RADIOMarch 15, 2024

INSANE: Fani Willis Ousting Case Comes to SHOCKING Conclusion

Fulton County Judge Scott McAfee has allowed District Attorney Fani Willis to continue prosecuting former president Donald Trump’s Georgia election interference case … and Glenn has a few words for him. “I have never seen a clearer case of perjury,” Glenn says, after the world watched Fani Willis defend her relationship with her special prosecutor “friend.” Glenn warns that if this judge can ignore GPS evidence in this case, how many criminals will this allow to go free? But why did Judge McAfee issue this ruling in the first place? Is he a “coward” who is afraid of repercussions from the anti-Trump left?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

All right. We just had some breaking news here.

STU: Yeah. We have our Fani decision.

Fani Wilson. Remember, the course, what was on the line was, is she going to leave? Is she going to be forced out, and they will have to find an entirely new situation, basically restart from scratch? Was what was on the line here.

GLENN: Because she perjured herself.

STU: Again, and this is, of course, the case against Donald Trump in Georgia. And the judge, Scott McAfee, has come out in a 23-page ruling issued.

He said that the defendants failed to meet their burden, in proving Willis' relationship with the special prosecutor, named Wade, was a conflict of interest.

Enough to merit her removal from the case. The judge did find an appearance of impropriety. And said, either Willis -- and her office may leave the case. Or wade must withdraw from the proceeding.

So basically, what will happen here is the dude will get fired. And she will be able to keep going. Now, this is not the a --

GLENN: That's unbelievable!

STU: That's incredible.

After what they've done.

GLENN: Have you ever seen a clear case of perjury?

STU: Everyone on earth knows she was lying. He was lying.

GLENN: There's no justice. There really is no justice. I mean, if you want to know highway African-Americans felt, in, you know, the 1930s, '40s, '50s, especially in the South?

Here it is! Here it is!

You can see it with your eyes. You hear the testimony, and you just know it's rigged. It's rigged.

Because there is no way, any reasonable person would come up with that.

STU: What do you mean, an appearance of impropriety?

How can I possibly think it's just an appearance of impropriety. Again, we talked about this in the beginning. If they had come out and said, look, Nathan wade is just the bad guy out there.

Yeah. I had an affair with him. He was an incredible man. I had to have a piece. But he's an incredible attorney. And I'll admit to everything. And I hired him because he's the best. Probably, they just skate. Instead, they decided to lie throughout the entire thing.

GLENN: Boldly.

STU: Boldly. The face of judge --

GLENN: It is not. You know, you can debate. Well, I made a mistake.

Well, I was -- no. They boldly took the stand.

Wanted to lie.

STU: And did lie.

GLENN: And did lie. Over and over.

STU: Over and over again.

GLENN: How?

STU: It was noted by the judge, that the situation was not proper. However, basically, they're just going to make him leave.

GLENN: Yes. But how does she stay?

Forget the relationship. How does she stay even an attorney, if she has perjured herself?

STU: Right. This is so far beyond the relationship. I barely cared about the story, when there was a relationship involved. Okay.

Whatever. But once she started lying on the stand, and he started lying on the stand, and it was proven. There is absolutely no way she should be in a position of power, and she certainly, and so should he, lose his law license.

There is no law. If attorneys can get away with that. None. None.

None.

STU: It's quite the statement. But it's hard to disagree with.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: They were overt in this. We all know. Just looking at this from a human perspective, we know they were all lying. They didn't go through a perjury trial. Right?

They didn't go through a bar hearing, where they had to fight for their license. They went through something that was -- a proceeding that was supposed to lean on this case. In this case, they will let her stay on. Obviously, that will be the choice she makes, by the way.

GLENN: But how? How?

How can the judge believe anything that she is presenting or saying, if the judge knows, she boldly, knowingly, lied in two other cases.

How?

STU: I certainly can't believe a word she's saying. I don't know how he can.

GLENN: I can't.

STU: It is incredible. And you would be right to look at this and say, this is seemingly very unfair.

