong?

JOHN: I'm 100 percent with you. And I think there's another issue here. Remember that there -- the grand jury subpoena. Which I broke the story a couple weeks ago, was executed on June 3rd. In a collaborative way, by the way. Both sides were still working together then. That didn't address the issue of executive privilege. What does that mean?

It means somewhere earlier in the process, somebody to wave executive privilege in order for a grand jury subpoena to be issued for executive documents. The only way Donald Trump is going to be waving it. I think we're going to find out that the Biden administration waived executive administration for Trump. And that they were deeply involved in it. That's just the only plausible explanation for why there wouldn't be a privilege claim back in June, when the grand jury first showed it to be. This first --

GLENN: Wow. So, John, I'm doing a special on Wednesday. On the history of the FBI. And how -- and how corrupt it has been. I mean, it really was corrupt from the very beginning.

You know, we had Hoover doing all kinds of stuff, that was really, really dark and bad. Are we at or beyond the Hoover days?

JOHN: Well, listen, one of the big stories I did when I was at the Washington Post, and I worked with 60 Minutes. For 40 years, for 40 years, the FBI would go into -- take it out of politics for a second.

They would go into a case, and say, that guy on trial for murder, I can assure you, that the bullets we found in his bedroom door, matches the bullets that were shot out of that gun.

And for 40 years, they testified that hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds of murder defendants were convicted based on the FBI scientists. The story I broke in 2007, showed the FBI knew all along, that that science was junk science. It wasn't true. That they couldn't make such a representation, and yet they continued to make it, well past -- I mean, during the Hoover years. Well-past -- all the way into the Mueller easier. So the history of the FBI. Which was the church hearings. Which went into the Hoover era. Or what we learned in 9/11. The mistakes of the Oklahoma City bombing. The problems with the FBI.

This is an agency that has a very big representation. But it also has a very big history of abuses. Time and time and time again.

GLENN: Any way to reign that in.

JOHN: It's a great question preponderance is some of the policy makers I've talked to in Congress. For the first time, I've heard Republicans tell me privately, you know what, it's time to break up the FBI. Maybe have them -- make them like Scotland Yard, and put the Domestic Intelligence into a different agency. There is clearly a moment of reckoning for the FBI within on the immediate horizon. The real question is, if you just take the counterintelligence division up. You put it somewhere else. The mentality still exists that there's not a regard to the Constitution. That's the part, whether it's inside the FBI or outside of it, the lack of regard for the Fourth Amendment, for our liberties in the face of a big government, that's the part that hasn't been flesh out. I'm not sure just dividing the FBI.

GLENN: Well, especially the intelligence arm.

The intelligence agencies are completely out of control. The things I've read about the intelligence agencies. And I've heard from people on Capitol Hill. Is they really don't answer to anybody right now.

JOHN: Yeah. Yeah. They have their own mindset. Their own mentality. So much of what they do, can say secret, no matter what. As we're seeing in this search warrant today. We never get a visibility, to know if the excuse they're giving to us, is real. And only years later, through lawsuits and FOIAs that we find out. Well, the officials in the intelligence community didn't match, what we were told at the time. It's that secrecy, that I think creates so much concern.

There was an opportunity to know of Russian collusion. Why Republicans were still in control of both -- to do something, to trade a permanent advocate. So that all intelligence cases that occurred in secret, there would be someone advocating on behalf of the American, whose liberties were about to be violated. They when I find on that, Paul Ryan whiffed on that. But I think there's a lot of people today, that would go back and say, you know, if I had to do over, I would probably create that public advocate who goes into the court and argues on behalf of you and me and everybody else.

GLENN: Yeah. So, John, what do you think Donald Trump is talking about, when he says that, you know -- he said over the weekend, it might be within hours. It might be Monday, that I'm going to be filing something. And big news coming. What do you think that might be?

JOHN: My reporting indicates that that the president is considering, filing a motion to remove Judge Bruce Reinhart, who by the way, just a few minutes ago ruled that the entire affidavit cannot be kept sealed. He believes, he used the word unprecedented. I'm glad he recognizes what he approves as unprecedented, but he is rejecting the Justice Department's request to keep the affidavit secret.

GLENN: Wait. Wait. Wait. He rejected the -- the Department of Justice?

JOHN: Just broke just a few minutes ago.

It's up on Just The News right now. Judge Reinhart this morning said the Justice Department's request to keep the entire affidavit for the search warrant, under seal, is rejected. That this is an unprecedented case. It requires transparency, so people can understand why the FBI was authorized to raid a former president's home. That just happened this morning. That's something that the president was cheering on.

