RADIOJuly 19, 2024

"I've Never Seen Him Like This": Glenn Beck's Biggest Takeaways From Trump's RNC Speech

When former President Donald Trump took the stage at the RNC, it was obvious that something had changed. "I've never seen him like this," Glenn says. "He was humbled." Surviving an assassination attempt sure seemed to change him, and made him realize that only God's will matters. But it wasn't just Trump. Glenn says he also has never seen a Republican National Convention like this. Glenn and Stu review why they have hope for the future of America after this event. But of course, the Left immediately returned to the narrative that Trump will be a fascist dictator. So, Glenn and Stu review the facts, along with the Left's latest conspiracy theory: that Trump staged his own assassination.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I've been watching the convention, this week.

And it is the best convention I have seen, and I think it was better than the Reagan conventions. And those were regulated. This -- this had everything you needed in the Republican convention.

It had all of the right people speaking, I thought. All the way through the week. If people spent the time and watched it, actually listened to it.

They saw a very different party, than what they have ever seen before. At least I did. And last night, a very, very different Donald Trump.

I've never seen him like this. Never heard him speak this way. I've never seen him, take the stage the way he did.

He was humbled. And I think, you know, he pushed back on the crowd.

Or the crowd pushed back on him, halfway through the speech. He said, you know, I was not supposed to be here tonight. I'm not supposed to be here.

And they started chanting, yes, you were. Yes, you were. And he said, no. I wasn't.

An assassin wanted me gone. And I wasn't supposed to address you today. But God saved my life. And it was not a moment of boasting. It was a moment, I thought of clarity.

Now, there's something else that happened, that I haven't heard a lot of people talk about. In fact, I haven't heard anybody talk about this yet. And I think it's very, very telling.

Donald Trump has kind of shifted gears into this -- into this zone of, I know what I know. I know what I feel.

And I know who the other side is, and they're dismissed. He's not fighting them like he was before. Now, that doesn't mean that he's not fighting -- the one thing about Donald Trump, is he's a fighter. But it's almost as if he feels like the outcome is already there.

And he doesn't need to -- he doesn't need to push the envelope anymore. He just needs to say the truth.

So he came out quiet, humbled. He did about 30 minutes of just riveting material, that he wrote himself. He tore up the speech. Wrote the speech himself. Which is also not Donald Trump. He usually will ad-lib. He doesn't usually write his own material. But he wrote the first 20 minutes. And probably the last 20 minutes as well. The rest of it was kind of a stump speech. But he -- he came out, humbled. And told the story of the assassination. He said at one point, Joe Biden's name. And at one point, when he said it, he said, I'm only going to say this once.

And he talked about telling the story of the assassination, and said, it's too painful. So I won't tell this story again.

You'll hear it the first and last time from me.

Tonight. When he brought up Joe Biden, do you remember the context Stu, on when he first brought up Joe Biden, and then apologized, and said, I'm not going to say his name anymore?

STU: Yeah. He was talking about the 10 worst presidents of all time, and how all of them added up together, wouldn't get to Joe Biden, and that's when he said his name.

GLENN: Right. Right.

And he said, you know, I didn't want -- I didn't want it to be unclear, who that president was, that was worse than the ten worst combined.

He said, but I'm not going to mention his name anymore.

And to me, that may be lowering the temperature, a little bit. I think that's one way to read it. But I think more importantly, I think he strategically is now looking at the fact that Joe Biden is not going to be the nominee.

I just don't believe he's going to be the nominee.

And it's only a matter of time. And Donald Trump, why waste his hour of television, or in his case, 90 minutes of television, making a case against a guy who is not going to be running?

And that's why he kept saying, they. They made these things. This administration did this. And did not say, Donald Trump. Or, did not say Joe Biden.

And did not say Kamala Harris. Now, that -- the Kamala Harris thing, I think is because he just doesn't know that Kamala is running. And why look back at the people that are so far behind you, at this particular point?

But the hopeful side of me says that he didn't mention Kamala. Because he knows it will be Michelle Obama. And I only say hopeful, because Stu will owe me -- I think it's four grand, isn't it, Stu?

STU: Three. It's definitely three. It's 100 percent three. And even that, with inflation, I don't even know if we can really count 3,000. I think we can probably lower.

GLENN: It should be five. It should be five.

Yeah, because three just wasn't what it was six months ago, when we made this bet.