I mean, I don't know how I can look at this, and say, anything other than, they -- look, they definitely want Donald Trump to get in legal trouble.

You know, there's no question about that. And if they don't -- if they keep Fani Willis on the trial, there's a chance these things come to fruition before the election. If they throw her off, basically it's over.

And they don't want that.

GLENN: A new study shows that what the Supreme Court doctrine that was the old doctrine created by the Supreme Court, allows 96 percent of private property, is open now to warrantless searches.

The DEA, in a completely other new story, shows that they had a surveillance program on Americans.

They have collected massive amounts of telephone records, for 20 years.

And it was shuttered, because of the Edward Snowden revelations in 2013. The inspector general has released a report heavily redacted.

And that has been released. That was released six years later. The Washington Examiner has just received a copy of it.

The office of inspector general exists to provide oversight of government agencies. Among the new details of the DEA program, is that it refused to comply with parts of the IG investigation, for seven months. And no one faced any consequences.

Can you trust inspector general reports anymore?

Can you trust that Congress even has oversight or even if they want to have oversight?

This, the country has broken down. And all of the problems that are happening, right now. Are because we've abandoned all of our principles.

Does it ever feel to you, let me take a break.

Let me just take a break. Sorry, we didn't expect that news broke, just as I was finishing that commercial.

STU: Let me give you a quick rundown of what their argument is. And what the judges argument is in this case, Glenn. Basically, they start out and go through -- reading through it, while you're talking.

Go through the idea of why weather she financially benefited from it first. Her argument was, we don't have proof of that. We don't know for sure.

They essentially bide the Fani Willis argument of number one, she already makes a bunch of money. She already doesn't have massive debts. She wasn't doing this purely for financial gain. They bought the idea that okay. She paid for one of these trips.

Which it does seem like she did one of the birthday trips that she mentioned many times. So it wasn't like -- and I sort of agree, right?

Like I think you do too. This isn't necessarily, entirely about, oh, we hired this guy, just so I could take trips.

Like, I don't think that's necessarily what happened.

GLENN: Right. It could have.

STU: I think they were broken up. They wanted to take trips. And it just happened to work out well.

I don't know if that's the primary reason.

It's more like, she wanted the guy she was sleeping with, to be close.

And that's a massive problem there. Let me give you this paragraph. This is after they basically say, look, there's issues there. But we can't prove that was her motivation.

Without sufficient evidence, that the district attorney acquired a personal stake in the prosecution, or that her financial arrangements had any impact on the case, the defendant's claims of an actual conflict must be denied. This finding is by no means an indication that the court condones this tremendous lapse in judgment. Or the unprofessional manor of the district attorney's testimony during the evidentiary hearing.

GLENN: Unprofessional.

STU: He's admitting that he knows, that she was lying, basically.

GLENN: That's not unprofessional. It's perjury.

STU: I would agree.

I mean, that's a separate. You don't necessarily get charged with it, in that way.

You would have to have a separate hearing on it. Still, it rises to that standard, to me.

He says, rather, it is the undersigned opinion, that the Georgia law, does not permit the finding of an actual conflict for simply making bad choices, even repeatedly.

And it is the trial court's duty to confine itself to the relevant issues and lay brought before it.

Other forms or sources of authority, such as the general assembly -- he's giving a path here.

The general assembly. The Georgia state ethics commission. The state bar of Georgia.

The faulted county Board of Commissioners. Or the voters of Fulton county.

May offer feedback for any unanswered questions that linger. This is directly from the ruling.

But those are not the issues determined to the defendant's motions, alleging an actual conflict. So he's basically.

I think you can very fairly look at this. And say, he's being very challenged by a Jesse Jackson disciple. You can argue --

GLENN: Lose your job. Verify to lose -- what a coward.

STU: Well, he would deny it.

GLENN: Terrified to lose your job.

How dare you. Your job is a constitutional boast. And you're terrified -- what you know I'm terrified of?

I'm terrified of being shot and killed. I'm terrified of an out-of-control government, swooping in, and arresting my employees.