GLENN: And how long will it be before we see that?

JOHN: Well, there are two options. Either they have to deliver the unredacted version of the affidavit on Thursday. Or a more likely scenario is the Justice Department will slow walk this. Go to a district judge, then go to an appeals court. Maybe even go to the Supreme Court.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

JOHN: My guess is they will go that route. But meanwhile the president -- to answer your question, I think the president is going to ask that a special master be appointed. A court-appointed independent person. Take the documents from the FBI and go through them and say these are -- these aren't. These are overly expansive. They shouldn't have be collected like your passports. And not leave the FBI on an honor system, given all we know. So I think that's what we'll see the president do.

GLENN: That would be great. John, thank you so much.

JOHN: Great to talk to you. Always an honor to be on your show.

GLENN: Likewise.

All right. When I say back to school shopping scam, I would assume you're thinking I'm just talking about that list of stuff you're supposed to get for you kid. Know, a bag full of stuff, that he's probably never, ever going to use anyway. Now, that's true. But there are also real back to school shopping scams out there. Buyer beware. It is important to understand cyber crime and identity theft. And how they will affect your life. And they will come cloaked a million different ways, which is why no one can prevent all of it, or catch all of the bad guys. And only LifeLock is the one that comes to the table. And says, look, we're going to do our absolute best. And we have the best track record at it. We're the longest running in the industry. But also, we have a team of experts, that are going to fix it. And work with you, to fix it.

And it is only at LifeLock by Norton. Now, join, and you'll save 25 percent off your first year with the promo code Beck. Call 1-800-LifeLock. 1-800-LifeLock or LifeLock.com. Use the promo code Beck. Save 25 percent now.

Ten-second station ID.
(music)
There is a -- I can't say this anymore. An unbelievable story.

There is another believable story, because it's only believable because of everything else that's going on.

You know, it's funny. We're called extremists. But only common sense and tradition now is extreme. It's extreme because everything else is insane.

We have an amazing story about a guy, who was canceled by Google, that you have to hear. Because this one affects you. And I haven't really heard anybody really tie this together, on how this will affect you. It's an outrageous story. We will have this coming up in a second. What do you think of John Stossel, and what he just said?

STU: Pretty amazing. You know, it does seem like -- the overreach is clear. And the -- and the courts may back up some of the Trump side of this. Which is always a plenty surprise, I suppose. When you go into this level of scrutiny. But I do think that there's a chance that this stuff really backfires on them. I think -- you know, you've always had the right, be the one who is defending the FBI in a lot of these institutions. And say, look, we understand. And we've said this a million times. We understand there are some problems in some of these institutions. They need to be rooted out.

It seems like the right after this, is getting to the point, where they're just giving up on that. Like, we can't.

GLENN: Hang on just a second.

Would you call John Solomon back just a second and say, sorry, Glenn has one more question that I forgot to ask him. I want to ask him about the whistle-blowers. Because he's in a position, to know. Are we seeing more whistle-blowers, than usual?

Because that's the feeling I get, reading some stories.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: And hearing from Congress. That FBI agents are coming forward, and going, this has got to stop. And that to me, is heartening.

STU: You're also hearing this from people -- was it Grassley that came out with a big list -- was it 14 whistle-blowers on this one story?

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: That's not the typical -- this isn't like, I don't know, a hard-core Trump ally. He's just a normal kind of institutional Republican. He's been there for 500,000 years. And he's the type of guy you wouldn't necessarily think would be making erratic claims about this type of thing.

GLENN: No. He's kind of old school, reasonable reasonable, just consistent. Just consistent.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: But he's been saying that -- and if they're not -- if you are in the FBI, I plead with you. Plead with you to have zero tolerance for anything unconstitutional and whistle-blow. Come to us. Come to Project Veritas. Come to anyone. Anyone.

But please blow the whistle.

Because you're all going to be painted with the same brush, you know. What happened -- what happened with the police, in many cases, now, this is not the case with BLM. It just gave fuel to BLM.

Is the -- the -- for a long time, the police officers would close their ranks. And they would protect their own.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: You can't. If there's a practice bad guy, you've got for rat them out, otherwise, you'll all be deemed bad.

And I would like to be in a position where I trust the FBI. I don't know if I'll ever be there again. I don't know if I'll ever be there.