STU: I will say, thank God for Bidenflation. Because by the time I paid this bet off, it will be worth nothing. The three thousand dollars will be like what a loaf of bread is.

GLENN: We won't be able to buy a sandwich. No. We won't. We won't.

All right. So there's a couple of -- a couple of stories here that explain the speech. The first one is the New York Times. And the New York Times, Trump in an RNC speech struggles to turn page on the past. Well, it's a little difficult, you know, when the past involved assassination attempts. You know, a little difficult there.

Donald J. Trump has been a man long undone by himself. He imperiled his presidency and political campaigns with personal grudges, impulsiveness, and an appetite for authoritarianism. You know, it's really strange how they keep saying authoritarianism in Donald Trump, when he's not done anything authoritarian.

I mean, he might say, you know, we should go after the press and take away their license. Until he's reminded, they don't have a license. And he wasn't serious in the first place.

Lock her up!

Until he wasn't serious in the first place.

I can't find the authoritarian streak in him, high school. Of anything that he's actually done.

And then they say, also, he's caused himself problems for his casual approach to the rule of law.

Now, Stu, out of he who shall not be named. And Donald Trump.

Which one has the casual approach to the rule of law?

STU: I don't know. Should we go over the latest cord to overturn his student loan debacle?

GLENN: I know. I know. I read that this morning, in the New York Times, after reading the casual approach to the rule of law. And then, you know, the next story is, oh. Another court said, you can't do that with student loans.

He just keeps trying to go around the law, over and over again.

STU: Yeah. The courts overturned his attempts at student loans. The same day, he announced another attempt, for I think it was $1.5 billion of student loan relief. I mean, he's addicted to giving away money to these people, it's incredible.

GLENN: His unwillingness to accept electoral defeat, and his actions that have resulted in $83 million in penalties, nearly three dozen felony convictions, and additional legal trouble ahead. I mean, that's how they start. And, I mean, you've got to be -- I mean, you're just under the spell of witchcraft.

If -- if you buy into any of that. But on Thursday night, with his right ear still bandaged five days after he was wounded by a would-be assassins bullet. Okay. Can we talk about that for a second, Stu?

STU: Sure.

GLENN: The bandage. What they're trying to say here is he didn't need the bandage.

Do you think he needed the bandage still?

STU: Yes. My guess is, that his ear looks pretty funky right now. And he doesn't necessarily want to walk out on stage looking that way.

GLENN: Yeah. I was actually hoping that he would take off the bandage. Because I think his ear probably looks worse. He lost the top of his ear. And, you know, that's kind of a -- you know, you have to be -- I mean, there's conspiracies thrown around. Now, a third of Democrats believe that he set this up with the Secret Service. What?

To have his ear blown off? I mean, how delusional do you have to be? First of all, he's not the guy who has the in with the Secret Service, and, you know, the spy agencies and everything else.

The conspiracy doesn't -- it falls apart pretty quickly, you know.

STU: Yeah. It's not rational by any means, and this is something, Glenn, you see in polling every single time.

If there is a conspiracy theory about your political opponent, about a third of people will believe it, no matter what it is. Now, you can get higher than that. The Democrats, about 50 percent of them believed that 9/11 was an inside job, when George W. Bush was president. You can find numbers that get higher. But like the baseline number for a conspiracy theory for your political opponent is about a third. It just is.

A lot of people just taking the position they think hurts their opponent more than them actually believing it, I hope.

But there are a lot of people. I mean, Joy Reid is on television every single day, talking about this stuff. I mean, they threw poor Joe Scarborough off the air. What did they think this guy was going to say? I mean, what do they think of Joe Scarborough, if they leave Joy Reid on the air?

GLENN: I never thought of it that way. You're exactly right.
(laughter)
STU: That's amazing.

GLENN: So let me just switch gears here. Joy Reid posted a video of herself, working through a bizarre conspiracy theory, suggesting that the Secret Service helped Donald Trump to create the defiant photo image from the shooting.

She noted the Biden campaign released a lot of detailed medical information about his condition within minutes of the announcement. That he had contracted COVID-19 again.

But when it comes to what happened on Saturday, with former President Donald Trump, this assassination attempt we know almost nothing about his medical condition. Bum-bum-bum.

How come no one has any information about this wound?