Or arresting me.

That's what I'm -- that's what I'm afraid of?

Okay. Plus, everything else that is going on, that I am worried about my family and my children.

How dare any of you judges be afraid that you'll lose your job. Boohoo. Cry me a river.

It is our Constitution and our country, that is at stake.

And none of this monologue has anything to do with Donald Trump. None of it.

We all know she perjured herself.

I don't care about the relationship. I don't care about the money.

The people of Georgia should. What I care about, more than even the case with Donald Trump, is that this woman perjured herself, and so did her boyfriend.

They knowingly, gleefully, wickedly perjured themselves. Over and over.

Neither of them, should have a law license today.

Neither of them!

STU: Allegedly. So we --

GLENN: Allegedly.

STU: Just trying to protect you from being sued. But, no. I think there is a standard here, where like, as a person who is a normal human being, looking at what they say, I -- I'm not a lawyer. I don't know every little in and out of what they're doing here.

We'll have the mom to talk about it. But it's to me, blatantly obvious. I said this 100 times.

No human being in history, has, actually, done the things they said they did.

Nobody.

And that is outside of the cell phone data. Where we know, she was there.

GLENN: I know. I know.

STU: Societies blatantly obvious to any human being.

GLENN: It is the cell phone data.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: It is that. Forget about --

STU: They've addressed that.

GLENN: Et cetera, et cetera.

It is the cell phone GPS location, by triangulating the phones. That they know he was -- may not know he was in bed with her.

But I'm sure the CIA has some satellites that can see the heat of bodies through a ruse of houses.

STU: They can look through now and see through Wi-Fi, and see who is in the rooms.

GLENN: Exactly right. If -- if that triangulation does not hold up as evidence.

STU: To be fair, I don't think that's what he said.

I don't think he's saying the cell phone data doesn't hold up.

I think he's basically admitting, they had this relationship, and they were lying.

GLENN: Yeah. Wait.

So he can allow them to go on a case, when they shouldn't be. When they perjured themselves.

It's his court, as well as another courtroom.

STU: Again, I disagree with this ruling.

That's why I read that paragraph.

He's basically stating. I don't have the legal authority to do this on these grounds.

He's saying, these other institutions should be the ones doing this. They should be the ones disqualifying her. I can only act under the law, I have. At my behest right now.

Look, I tend to agree we strongly.

But that is his argument.

He says, he's limited by the law. It's not just -- you can't. If there was a financial aspect.

He could throw her off.

He said, I don't have the financial aspect locked down enough. Therefore, I can't do it.

GLENN: You have perjury.

One is fraud. The other is perjury. Under oath. By an officer of the court.

STU: I know.

GLENN: I got news for you, gang. If this is the way you can just go to court, you think any lawyer is not going to tell murderers, and everything else, exactly what to say?

No. No. No.

Change -- the change story a bit.

STU: Yeah. Stick to your story.

This is a Mafia tactic, right?

If the Mafia were to exist, this would be one of the tactics they would do.

GLENN: And of course we don't need any more enemies. And if they do exist, I love the mob.

STU: But I think that is real. All you have to do, and they proved that they talked.

They talked -- coordinate your story. That's basically what occurred here.

They -- they had a very similar story.

And like, again, I don't think -- I don't think Fani Willis was saying, hey. If I hired this guy, I would be able to go to Napa Valley, in six months.

I don't think that's the full motivation. To your point, a much greater violation has occurred.

They went in front of this judge, and blatantly lied in my view.

Over and over and over again.

And that doesn't --

GLENN: I mean, I just want to say, in your view, no. Let's follow the science.

GPS coordinates. That is not reliable technology.

STU: According to the GPS coordinates. And that's not reliable technology. To your point, there's a lot of criminals out on the street later today.

GLENN: Let me just say this real quick. Please, dear Jesus come. Or send us an astroid.

Because I can't take much more of this.

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.