STU: And that's probably a healthy thing. There should be some general skepticism. You know, many of our people more on the Libertarian side of -- of the right have pointed this out many times. That conservatives tend to have a real skepticism of government, except for law enforcement and sometimes the military.

And that's not always the best thing to do. You should have the skepticism of government on all these facets. You just shouldn't wildly blame law enforcement for being wrong every single time.

GLENN: I want to be in a neutral position, you know.

STU: Hey, judge things by the facts. That's all we're asking here.

GLENN: Right. And the problem is, if the Intelligence and Justice Department have gone bad, who do you call? Because Ghostbusters is out of business. I don't know if you know that.

STU: No. Yeah, they're in business.

GLENN: No. That's a parallel universe.

STU: Really? That didn't really happen?

GLENN: No. Uh-uh.

STU: A better universe.

GLENN: No. The last I saw, all the equipment was, you know, buried in some place in the middle of the country.

STU: Probably better than what actually happened, you know.

GLENN: So we -- we need the trust in our institutions, and our FBI.

Please, if you're in the FBI, set the record straight. And -- and get rid of all of the bad things in your life, and whistle-blow!

You see something, say something. Are you getting tired of being told that you're what's wrong with America?

Are you tired of corporations going woke right and left?

Well, the good news is, you're awake. And so you don't have to pay for -- for services from a company that hate you. And then have some of the profit that they make, invested in the organizations that also hate you. And want to destroy everything that you love.

Patriot Mobile is your phone company. It is the one that will give you your cell phone and give you the same great service. The coverage. They're on the same cell towers as all the others.

And they love you. And they are actually in fighting for you. Go to PatriotMobile.com/Beck. Or call 972PATRIOT. PatriotMobile.com/Beck. 972PATRIOT. Use the offer code Beck. Get free activation. Join the movement. Pay less. Get great coverage. And actually be with a company that is fighting for your God-given rights. PatriotMobile.com/Beck. 972PATRIOT.

STU: BlazeTV.com/Glenn. The promo code is Glenn to save ten bucks to BlazeTV. More coming up.
(OUT AT 9:28AM)

GLENN: Hello, you sick freak. Yes, what would Monday be without a monkey pox update?

The CDC, the Center for Disease, Control, and Prevention has released a study over the weekend, suggesting that people should wear a mask, to protect themselves from monkey pox.

Now --

STU: Wait. There's no evidence that this is an airborne virus?

GLENN: No.

STU: So why would we wear a mask to avoid monkey pox?

GLENN: Well, I've said --

STU: It's an airborne virus. Would have seen how little they work. But why would --

GLENN: Well, because we've had -- we know now, monkey pox, the CDC came out last week, and said, monkey pox is something that is being spread, mainly through men having more than ten partners, and it is a sexual disease. It is being spread sexually. It's not a sexual disease. But it's being spread sexually.

STU: It's sort of a long-term intimate contact needed to spread this.

GLENN: Correct. So they didn't say that everyone should wear a mask.

STU: Uh-oh.

GLENN: I'm wondering if that's like a face condom, or what exactly -- how do you -- I mean, unless they're just lying to us, and one of those two things is wrong. Either the mask or how it spread.

If you're trying to logically figure it out, you've got to do some pretty complicated Common Core math. And show me your work, on how you got there.

STU: Hmm. I have a question about monkey pox.

GLENN: Yeah. I don't think I should answer it.

STU: No. Probably not. But they keep saying, we were talking about this phrase, men who were having sex with men. Which is the phrase now used. It's not gay people, or bisexual people. It's men who have sex with men. They keep saying that phrase over and over again. For some reason.

GLENN: Well, because gay sex, I think, could be sex between two women.

STU: Well, it's usually, there's an L in the LGBT, right? They could -- they keep saying, like, this is happening in the LGBTQ --

GLENN: I don't know what words mean anymore. I don't know what words mean.

STU: So this is my question, what about men who have sex with trans women? Could they be affected with this?

GLENN: No, that's completely different. It is to them.

STU: Here's the thing, they're biological men who have transitioned to women. I think this is what I would be accused of.

GLENN: Hater. Hater. Hater. I don't think monkey pox --

STU: Will the monkey pox -- is that --

GLENN: I don't think you can label someone who is now claiming to be a woman.

STU: Monkey pox will essentially approach the trans woman and say, I was thinking about infecting this particular man.

GLENN: You. Yeah.

STU: Then I realized, actually, this person is identifying as a woman, therefore, it's totally safe to have sex with this person.