We still don't know for sure, whether Donald Trump was hit by a bullet, or whether he was hit by glass fragments. Whether he was hit by shrapnel. We don't have any of those details.

Glass fragments?

Where were the glass fragments from?

Was that the teleprompter, that they say was hit?

STU: There was an initial report. And I don't remember who reported it. But there was a report that it was glass fragments. And it wasn't even a liberal reporter. I remember reading it like, what? What are you talking about?

Then about five minutes later, you can see pictures of it, where both the teleprompters were fully intact. It was a crazy theory. That was debunked immediately. But people who are like Joy Reid who are impossibly stupid continue to believe it.

GLENN: And we have a picture unlike anything we've ever seen. A picture of the bullet, in flight. As it's about to hit his head.

STU: Right!

GLENN: I mean, it's incredible.

STU: Yeah. I think it's actually just --

GLENN: It could have been a fly. A really big mosquito. We don't know. We don't know.

STU: It's just after it passes his head. But, yes, it's about as -- I mean, it's one of the most incredible photos ever taken, and the photographer who took it has basically the most impossible photo you can take.

And it's still not the iconic photo of the incident. Which is kind of -- you go through -- you caught a bullet in your picture. And still like, somebody else got the picture of him standing up with his fist up. With the blood streaming down his face. Which is still the iconic photo of that day.

It's so tuned.

They believe everything.

They believe that, you know, the bandage is fake, that he didn't actually get injured.

Like, I don't know. I thought it was glass that hit him. Now he didn't get injured at all. He doesn't need the bandage. It's just, everything they come up with is dumber and dumber.

GLENN: They're just crazy. Really, truly crazy about him. They lose all reason. And for Joy Reid to be on the air, on MSNBC is remarkable. And not because they should fire her because of her points of view. I don't believe that.

Just because she's dumb as a box of rocks, man. She's crazy. She is crazy.

STU: Yeah. To be fair, I don't believe that Joy Reid has lost all reason. She just didn't have it any point, so it's impossible for her to lose in particular.

The Charlie Kirk Effect: Why His Impact Has Only JUST Begun to Be Felt

Charlie Kirk’s passing became the defining story of 2025, and not simply because of the tragedy, but because of the extraordinary spiritual and cultural awakening that followed. Glenn Beck, Steve Deace, Liz Wheeler, and Jason Buttrill reflect on how Charlie’s life, integrity, and leadership transformed young conservatives, reshaped the American Right, and ignited a nationwide revival unlike anything seen in decades. From the shock felt across the country to the outpouring of renewed faith, unity, and purpose, Charlie’s legacy continues to move hearts and inspire millions. This episode honors the man who built a generational movement, awakened a nation, and left a light that refuses to be extinguished.

Watch the FULL Episode HERE

Has THIS Islamist organization BROKEN state laws for YEARS?!

A new report accuses CAIR Action, the political arm of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, of breaking state laws with its political activism. Glenn Beck reviews this story...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So let me go over what is -- what's happening with -- with CAIR.

You know, the Founding Fathers were obsessed over accountability.

Because they knew one thing. You know, they did. They must get suggestions from people on, you know, through tweets. They studied every single system of government.

Every single republic that survived. That didn't survive.

Why didn't it survive?

They studied all forms of government. They were trying to come up with something that could -- could set people free.

And they -- they worked really hard on putting our checks and balances in place, because they knew, once power slips into the shadows. They knew, once power slips into the shadows, once influence becomes unmoored from law, what rises is not a republic.

It's a machine. And that's what you're seeing right now. We're not living in a republic. We're living in a machine.

We -- I think we're staring at one of the largest unregulated political machines operating in the United States ever! Okay.

There have been a couple of groups that are doing sweeping investigations, two watchdog groups. One of them is NCRI and the Intelligent Advocacy Network.

And they have concluded now that the political arm of CAIR, he known as CAIR action, has been operating nationwide with no legal authority, to do the things it has been doing for years now.

They're not allowed to raise money. They've been raising money. Coordinating political campaigns.

Not allowed to do it. Endorsing candidates. Not allowed to do it, they're doing it. Mobilizing voters, shaping policy, functioning as a national advocacy network.

They don't have the legal authority to do any of it. And no one has said anything.

Now, according to the report, CAIR action doesn't just have a paperwork problem.

Investigators found, state by state, that it lacks the license, the registrations. The charitable authorizations, required to legally solicit money.