Liz Wheeler demands Trump FIRE Bondi after Epstein list debacle

The Department of Justice and FBI are now claiming that there NEVER was any Epstein client list and nobody else needs to be charged. But what about Attorney General Pam Bondi’s previous claim that the list was on her desk?! BlazeTV host Liz Wheeler, who had been given one of Bondi’s ill-fated “Epstein Files” binders, joins Glenn Beck to discuss how the MAGA movement should react to the claims made by Bondi, Kash Patel, and Dan Bongino.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Liz Wheeler. Liz wrote to me early today. Let me see if I can -- may I quote you here, Liz?

LIZ: Yes, you may. Thanks for having me, Glenn.

GLENN: Okay. Yeah. You bet. She said, give me one good reason why I shouldn't scream for Pam Bondi to be fired today? And this was at 5 o'clock in the morning. And I said, I'm sleepy. But I don't think I can.

I don't think I can give you a reason not to -- not to call for her firing today. But I want you to explain, why do you feel this way?

LIZ: It's not something that I say lightly. I didn't say it immediately after the White House, Epstein binder debacle. And I want to very prudently and judiciously make this case to you today and to make this case to President Trump too. Because Pam Bondi has become a liability to her administration, despite her loyalty in other areas. So let's start with the announcement from the Department of Justice last night.

A lot of us have a lot of questions about this announcement. It just doesn't ring true with a lot of us. We see a lot of evidence before our eyes that contradicts what we're being told without evidence to believe by the FBI and the Department of Justice. And it grates on us.

Because like you mentioned, we are friends with Kash Patel and Dan Bongino.

They're the good guys. We trust them.

And yet, we have to use our critical thinking faculties and look at the evidence before our eyes.

So it smells fishy. You'll notice it says nothing about whether Jeffrey Epstein was an intelligence asset.

Which, as you mentioned, Alex Acosta, the attorney who cut the sweetheart deal originally with Epstein. Said he was, before Accosta's emails mysteriously disappeared. So we have questions about that.

There are also outstanding, important questions about Kash Patel and Dan Bongino's definitive pronouncement, that Epstein killed himself.

I'm sorry. I don't think the video that they released proves definitively that they were stating that case.

GLENN: Why?

LIZ: Because it does not show what's happening in the cell. It just shows the cell door. We don't actually see him kill himself.

GLENN: Right. But we know that nobody came in.

LIZ: Through that door.

GLENN: Where are they going to go true, the little bars? Little drag la? A little bat.

LIZ: I don't know what the internal cell looks like. I don't know what they have. I don't know if they have fire escape routes. I don't know if they have adjoining doors. I don't know if they have emergency exits. I don't know if that video was doctored or not.

I don't know enough about that, to simply take that one piece of evidence.

GLENN: Okay. So that's a good point.

Just show us the room. Show us what's inside the room.

LIZ: Yes. We need more evidence.

GLENN: That's reasonable.

LIZ: One piece of evidence.

It's not enough.

GLENN: Yeah.

LIZ: The other thing, I wonder with Kash Patel and Dan Bongino are relying too much on the FBI's prior investigation to the FBI of old is a reliable narrator. I don't know who conducted those investigations, or if it was done soundly. I doubt it was done soundly.

GLENN: So may I just interject here.

LIZ: Yes.

GLENN: I talked to Dan Bongino a few weeks ago about this off-air. And, Glenn, we are turning over every stone. We are going to get to the bottom of it.

We are -- so, I mean, he led me to believe that, and I believed him. And I still do.

That he was using new resources. Opening the investigation in -- in a new way. Following it closely.

And I do believe Dan Bongino is one of the good guys.

LIZ: I do too. And I've been told the same thing by high-ranking officials in the FBI. Who I trust. They're trustworthy people.

I do think, that it might not be possible at this point, to piece together everything, because we know there have been reports of evidence, destruction.

So my issue with that definitive statement was the definitive nature of it.

This 100 percent happened this way. Epstein killed himself. Instead of saving, we don't have enough evidence to piece this together, or the evidence we have points to this.

All that being said, though, I want to talk about what happened last night.