GLENN: Right. Monkeys are not animals, man.

STU: Wait.

GLENN: All right. We have a really important story to share with you. It broke over the weekend. And it involves Google and a dad.

STU: Yes. So a dad in San Francisco, this is February 2021. If you know anything about San Francisco, this was like mid-lockdown. They were still in pull full fledge, right. Of lockdown. So the dad. Stay at home dad, had his son. And his son is having some issues in a sensitive area, if you would. And a rash of some sort, some redness, some swelling, breaking out.

GLENN: Monkey pox.

STU: Now, of course -- now, this wasn't monkey pox. This was pre-monkey pox era. This child is having some discomfort. You're of course not allowed to go outside for some reason. So they're doing a virtual doctor's visit. While they're doing this virtual doctor's visit. The doctor requests photos to understand what's going on.

GLENN: Look, I'm not going anywhere really dark with the doctor, is it?

STU: No.

GLENN: Good. I'm just asking for the listener.

STU: Well, if you survived the monkey pox update, I think you already are here.

GLENN: Right. This one is a lot more tame.

STU: Yes. This is more tame. So he takes some photos, to give to the doctor of his child's area. Sends the photos.

The doctor recognizes what the rash is, what the issue is, sends antibiotics. Gets it knocked out immediately. Everybody is happy.

GLENN: Got it. So, I mean, want to recap this story. It's during covid lockdown. Dad is locked in the house. The doctor has these virtual visits. The doctor, a good guy. Asks the father, a good guy, to take a picture of the sensitive areas of the son who is a good guy. So the doctor can diagnosis and give the right prescription.

STU: Which he does, and it works. Everybody is happy. Apparently not. Not according to the people over at Google. Who have an algorithm, running over all his photos, that are in the cloud.

GLENN: Oh.

STU: And this photo that was apparently uploaded automatically to the cloud.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: Sends -- sets off some alerts, that say, this could be child porn. Now, of course --

GLENN: But it's not child porn.

STU: It's not child porn.

GLENN: Now, was Google monitoring this guy, because they suspected child porn?

STU: No. This is an automated algorithm, that is scanning the photos much every single person who uses Google cloud.

GLENN: Everyone. Uh-huh. Okay.

STU: Now, you might say, there's some utility to this. If it was child porn, it would probably be really good that this was alerted. And maybe some child could have been protected from some horrible, horrible incident.

GLENN: Sure. So they should have maybe reached out to some doctor. Well, but the doctor could have been -- he was on the receiving end, so to speak.

STU: Right. But what needs to happen here? The algorithm sets off these alarms. And then it goes to a human. And the human would have to determine at some level. So this happens, apparently. It's egregious enough for the people at Google, to alert the police. And shut down his entire account. Shutting down his access to his email. Deleting all of his photos from the beginning of his child's life all the way through. Deleting all of his documents.

GLENN: Okay. So wait a minute. Hang on just a second. If you were trying to catch somebody who was in child porn, the last thing you would want to do is tip them off that the authorities are on to them. So Google just -- they call the police. Then they just delete everything?

STU: At least from his access point. So he cannot access any of his stuff. Now, of course, this means he can't access the photos to prove he's innocent. Because now he no longer has excess to the photos that he took, that were his.

GLENN: What happened to the doctor's office that received the photos?

STU: Well, nothing at this point.

GLENN: Okay.

STU: So this goes on. He goes to Google, and appeals it. And says, look, my kid was sick, the doctor asked for these photos. I sent them. They reject his appeal.

Then months later, he gets a letter from the San Francisco police department. San Francisco police department has alerted him that they have begun an investigation. Have looked at all these photos.

He gets in touch with them, and explains to the San Francisco Police Department, hey, look, this is what was the situation. The Police Department sees all the evidence, and agrees with them. And says, okay. Obviously, no crime here.

He did not commit a crime here. This was not child porn. He was sending them to a doctor. So now you have the dad. You have the doctor. You have the police department, all saying the same thing.

GLENN: And the boy.

STU: And the boy. This is not a crime. There is no abuse here. Seems all appearances. All the evidence that we have. A good dad, trying it help his son, through a difficult moment in his life. The only standout here is Google.

So now the story escalates to the New York Times. The Times comes in, documents all of this. Has actually, apparently looked at the photos now. And has also determined, this is not child porn. Right? So we're sure on this one, it seems. Every point of evidence.

GLENN: I think people at the New York Times might be able to know what child porn looks like.

