RADIOApril 29, 2024

The BIGGEST Issue With Trump’s SCOTUS Immunity Case

Former president Donald Trump is battling multiple legal challenges. But everything could change if the Supreme Court rules that he has full presidential immunity. However, there’s a big issue. Former Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Andrew McCarthy joins Glenn to explain why he believes the Court may NOT grant Trump full immunity. Plus, Andrew weighs in on whether Trump has a chance of moving his trials away from New York and Washington, D.C. and why former presidents haven’t been taken to court before.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Andy McCarthy, a National Review contributing editor, the Institute's Senior fellow, and a former chief assistant US attorney general. We won't hold this against him.

He was a former US attorney in the -- in the district of Manhattan.

So we'll just leave that alone.

Andy, how are you?

ANDY: Glenn, I'm doing great. How are you?

GLENN: Very, very good.

So let's start with the big story. I think, and that is the Supreme Court.

And what they were arguing last week, can you give me your honest take on what -- what this is really about for the future. Beyond Donald Trump. And how you think this will affect what is happening with Donald Trump.

ANDY: Glenn, I think it's important that you frame a question that way. Because it seemed to me.

And I reread the transcript over the weekend.

After listening to the oral argument.

The court is a lot more concerned, about the presidency, than about Trump.

GLENN: Sure. Should be.

ANDY: Yeah.

And it's -- it's an important point make. Because a lot of the coverage, has been this hysteria over whether, you know, the Trump packed Supreme Court is in the tank for him.

And they're going to get rid of Jack Smith's prosecution.

I don't think that will happen at all.

It's possible that Smith won't get his case to trial.

Depending on what the court does.

What I think the court is going to do, is send the case back to judge chuck in. Who was the trial judge in Washington. With instructions to sort out what things in the indictment against Trump are what you would call official acts, that might arguably be immune from prosecution, because they go to the core responsibility of the presidency.

And what are private acts or private wrongs. That he would not have immunity for, even though they have been enduring his presidency.

But the -- the upshot of the questioning, of the lawyers. Including Trump's lawyer, and this is particularly by Justice Barron. Justice Kagan. Trump's lawyer admitted that there's a lot of conduct charged in the indictment, that is private conduct, that really wouldn't be covered by an immunity claim.

Even though Trump has been saying a lot of stuff about absolute, complete immunity. And I think the concessions he made in the argument, that is John Sauer. Trump's lawyer, would be enough. If Smith was willing to tailor his indictment, down to the things that Sauer conceded, they could go ahead with the trial on just those acts.

He would lose a lot of evidence, but he probably should.

GLENN: So what are some of the acts that could fall under -- you know, private, and so you could prosecute. And what are the acts that are the president, and you don't prosecute?

ANDY: Yeah. So the one bright line that we can take away from this. Is that there seems to be consensus, that there is a -- a divide between office seeking, and the carrying out of the duties of an office.

So if something is purely in the nature of trying to get reelected. That's deemed to be private. Because it's not part of the duty, of the presidency.

It would be the same for anyone who was seeking office. Whether that person was an incumbent or not.

And then there were other things, that are clearly presidential.

So just to give some solid examples. That came out of the argument. Trump's lawyer conceded, that if Trump made a private scheme with private lawyers to get electors, designated for him and to supply documents to the Congress. Suggesting that they were the authentic, actually slate of electors, designated by the state.

That would be private conduct.

Because it's -- it's purely office seeking. And he carried it out, only with private lawyers.

On the other hand, there's an allegation in the indictment, that Trump tried to use the justice department. To signal to states, that there were serious concerns about fraud. And consider both removing the attorney general, when he got pushback. And considered sending a letter, that they never sent from the Justice Department to the state of Georgia, to tell them, you know, that they needed to do more scrutiny over what happened in the popular election. Trump argued very strongly. And I think the court will probably go along with this. That that is the president's control over the Justice Department, is -- is purely a presidential act, that has no part in a criminal prosecution.

GLENN: Correct.

ANDY: On those are the kinds of things that they are talking about sorting out.