Because this brings to us attorney general Pam Bondi, who just months ago said she had the Epstein client list on her desk.

When I went back to look at that video, the clip of her on Fox News, again, this morning, to make sure that there was not context that I was lacking, that there was not bungled phraseology, maybe nerves being on the air.

I went back and listened to it. She said definitively, she had the Epstein client list on her desk.

Now, fast forward to yesterday, she says that it doesn't exist, that they don't have it.

That is a really big problem. If I'm president today --

GLENN: Okay. Let me play this, from Bondi. This is back in February. Here is the actual statement she made.

Listen.

VOICE: The DOJ may be releasing the list of Epstein's clients. Will that really happen?

VOICE: It's sitting on my desk right now, to review.

That's been a directive by President Trump. I'm reviewing that. I'm reviewing JFK files. MLK files. That's all in the process of being reviewed, because that was done at the directive of the president from all of these agencies.

VOICE: So have you seen anything, that you said, oh, my gosh?

VOICE: Not yet.

VOICE: Okay. Well, we'll check back with you.

GLENN: Okay. So now let me take you back to Kash Patel. Because something similar was said to me. Here he is. Cut 12.

So who has Jeffrey Epstein's?

VOICE: Black book? FBI.

GLENN: But who?

VOICE: Oh, that's under direct control of the director of the FBI. Just like the manifesto from the Nashville school shooting. The Catholic school. We still haven't seen that, right?

It's not the Nashville police or PD saying, we don't want this out. The FBI airmailed into that operation and said, this is not getting out. Because they do that because this is another government gangster operation.

All these local law enforcement communities get funding from the DOJ and FBI from local programs. And if you don't cooperate, you're not getting your million dollars for this.

That's a lot of money from these local districts. That's how they play the game. That's why you don't have a black book.

GLENN: Because the black book, it's not just sitting. That's Hoover power times ten.

VOICE: And to me, that's a thing I think President Trump should run on. On day one, roll out the black book.

And not just that, on day one, all the text messages and communications we were told were deleted. On day one, play the rest of the video of the pipe bomber.

You know, he needs -- one of the reforms I talk about in government gangsters.

Is you need a central node to be continuously declassifying. This is another thing they do. They overclassify.

They are not telling you -- as a former number two in the IC, they overclassify 50 percent of the stuff there to protect the Deep State.

Oh, no.

You can't see that. Nothing to see here.

Gina was a master at it. Of doing it. And we haven't seen half of the Russiagate report we wrote. Still under lock and key.

On how the ICA was originally constructed. We went -- we put 10,000 man-hours against John Brennan's team that did it.

And we found out why they came up with their bogus conclusions. We couldn't sell it with the world.

Because we couldn't talk about it. And the government cancers came in and buried it.

All of these things, there needs to be a continuing central power whether it's the White House or off-site that says, every request that comes in.
Just right out the door. As long as it's not awe major threat to national security.

VOICE: Liz, they're both very clear.

It existed. But Pam Bondi did not say, she had any names in it.

She kind of made me feel like she hadn't really looked at it.

Kash Patel gave me the impression, he had seen it. Or at least he knew about it.

So how do we go from here?

VOICE: Yes. Listen.

People care deeply about the Epstein files because there was a grisly crime that we know for a fact that was committed.

Epstein was convicted of that.

It wasn't speculative. He was convicted of that. People feel that there's evidence of a cover-up. Not -- we're not inventing a conspiracy. There's evidence of a cover-up of this crime.

Pam Bondi as attorney general has exacerbated this trust. And it gives me no pleasure to say this. Because I like to give the benefit of the doubt to people that are on our side.

But going back to that day in the White House, this February. I haven't told this part of the story before.

Attorney General Pam Bondi, when we met with her. We weren't at the White House to meet with her. We just met with her while she was there.

Pam Bondi bragged to us about making that cover sheet on the binder, the one that read the most transparent administration in history.

She said, she had made it. She had printed it. She was proud of it. She placed it on that binder.