STU: They may very well be able to do that.

GLENN: So he wanted -- so they've gone through all of this. The dad wanted to sue Google, because, you know --

GLENN: They've shut --

STU: They shut him out. They say no. Even with the word of the police department. They still said no.

So he wanted to sue Google. He realized it was too expensive. He didn't have the money to do it. So he is just basically now in the constant state of trying to get them to change their mind, even with all of this. The Times contacts Google and gets a comment on the record where they say, yeah, we're not reversing it. After all of this. The police department is on the record saying, we have a copy of all of his data, but on a jump track. And they are saying, they want to work with the dad, to get him access to all his information back. But at this point, Google is still denying it.

GLENN: Now, imagine when Google and the United States are in bed with each other more than they already are. Imagine the ESG aspect of this. Dad is put on a list by Google. Google shares information by the government. The government shares information by the banks. Dad does not just lose all of his pictures. All of his contacts. And his Google phone. Dad would lose all phones. Dad would lose his banking. Dad would lose absolutely everything, because he would be too much of a risk.

And who do you go to? Who do you go to?

The New York Times? Who do you go to, to say, hey. I need to get my name off of this list. It doesn't -- now, let me add one additional thing to this. I told you last week, that the World Economic Forum, has said, that bullying and everything else, online and disinformation, misinformation, malinformation is too big of a problem globally.

So they are now pushing for high-tech and governments to endorse a system that would look at your tweet or whatever in question, and the algorithm would decide whether or not that is good or bad. If it's bad, it then makes a tree of everything that you do. So it goes back, and it looks at, who is influencing you?

And if those people -- it deletes you. Then it goes to all of the people with contacts. All of the people in your social media realm. And it looks for anyone else, that is spreading that information. And on each of those people, there's made a tree. And they lose their access. All the way down -- this is according to -- look it up at the WorldEconomicForum.com. Or org. Would you look it up, which one is it. But look it up at the main page of the World Economic Forum. It was there at least last week. Where they were talking about making a tree that would -- I mean, 7 degrees from Kevin Bacon. If this happened with this guy, I guarantee you, it's only a matter of time, before they get my name or your name. Because it trees out. And the World Economic Forum says that it's not enough to get the problem, that is manifesting itself on social media.

They need to see where that idea originally came from. Because they now need to silence ideas, before they get into the bloodstream of the population.

If that's not terrifying, especially coupled with this, that is actually happening. And you have a chance of stopping this. But you won't have that chance to stop these kinds of things. Look at how hard it is to get your name off of a No Fly List. You're on there -- you're on there by mistake. Look how long it took people to get their names off of no fly lists. You can't even find out from the government, if you're on it or off it. What the status is. Or why you're on it or off it.

STU: Yeah. In fact, one of the things that came up in this investigation. They said, well, we've also flagged a video from six months ago.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: And we thought that was problematic too.

He's like, well, what video? They're like, well, we're not going to give you access to it. So he can't even defend the video that he supposedly had on his phone.

GLENN: You can't -- you have a right to face your accuser.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: But that's only in governmental law. Back in just a second.

I don't know about you. But I tend to think, that I can immediately tell quality work when I see it. Taking and buying and selling homes, for example. You know the quality work, you know when somebody is going beyond the job that they just have to do. And they love their job. And they're excellent at it. This is a free service to you. To find the people that we think are the best real estate agents, with the best track record. And the -- and the best work ethic in your area. It's RealEstateAgentsITrust.com. Free service to you. You just go there. Say where you are. If you're selling or buying. And if you're moving across the country, or across the street, we'll find the real estate agents, that can help you. RealEstateAgentsITrust.com.
(music)
(OUT AT 9:49AM)

GLENN: This is the Glenn Beck Program. Back to John Solomon. John, I'm sorry to call you back.

JOHN: No problem.

GLENN: I just needed one more question from you. We were talking about the FBI and the warrant and what happened to Donald Trump. I have been hearing from Congress, that they're seeing tons of whistle-blowers come forward. And that gives me kind of hope. You're in a position to know, are we seeing whistle-blowers, and is it -- and is it more than just one or two?