GLENN: When Trump sat another group of electors, or tried to. That's what -- that's what the friends of Dershowitz did. I don't remember all of the attorneys. In the 2000 election.

That's what they were recommending, to be done. You have to do that. Or you have no case.

ANDY: Yeah. Well, let me just be clear, Glenn. They're not saying that Trump wouldn't have a defense at trial.

What we're talking about now is purely immunity. That is who he got the trial from happening in the first place. I think there's significant defenses to the fraudulent electors playing. Beginning with the fact that the electors themselves, didn't think they were fraudulent. They thought they were contingent.

They thought they were basically sitting in as a slate of electors, in the event that Trump prevailed either in the state courts or in the state legislature, to throw out the popular election. Then that would activate.

But they weren't trying to fool anyone into saying, that they were the actual electors that had been certified by the state.

GLENN: Can you get a fair trial on that? If indeed he has to go to court?

ANDY: Well, I think it's tough for him to get a fair trial, in Washington.

GLENN: Why isn't -- why can't someone make the case here?

Why can't his people make the case? That you can't get a fair trial, with the jury pool in New York, or in Washington, DC.

ANDY: I think Trump's problem is he's too famous in some ways.

The problem is that unlike almost any other defendant, he goes and says, one of the things that they can always says about him. He's the most famous guy in the world. And no matter where you have the case, you have the same pretrial publicity problems. And they kind of reject out of hand, the thought that because a jurisdiction votes substantially against Trump as a political matter.

That means they can't be fair to him as a legal matter.

You know, you can -- you can debate that all you want. About whether that's a sensible distinction to draw or not.

But it's a distinction the courts draw.

GLENN: Okay. What do you think is come downtown pike on this?

Based on -- go ahead.

ANDY: Yeah. I think they will send the case back to Judge Chutkan with instructions to go through the indictment and figure out, what's a public act and what's a private act.

If Smith wants to fight on that, then he's never going to get to trial, prior to Election Day. Which, of course, is his aim.

Because this would still be a live immunity claim, and immunity is one of the few things that you can actually appeal pre-trial. So I don't see how he would get to trial. But I do think Smith, if he wants to. And if it's that important to him to get to trial, quickly. He could say, you know what, I will dispense with all of the acts that you say are immunized, official, presidential acts. And we will just go to the trial on the private stuff.

It would be a weaker case for him.

But it wouldn't be an unwinnable case.

GLENN: And what is the punishment?

ANDY: Well, that's an interesting question. Because that may depend on another Supreme Course case this term. The one they argued, a week before on the obstruction statute, that is key to Trump's case.

That obstruction statute has a 20-year penalty. And it's the two main counts in the indictment against Trump.

The other two counts only have five-year penalties. So if the Supreme Court says that it rejects the way the Justice Department has been using the obstruction statute. Which it might. Then that would require probably a big overhaul of Smith's case. Because those charges are very important to him.

But if the court upholds that statute. Which it also might. Then you are looking at a potential of, you know, 40 years imprisonment.

Now, he won't get 40 years. But statutorily, there would be 40 years imprisonment.

On those charges. And I think ten on the other two. The other two are fraud on the United States. And the civil rights charge.

So he would be looking at, you know, statutorily 50 years imprisonment. Which would indicate, under the sentencing guidelines, that he would get, I would think. You know, four or five, six years.

Of a sentence. If he gets convicted on those charges.

GLENN: Unbelievable. You know, last week, the Biden administration was making the case, well, Donald Trump is the on me one that has ever broken the law. That's why we've never had this before. That's such crap, and we all know it.

Why haven't we had this problem before?

ANDY: I think a lot of the criminal -- the potential prosecutable criminal conduct has come up, late in presidential terms. Like, for example, with Clinton.

The pardon scandal happened as he was going out the door. And I was in the Justice Department, at the time.

There was -- there was over a year of pretty intense debate within the Justice Department, about whether he ought to be charged with bribery or not. In connection with those pardons.

But I think there's -- maybe this has changed now.