Glenn, to call that a severe lack of judgment would be the understatement of the year. There is no way, in my mind, and I've tried every way to Sunday, to square that behavior with the announcement that we got last night with the Department of Justice.

Pam Bondi told us at the time, she said, I've requested the Epstein files, the files in the binder, were the ones given to me. Nothing was in them, she told us at the time. Then a whistle-blower told her, she told us. And said the FDNY was hiding other files. That's the story she had told us, that there's been a Deep State cover-up. So at the time, after we were given these binders, we waited. Right? You give your side the benefit of the doubt. Maybe Pam Bondi will come up with the goods, even though the rollout was botched to say the least.

But she -- this is another thing I have not discussed publicly before. She said, she had not seen the FDNY documents at the time that she was telling us about them.

I asked her directly that day in the White House. When she said, a whistle-blower told us about these truckloads of FDNY documents. I said, have you seen them? She said no, she sent the request and they're brining them to her.

So contextualizing all of this, suddenly this seems like unforgivable behavior.

How could she give the American people -- not just me. I don't care about how this impacts me. How can she give the American people those binders that contain nothing, while at the same time, bragging about the cover sheet that she made.

The most transparent administration in history. And tell us that the FDNY had the real goods, that the binder was just proof of a Deep State cover-up. That was the real story she told us. Only now to say, sorry, there's actually nothing.

So it leaves us with this situation. What are the options? The options are, well, was she herself set up by some Deep State FBI officials trying to make a fool of her? It's possible, maybe even probable.

GLENN: Possible.

LIZ: But here's the thing, if you're smart, if you're savvy, if you're sharp enough to be Attorney General of the United States, you verify such information.

You don't assume its veracity and publicize it for clicks. And that's what she did.

So then we get to the point, that we think, okay. Well, what does this say about her judgment?

Is she just click thirsty? Is she wanting to be a Fox News star? Did she get out over her skis, trying to make news, being a mega champion with those binders, that maybe she had not verified the contents of, and she definitely hadn't verified the contents of the FDNY truckload. You can't square this announcement with the binders. With the binders in February, unless you allow for the idea that Pam Bondi could be operating in a way that is unacceptable, when on Fox News. Said she had a client list on her desk to review, when she hadn't looked at the documents.

And was just saying that to be a television star. I say this. In somewhat sorrowfully. If I'm President Trump, I would not tolerate this behavior anymore. She's become a liability to the administration. I think the administration is probably just now coming to the realization of how much goodwill this whole debacle has cost them with their voters.

And Pam Bondi is not worth it. She's a liability. It's time to move on.

The INCREDIBLE TRUE Story of Benjamin Franklin

Was Benjamin Franklin the greatest and most modern Founding Father? This July 4th week, “The Greatest American” author Mark Skousen joins Glenn Beck to tell the incredible and true story of Benjamin Franklin.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Dr. Mark Skousen, friend of the program, friend of mine. America's economist.

He is -- he has written a new book on the greatest American and the greatest American, he says is Ben Franklin. And I tend to agree with him. He's at least in the top five greatest Americans. Welcome to the program, Mark. How are you?

MARK: I'm doing well. We're out here in the Mediterranean Sea right now on a cruise, but isn't it great technology that even Ben Franklin would love?

GLENN: You know, I don't think people really understand the genius of Ben Franklin. I mean, there's this great article in the times of London.

I don't remember when. But he was going back to London. He was going to challenge the king.

And he was going back. And they said, don't let his boat come in to dock.

Because he's been working with electricity, and he has a ray gun, and he will vaporize, you know, all of London.

I mean, he was -- he was the Elon Musk of his day, but he was almost more magical, because people didn't understand it.

Back then. What did you find in writing this book about Ben Franklin, that you think most people just don't know?

MARK: Well, this is the thing. So when I wrote the greatest American, I thought to myself, everybody -- lots of books have been written on his biography.

So what I did was I came up with 80 chapters on how he is the most modern of all the Founders. And how he could talk about the modern issues of today, whether it's trade or taxes or inflation or war. Discrimination. Inequality.