JOHN: Yes, it is. That's a great question. And it's true. We've been writing a lot about it at Just The News. Fourteen separate different Justice Department and FBI whistle blowers, including at least one in the very senior ranks, have come forward to either Congressman Jim Jordan in the House or Senator Chuck Grassley in the Senate, and their allegations were, as we were discussing earlier in the show, that there was this politicization particularly in the Washington field office, where the current raid was conducted by -- the two examples that Chuck Grassley has put out there, that is very clear. An analyst wrote a document, trying to take legitimate evidence against Hunter Biden. And claimed it was disinformation that caused a part of the Hunter Biden investigation. Temporarily closed down in the election. That's one example of a bad politicization going on in the FBI. According to the whistle-blowers. The other is the same office, the Washington field office, opened an investigation on Donald Trump. Not the one we're talking about now, but an earlier one. Without having a proper predicate, meaning there wasn't evidence, much like the case in Russia --

GLENN: Jeez.

JOHN: -- to open up. That's what these guys are talking about, these men and women that are coming forward. Fourteen of them, you're right on the money, Glenn.

GLENN: So that's a good sign. We're seeing more than usual. It's not just maybe the political guys on the other side.

JOHN: Yes. No. I think this is right. This is a greater heartburn among career people.

GLENN: Good. Thank you for that. John, I appreciate it. God bless. John Solomon, of course, is the CEO and editor of chief of Just The News, which is a news site you should go to every day and check the news. That's good news. And, again, I want to encourage anyone -- anyone at any level, if you're seeing it in your city level -- you're seeing it to the FBI level, the NSA, CIA. Please, whistle-blow. We need to know good guys are in there.

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

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

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

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

I just enjoy the way you tell stories.

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

It's really good.

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

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

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

Since 2006? 2005?

Like 20 years, right?

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But it did accomplish a lot of things.

Donald Trump is a result of the Tea Party.

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

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

SALENA: That's absolutely right.

So that was the inception.

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

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

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

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

It was independents. It was Democrats.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changed the trajectory, changed the mood.

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

SALENA: Yeah.

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

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

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

I'm 4 feet away from the president.

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

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

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

As opposed to what happened.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To project that we will not be defeated.

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

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

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

And galvanized people.

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

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

I've got to get up.

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

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

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

You're not afraid. Get up.

Get up.

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

Stand up. How do you think that actually happened?

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

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

You know, he -- he thought, yes.

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

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

That our country is resolute.

And I need people to see that.

We can't go on looking like pathetic.

Right?

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

GLENN: You have been with so many presidents.

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

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

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

You know, waving out the window. Right?

After he was shot.

GLENN: At the hospital, right.

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

Because he was someone who deeply believed in American exceptionalism.

And American exceptionalism does not go lay on the ground.

GLENN: And the symbol.

Right. The symbol of the presidency.

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

GLENN: So let me go back to God.

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

He calls you up.

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

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

It's just a great part.

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

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

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

Even though, he was.

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

I became a Christian at Gettysburg.

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

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

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

GLENN: Crazy.

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

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

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

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

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

Right?

Because it went right over my head.

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

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

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

And how God was in that moment.

It --

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

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

He said, but now that this has happened.

I look back at all of the trials.

All of the tribulations. Literally, the trials.

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

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

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

To give him that space, to work it out.

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

I'm Catholic. I followed my faith.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I never turn my head away.

Why did I turn my head away?

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

Yes, sir. It was. It was God.

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

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

You see that purpose, every day.

He doesn't let up.

He continues going.

And it brings back to the beginning of the book.

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

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

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

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

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

The REAL reason Pam Bondi should RESIGN

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

STU: This escalated quickly.

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

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

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

It's a minute lost. Okay?

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

Okay?

STU: Uh-huh.

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

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

Because we know.

STU: Everyone is going to watch.

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

So watch the clock.

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

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

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

GLENN: Correct.

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

GLENN: Correct.

STU: It would be clear.

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

GLENN: This is incompetence.

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

This is -- we know this is there.

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

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

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

But there's more to it, than that.

GLENN: Hang on just a second.

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

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

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

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

STU: And a traveling jewelry investor.

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

It will just fester.

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

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

You were like, no.

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

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

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

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

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

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

It just means. What the hell is going on?

Are you this stupid?

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

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

Hi, Jason.

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

GLENN: What a morning it is, wow.

So, Jason, what else have you found?

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

I started looking.

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

Door 26.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Based on this camera angel.

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

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

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

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

Okay?

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

Okay?

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

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

Jason, do you have any idea?

JASON: So I think Epstein is on.

STU: The upper floors. Right.

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

STU: Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

You know, what Jason is saying, is true.

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

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

JASON: It doesn't.

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

GLENN: There's no way you will see.