Excuse me. Or conduct political activity, in any of the 22 states in which it operates. Think of that!

I know how serious this is, because I remember what it took to get the license in each and every state, for Mercury One.

So we could operate. We could raise money. We could do things in those states. It's a lot of work. And if you don't do it, you go to jail. And they find out pretty quickly.

Okay?

22 states, they operate not one, zero legal authorization.

In Washington, DC, the city where CAIR action is incorporated, the department of licensing and consumer protection told investigators, they have no record of CAIR action ever obtaining the basic business license required to solicit funds or to operate.

Imagine how long would you last in business, especially if you were controversial.

How long would you remain in business, if you never had a business license?

You think somebody would figure that out?

In a sooner time than I don't know. A couple of decades!

This report means, that the organization if true, is engaging in unlicensed inner state solicitation.

It has exposed itself to allegations as serious as deceptive solicitation. Wire fraud and false statements to the IRS. These are big things.

And this is not political rhetoric.

Are these phrases written in black and white. In the law.

And by investigators. In California, one of CAIR's most active hubs. The state attorney general has said, the state attorney general of California has said, same pattern here!

The state of California, to say, yep. That's what's happening here.

CAIR action has never registered with California's charitable registry.

Never filed the required CT1 form. And has no authorization whatsoever to request donations. But they've been doing it in California anyway.

Fundraising, selling memberships. Issuing endorsements. Mobilizing voters. All of that has been done by CAIR action. There's no record of any license. Any permission, ever. Going to CAIR. From California. That's according to their attorney general.

Wow!

That's pretty remarkable, huh? How does that happen?

It's not just the coast. It is also happening to the Midwest, the South, the Mountain West. Every state hosting its own CAIR action fundraising page, complete with the donate now and become a member portal, despite no trace of the legal filings required to operate. That's bad!

Now, here's where the stakes rise.

Because CAIR action presents itself openly, as the political arm of CAIR National.

Investigators are now warning that any unauthorized fundraising or political activity.

Could become CAIR's national responsibility as well.

So, in other words, the parent, CAIR itself, might be held responsible.

Meaning, this is want just a rogue subdivision.

This could implicate the entire National Organization of CAIR.

Now, this is happening at the same time it's coming under national scrutiny. It's also Texas.

And I think Florida have designated the group a foreign terrorist organization. Members of Congress are now asking the IRS, the Treasury, the Department of Education to investigate all of its partnerships, all of its financing, all of its influence operations. I mean, I think they're going to be in trouble.

How long have we been saying this?

But every time, I have pointed out anything about CAIR, I have been called an Islamophobe, which shuts everything down. That is a word, developed by people like CAIR, to shut people down, so you'll never look into them.

So what happens next?

First of all, the reports have to hold up.

Regulators now have an obligation. Not a choice. An obligation to act!

State attorneys general in these 22 states, they might pursue fines, injunctions, criminal referrals.

All of them need to take action!

The IRS, needs to take action. Investigate tax exempt fraud. Treasury Department may review foreign influence or money flow violations.

Anything coming from overseas.

Oh, I can't imagine it. They're so buttoned up, right now.

DC regulators may determine whether CAIR actions entire fundraising operation has been unlawful from the beginning.

But here's the deeper question. And it's not bureaucratic. This one is constitutional.

Can the United States tolerate an influence machine, that operates outside of the legal framework, designed to prevent corruption, foreign leverage, and untraceable money?

If I hear one more time, talking about how AIPAC has just got to be investigated. Fine. Investigate.

I'm not against it.

Investigate.

Why aren't you saying anything about CAIR?

It feels like it might be a tool in the hands of a foreign operation.

Why aren't you saying anything about this?

Because here it is! It's not like, hey. I wonder why.

This is it! This is it! This isn't about silencing CAIR. Muslim Americans are -- that are full citizens, they have every right to speak. Every right to vote. Every right to organize. Participate in public life. No question! They can disagree with me, all they want.

But no organization. None! Not mine. Not yours. Not theirs. None. Should operate a nationwide political network, in the shadows and be immune from all of the guardrails that every other group must follow!

That's called a fourth branch of government!

That's how a fourth branch goes.

By the way, CAIR has placed all kinds of people in our Department of Homeland Security. Et cetera, et cetera. This organization has done it!

This is -- you cannot have a fourth branch of government.

They must abide by the laws.