I have a chapter on each one of these, in the greatest American.

And, you know, he was a Jack-of-all-trades.
And the master of all, on top of it!

So one of the things I thought would be really cool, if you put my book, on every coffee table in America, and people came in to visit, they would look at this book. And there might be an argument, as you say, as to who is the greatest American. Whether it's George Washington or Elon Musk, or what have you.

GLENN: Whatever.

MARK: When they see the picture of Ben Franklin, they sit there and nod their head. And say, wow. This is the guy I want to sit down with and talk to.

And have a beer with.

Because if you sat with some of the other Founders, they would get in an argument with you. Or they would refuse to answer the question. Or what have you.

But Franklin was willing to talk to a janitor, as well as the king of France. And that's pretty unique.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah. He could.

He was an amazing guy. So tell me, in your research of him, you know, you always hear that, oh, Ben Franklin was a notorious womanizer, and everything else.

And he abandoned his wife. Deborah? Was that her name?

MARK: Yes. Deborah. That's correct.

GLENN: Did that -- what's true, or what's not true about that?

MARK: So he certainly was the most liberal-minded when it came to the sexual revolution.

That's why I say, he's the most modern of the Founders. Because he was not prudish like John and Abigail Adams, who thought he was a reprobate. And sinner. And not a churchgoer. And stuff like that.

GLENN: Right.

MARK: So, yes. He was -- the ladies loved him. And he loved the ladies.

There's no question about that, that he was a bit of a playboy. And, in fact, he even admits in his autobiography, of having an illegitimate child, William. But then he settled down. He married Deborah. And, yes, Deborah and him, they did separate because -- and it was really more her fault than his, because when he went to London as a London agent, she had extreme aversion to going out on this -- the seas. It was a dangerous time period.

So it's kind of like people don't like to fly on airplanes today. So they did grow apart. There's no question about that.

But they maintained their -- their love for each other.

And, as a matter of fact, when Franklin died, he's buried right next to Deborah. So I think that's an indication of their -- their love and so forth. But they were very different personalities. She was very focused on -- on more of the home issues. She was not a public intellectual.

She would not feel comfortable in the same conversations that Franklin would have with scientists.

And with public thinkers, and stuff like that. So they definitely differed in their personality.

GLENN: The -- the story about his son William is one of the saddest chapters.

I mean, you know, Thomas Paine kind of looked at him as a father figure. And he -- you know, Ben Franklin did have a son, William, as you said. And they -- they had a really bad falling out.

Can you quickly tell that story?

MARK: Yeah. So I have a chapter on that very issue. Because who were his enemies, and he did have a number of enemies, including John Adams, at one point. But in the case of William, he, Franklin, arranged for William to be the governor of New Jersey. And he maintained his loyalty. He was a loyalist. Billy was throughout the American Revolution!

And at the end of the American Revolution, or during the American Revolution, Franklin writes his son and he said, it's one thing to -- we can differ on various issues.

But when you actually raise money, raise armaments to attack me, this was beyond the pale.

This is not something that you should have done. And then at the end of his letter, he says, this is a disagreeable subject!

I drop it. So you can feel that emotion, that anger.

And, yes. He removed him from -- from his will.

So there -- there -- Franklin got along with almost everyone.

And I have a whole chapter on how to deal in the greatest American. How to deal with enemies and be how to make your enemies, your friends.

But this was one example where he just couldn't cross over and forgive him. For what the -- for what we had done.

GLENN: I don't think --

CHIP: Just like you are saying.

GLENN: I think I would have a hard time doing that too if my son was raising funds and military against me. It would be kind of hard to forgive.

Mark, thank you so much for your work. It's always good to talk to you.

The name of the book is by Mark Skousen. And it is called The Greatest American. It's all about Ben Franklin. If you don't know anything about Ben Franklin, you will fall in love with him. You will absolutely fall in love with him. Mark Skousen is the author. The name of the book again, The Greatest American.