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

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

STU: Below that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The stairs up to the cell.

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

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

STU: Yeah. I guess, maybe.

And Jason, maybe you know this.

Maybe it's explained somewhere else in the report.

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

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

STU: Right.

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

STU: No!

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

Who is rolling this out?

The Little Rascals.

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

This is such absolute incompetence! Incompetence.

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

GLENN: Right, that's what I thought.

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

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

They shouldn't put that in the announcement.

GLENN: Stu, we're going upstairs today.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because I -- this is ridiculous.

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

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

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

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

I'm arguing this is incompetence.

STU: Yes.

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

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

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

But this isn't helping.

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

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

No!

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

So you better have a buttoned up case.

STU: Right.

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

What?

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

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

So they threw it out there.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Yeah, right.

STU: A lot of this has been tight.

But there does seem to be.

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

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: That's all you have to do.

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

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

Right? That it's available.

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

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

STU: Right.

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

Will Medicaid cuts KILL Americans? Glenn reveals the FACTS!

Democrats claim that the Big, Beautiful Bill will take Medicaid and Medicare away from many Americans and even “kill” people. But is any of this true? Glenn Beck and Stu Burguiere review just the facts and explain who’s actually affected by the changes.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Can I address some of the hyperbole around the big, beautiful bill, just a little bit.

If there's anything in the big, beautiful bill to worry about, it's the increase in spending.

Because the spending ourself into oblivion is an actual threat.

To the country. But that's not what anybody is talking about. What everybody seems to be talking about is the tax cuts. Which were already there. Or the tax cuts like no tax for tips. Which you would think the party of the little people. You know, the Democrats. Would all be for. But they're not.

Because they're not party of the little people anymore. And those had to be offset.

Okay. Offset. By what?

Well, by cutting spending. But cutting what spending?

Not cutting spending. Let me just say this. If I said, you know, I made $250,000 a year. And this year, we were going to spend $300,000.
Okay?

And you would say, immediately, Glenn. You can't do that.

And I would say, I've been doing that for 30 years. Okay. You might say, the bank is not going to give a loan.

But then if I came to you and said, yeah. I'm spending $300,000 a year. And my wife and I make 250 or 200,000 a year. But, you know, next year, I was going to spend $500,000.

Did you get a raise? No. I didn't get a raise. I still make 250,000 dollars a year between my wife and I.

But I'm going to spend 500 and not 300. And then somebody came in, like an accountant with some muscle.

And they said, Glenn, you cannot spend $500,000 a year!

Would it make sense if I went back to spending 300, not 200, which I had.

But 300, which I had been spending every year, would it make sense to you to -- for me to say, my children are now going to starve? My children are now going to starve.

Look at the austerity program that I am on.

My gosh, they just -- no. They didn't cut anything. They must cut thinking.

They cut the increase inning spending.

That's what they cut.

And, Stu, could you please explain Medicare.

I mean, all of the people. I know they warned us.

I didn't believe the death squads would actually go out.

And, you know, they want these people off Medicare so badly.

Or Medicaid.

They just sent out death squads. Trump is not waiting for them to die, because he's not waiting for them to get their prescriptions now he just wants them slaughtered in the street.

STU: Yeah, that's the efficiency of the Trump administration. He wants these people dead so badly, he's just killing them in the streets. Actually, no, none of that is happening.

And the Medicaid cuts as you point out, are largely cuts to future increases that have not occurred.

The biggest chunk of this is the work requirements. You've heard this, Glenn.

And, you know, I went through this. And I was like, this can't possibly be what they mean.

I said, wait a minute. When they say work requirement cuts, what does that mean?

So I dove into it a little bit. Basically, what they're saying, you, if you're an able-bodied adult, so that does not include old people, does not include people who are sick and can't work. And it also does not include people who have small children, even if they are able-bodied.

And when I say small, I mean 12 and under. So if you have a 12-year-old. You're completely exempt from this.

But able-bodied adults.

GLENN: Okay. On people in wheelchairs.

STU: No. Gosh, again, I know this is tough. Yeah, this is where it gets difficult.

GLENN: Wait. I'm having a hard time following this. What now?.

STU: So you're an able-bodied adult, that does not have small children.

GLENN: No small children.

STU: You would be required to get Medicaid, to work 20 hours a week.

Now, you might --

GLENN: Twenty hours a week.

STU: Or 80 hours a month.

GLENN: Or 80 hours a month.

That's almost half a full-time job.

STU: Now, you might say to yourself. And this is actually true.