No -- you can't have a branch that nobody elected. Nobody oversees.

Nobody holds accountable.

We talked about this yesterday, on yesterday's podcast. So what needs to happen is total transparency. CAIR action has to release its filings. Its donor structure. Its compliance records, if they exist. Equal enforcement under the law. I don't want them prosecuted in special ways.

Look, if AIPAC is doing the same thing. AIPAC should be prosecuted exactly the same way.
I want it equal. I want constitutional rule.

If conservatives, if Catholics, pro-Israel, environmental, Second Amendment groups, if they have to comply by the state law, so does CAIR action.

And if CAIR action has to do it, so do the Second Amendment groups and environmentalists, and pro-Israel and conservative groups. The law cannot be selective. It can't be!

I don't know how that's controversial in today's world. But somehow or another, they will find a way.

The Feds have to review all of this. If the report is accurate, the IRS and the Treasury have to determine whether false statements or unlicensed interstate solicitations have occurred.

Americans deserve to know what exactly, who is influencing our elections. Who is shaping our policy? Who is raising money in their state?

Especially physical the organization claims political authority, that it doesn't legally possess.

Because history will teach us one unchanging lesson. When a republic stops enforcing its own laws, someone else will always step in to fill that vacuum because power abhors a vacuum!

Unregulated, political power abhors a free people. So while it's about CAIR, it's not about Muslim Americans. It's not about religion.

As always, at least on this program, we try to make it about the rule of law.

One standard for everyone or no standard at all!

And that more than anything, will determine whether or not our institutions remain worthy of the freedom and responsibility that we have entrusted to them.

Glenn Beck WARNS Democrats Will Return with VENGEANCE in 2026 | Glenn TV | Ep 473

America is entering a year of historic upheaval from Charlie Kirk’s assassination and the spiritual shock that followed, to Trump’s tariff revolution, China’s rare-earth war, collapsing energy grids, AI displacement, and the looming fights over Taiwan and Venezuela. Glenn sits down with BlazeTV hosts ‪@deaceshow‬ and ‪@lizwheeler‬ along with his head researcher Jason Buttrill, to break down the biggest stories of 2025. Plus, they each give their most explosive prediction for 2026 that could shape our politics, economy, national security, and civil rights in ways Americans have never experienced before.

Trump Just SHATTERED the “Expert Class” - And the Deep State is in Total Panic

For nearly a century, Washington DC has been ruled by an unelected “expert class” operating as an unconstitutional fourth branch of government — accountable to no one, removable by no president, and shielded from all consequences. Glenn breaks down why Trump’s firing of the Federal Trade Commissioner could finally dismantle the 1935 precedent that empowered technocrats, how Ketanji Brown Jackson exposed the Supreme Court’s embrace of expert rule, and why America cannot survive a government run by people who never face the voters and never pay for their failures.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Okay. So President Donald Trump fired the federal trade commissioner Rebecca Slaughter. Federal Trade Commission is an administrative position. I mean, this is under -- the head of the federal trade commission is a cabinet member.

And if the justices uphold Trump's firing of Slaughter, that will overturn a precedent that was horrible, that was set in 1935. Remember, 1935, we're flirting with fascism. You know, everybody thinks. Because they haven't seen the horrors of fascism yet.

Everybody thinks fascism is neat, blah, blah. So what they do is they say that this is an independent person. And the president can't fire them. Because they're, you know, an independent agency.

Well, wait. That would make a fourth branch of government. Our Constitution is really clear.

There is no such thing as a fourth branch of government. Right?

So that's what they're deciding. Now, here is Ketanji Brown Jackson, who is talking about how we really need to listen to the experts. Cut four.

VOICE: Because presidents have accepted that there could be both an understanding of Congress and the presidency. That it is in the best interest of the American people to have certain kinds of issues, handled by experts. Who, and I think you -- in your colloquy, Justice Kagan, have identified the fact that these boards are not only experts, but they're also nonpartisan. So the -- the seats are actually distributed in such a way, that we are presumably eliminating political influence because we're trying to get to science and data and actual facts, related to how these decisions are made.

And so the real risk, I think, of allowing non- -- of allowing these kinds of decisions to be made by the president, of saying, everybody can just be removed when I come in, is that we will get away from those very important policy considerations.