But there's always been a current of like, when a new administration comes in. Particularly if it's a new administration of a different party. They don't want to revisit what happened, with the last guy.

They want to just go ahead, on their own stuff.

This whole idea, we're looking forward. We're not looking back. That certainly had a lot to do with why the Bush Justice Department didn't prosecute Clinton.

And I think with Obama, there was a lot of rhetoric, during the 2008 campaign, about war crimes against Bush and all that stuff.

But when they got into power. They not only weren't interested in prosecuting anyone on war crimes. They reopened the CIA investigation. But then they closed it.

But they actually ended up adopting a lot of Bush/Cheney counterterrorism.

You know, I think, there's a lot of rhetorical campaign stuff about how, you know, lock her up.

And we will put these guys in jail.

But it doesn't come to pass. I actually think Trump is serious about it, this time. Because they've seen what they've done to have.

That's why I thought it was amusing in the Supreme Court argument. For the government lawyers to get up and say, you know, you don't have to worry about this.

This is just generous with Trump, it will never happen again.

And in the meantime, Trump is ahead in the polls. And he's running as the retribution candidate. He's promised he's going to do this stuff, right?

So -- so it's an amazing time to be alive, right?

Andy, tell me about how Alvin Brag's doing, so far.

ANDY: It's a terrible case. I think -- I wrote a column about this today, called How Judge Merchan is Orchestrating Trump's Conviction.

And I was reminded of, you know, the fact that Trump when he was a young guy, learned a lot about litigation from Roy Cohen.

And, you know, what Cohen used to say, his first principle of hardball litigation was, don't tell me what the law is, tell me who the judge is.

And I think Trump knows that. He knows it very well.

And as I'm closely watching the rulings. That are being made. And the arguments that the judge is allowing to be made. It's clear, that he has allowed Bragg. And just, so the people understand, this case is indicted as a falsification of business records, that occurred in the months of February through December of 2017.

Those are the only charges in the indictment. The case is being presented to the jury, as a conspiracy from 2015 through 2017, to steal the 2016 election by violations of federal campaign finance law, which Alvin Bragg, as a state prosecutor, has no authority to enforce. And that's the way the case has been framed by the prosecutor.

Based on orders from the judge. And that is the way that they are proceeding, and judge -- and Judge Merchan is allowing the state to prove, that Michael Cohen, pled guilty to two campaign finance offenses. And that David Pecker, the AMI guy, who ran the National Enquirer. That they had a non-prosecution agreement from the Justice Department.

And then paid a fine of $180 of the Federal Election Commission.

For violating federal election law. Now, those -- it's a black letter principle of law. That one person -- let's say person A. His guilty plea is not admissible evidence against person B. Even if A says, A and B acted together.

It's absolutely improper for these -- for this evidence of what Michael Cohen and David Pecker was thinking about the federal election laws. The fact that they made deals with the government. None of that stuff should come in. The judge is letting it in.

And he's not letting Trump explain to the jury, that he, Trump, was not charged by the justice department or the FEC. And the reason is obvious.

Actually expenditures that were cognizable under the federal law.

And he's also not letting Trump call an expert witness to explain campaign lay to the jury.

So what the jury is going to hear about campaign law is going to come from Michael Cohen and David Pecker.

So it's a farce.

GLENN: How is this a fair trial?

If you can't call people -- and you can't let the -- the jury know. Truly, the other side of it?

TRENT: Yeah. Look, it's even more fundamentally unfair than that.

In the United States, under the fifth amendments of the Constitution.

You are entitled, that you will be charged with a felony.

It has to be on the basis of an indictment returned by a grand jury, that explicitly says what the charge is.

The indictment in this case, talks about false bookkeeping in 2017. A case that has been presented to the jury, is a conspiracy to violate the he federal election laws.

It's mind-boggling, that it's being permitted.

GLENN: Wow.

Andy, thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

This would definitely lose in a higher court, don't you think?

ANDY: I do. But I think it will be -- I mean, Harvey Weinstein's conviction just got reversed last week. That was three years.

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 BLASTS Pam Bondi’s Epstein deception

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.