Some people can't get jobs. Right?

I'm sure, there are people trying to get part-time jobs. And maybe can't get them.

Those people will just lose their Medicaid. Well, as you may understand.

Of course not.

Because what you have to do then is go through a process, that you're basically telling them, you're attempting to get a job. Or you're volunteering somewhere, to meet that requirement.

So basically, you have to fill out -- yeah. It's like unemployment.

You have to at least fill out some paperwork here.

GLENN: It's the exact opposite.

Let me see if I have this right.

It's the exact opposite of unemployment which we've had forever.

Which if you're looking for a job, but can't get it. You can still have unemployment.

But it's the exact opposite. Right?

Especially if you're nursing sextuplets.

STU: Again, you're not very close to the truth.

You're a little bit off on this one.

GLENN: No. Huh!

STU: By the way, Glenn, you might say to yourself, wait. How is that a Medicaid cut?

Because they're not cutting anyone's eligibility here. Unless they don't want to meet the requirement.

Of course, there's always been requirements to all of these programs.

So meeting the requirements have always been part of getting on to Medicaid.

This requirement, if you decide basically not to do it. And not participate. And not fill out the paperwork.

Then, yes. You will lose your Medicaid coverage.

What they're saying, hold on. All right.

GLENN: No. I just want to make sure I have it right.

STU: Yes.

GLENN: If you are blind, you're deaf.

STU: No. Again, no.

GLENN: You have no friends, and you can't get out of the house, and you've been on Medicaid, somehow or another, you signed up for that. But now, you don't even know, because you can't hear the news. You certainly can't fill out a form. Because you have no eyes.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: They just come in and rip your Medicaid away?

STU: No. None of what you said is accurate.

Though, it is calm considering some of the accusations -- comparisons made bit left right now.

But, yeah.

So if you are an able-bodied adult that decides, you know what, I don't feel like filling out the paperwork, or I don't feel like going to job interviews, or I don't feel like volunteering, then yes. You could lose -- but that's what they're saying the cuts are.

They think 317 billion dollars worth of people will not bother doing those things. For whatever reason. Maybe because they had more money than they said. Maybe because they're lazy.

Maybe because -- I'm sure there's some case where some -- I don't know.

I can't think of the case.

GLENN: Blind person.

STU: Because the ailments are covered here.

But, yes. Maybe it's some particular skin color. Then they would reject you.

I don't know.

And it's not just that. There are other cuts. For example, some of the cuts are, they're eliminate duplicate Medicaid enrollment.

If you happen to have Medicaid.

GLENN: I can't double-dip.

STU: In two different states. They're going to try to stop you from having it in two states.

And instead, make you have it one state. Uh-huh.

GLENN: Hold on just one second.

I have two legs. I have two arms. I have two eyes. I have two nostrils. I have two ears.

I can't have two Medicaid coverages. It's insane!

STU: I know.

It's really, really brutal.

GLENN: I have two kidneys. I can only have one kidney now, you know, repaired?

STU: Now --

GLENN: Is that what you're saying?

STU: That's not what I'm saying. But, yes. I'm sure that's what's being reported out there by Dana Bash.

Another one, I will give you here, Glenn. They talked about immigrants.

You know, immigrants getting on their Medicaid cut. Now, this is tough. What this bill does, I want you to hold on to your hat here, Glenn.

GLENN: Okay.

STU: If you have green card holders and other certain immigrants, some will lose their coverage. Or actually, sorry, eligibility will -- retain for those people.

Certain other immigrants may lose their coverage. The current law says, all who are lawfully present.

That will kick in after a -- how many year waiting period?

Let me guess, it's a five-year waiting period.

So it will be the next president who has to deal with this, when future Congress will just put it right back in. And it's not a savings at all.

And then you have Medicaid death checks. They're going to require --

GLENN: They're checking on whether your debt? Look at this! It's crazy.

STU: It's brutal. It really is.

GLENN: You're going to kick all of the immigrants off in five years.

STU: No.

GLENN: And then you're checking to see if old people are dead!

When will you leave these people alone?

STU: I know. So, anyway, we can go through this stuff all day. But as you point out, most of this stuff is not at all, what the left is saying it is.

It's not the desperate Medicaid cuts that are going to ruin everybody's lives. A lot of them are just really common sense stuff, making sure you don't have them in two states. I don't know what the positive argument is for that. But they'll make it.

GLENN: Well, they don't have one. That's why they don't make it about that.