VOICE: We will get away from US policy considerations, and it will create opportunities for all kinds of problems that Congress and prior presidents wanted to avoid, risks that flow inevitably, just given human nature, the realities of the world that we live in.

GLENN: Okay.

Now, remember, what she's saying here is, we have to have experts.

We have to have experts. We have to have experts that don't really answer to anybody. Okay?

They're appointed. And then they're just there. This from a, quote, judicial expert, who cannot define a woman, because she's not a doctor.
She's not a scientist.

She needs an expert to define a woman.
That's how insane her thinking is. Okay?

Now, I would just like to ask the Supreme Court, when you want things run by experts, do you mean things like the State Department, or the counsel of foreign relations, that have gotten us into these endless war wars for 100 years?

Because these are the things that Woodrow Wilson wanted. He wanted the country run by experts.

Okay. So is it like the Council of Foreign Relations, that keep getting us into these endless wars.

Or is it more like the Fed, that directs our fiscal policy, that has driven us into $38 trillion of at the time. We have all powerful banks. That strangely all belong to the fed. And endless bailouts for those banks. Are those the experts that you're talking about?

Or are you talking about the experts that are doctors, that gave the country sterilizations, lobotomies, transgender surgeries. You know, or should we listen to the experts, like the ones that are now speaking in Illinois, to get us death on demand like Canada has, with their MAID assisted suicide, which is now the third largest killer in Canada. MAID, assisted suicide, third largest killer in Canada. Experts are saying, we now need it here, and they're pushing for it in Illinois. Or should we listen to the experts? And I think many of them are the same experts strangely, that brought us COVID. Yeah. That was an expert thing. They were trying to protect us. Because they need to do this for our protection. So direct from the labs in China with the help of the American experts like Fauci. We almost put the world out.

Should we listen to those guys?

Or the experts that brought us masking, and Home Depot is absolutely safe. But Ace Hardware wants to kill grandma. Which are the experts that we want? That we want to make sure that we have in our lives? That they don't answer, or can't be fired by anybody. Because I'm pretty full up on the experts, myself. I don't know.

But you're right. These experts would keep the president in check, and they would keep Congress in check. And you in check!

And the Supreme Court, which would be really great. You know, and you know who else they would keep in check? The people.

So, wow, it seems like we would just be a nation run by experts, and our Constitution would be out the window, because that's a fourth branch!

And if you don't believe me, that, you know, these experts never pay a price. Can you name a single expert?

Give me a name of an expert, that gave us any of the things that I just told you about.

Give me the name. I mean, give me the name of one of them. Give me the name of one of them that went to jail. Give me the name of one expert that has been discredited.

You know, where your name will be mud in this town. Do you know where that came from?

Your name is going to be mud. It's not M-U-D. It's M-U-D-D, that comes from Dr. Samuel Mudd. Okay? He was a docks man. He was an expert. He was that set John Wilkes Booth' broken leg. He made crutches. He let him stay there for a while. He claimed he didn't know him, but he did know him.

In fact, one of the reasons they proved it.

Is because when he pulled the boots off -- when he pulled both of his boots off, right there, in the back, you couldn't have missed it. It said "John Wilkes Booth."

He's like, I have no idea who he was.

Yeah. Well, you knew him in advance. This was a predetermined outpost where he could stay. It's clear you could know him.

The guy was still discredited, we still use his name today. Your name will be mud in this town.

And we think that it's like dirt, mixed with water kind of mud. No, it's M-U-D-D, Dr. Mudd. The expert that was so discredited, went to jail, paid for his part of the assassination of -- of Lincoln.

Give me the name of one of the experts in the last 100 years, that has brought us any of the trials and the tribulations. The things that have almost brought us to our knees. Give me the name of one of them. Can't!

Because once an expert class, they don't answer to anyone. So they never go to jail.

Wow! Doesn't that sound familiar. People never going to jail!

There's a rant that's going around right now, that I did in 2020. And everybody is like, see. He's talking about Pam Bondi.

No, no. I got to play this for you, a little later on in the program. But I want to get to the experts and what the Constitution actually says about that. Because you don't need my opinion. What you need are the actual facts. So you can stand up and say, yeah. I think Ketanji Brown Jackson is an idiot. Okay?

And she's really not an expert on anything. Especially the Constitution. You need the facts, on what the Founders said. Because the Founders would be absolutely against what they did in 1935.

Because that just -- what does it do?

It just sets up a fourth branch of government.