RADIOAugust 12, 2024

Did Kamala Harris ILLEGALLY Inherit Biden’s Campaign Money?

Federal Election Commission Chairman Sean Cooksey joins Glenn to weigh in on a major question about the 2024 election: Was it legal for Kamala Harris to inherit Joe Biden’s entire election campaign, including his multi-million-dollar war chest? While Cooksey can’t comment on any possible investigations, he calls the situation “completely unprecedented” and explains why he believes “It's something that is going to have to go through an FEC process, and maybe a court process too to get to the bottom of it.” Plus, Glenn asks Cooksey to weigh in on claims of illegal straw donor schemes revolving around the left-wing fundraising platform ActBlue.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Sean Cooksey is the Federal Election Commission chairperson. I really appreciate you coming on, Chairman, and helping us figure out exactly what is going on.

We want to start with this situation. How do you transfer money from one person to another? Legally? Can you do that?

SEAN: Well, thanks for having me on, Glenn. And you're right. We talked about that at the top.

Which is that it's a completely unprecedented situation. We haven't had anything like this happen for at least 50 years. To have a presidential nominee, drop out just a few weeks before the convention, before he's been formerly nominated and hand over his entire campaign operation, including millions of dollars, cash on hand, to a different candidate. To his vice presidential nominee, although she hasn't been formerly nominated yet.

It's really no surprise that this race is a lot of legal questions. Again, a completely novel situation.

Some experts have tried to argue, that this is permissible. But a lot of election experts have raised a lot of big questions about this. Some have said, it is unlawful. That you can't just switch the name on a committee and give it over to another person without that being an illegal transfer. It's something that is going to have to go through an FEC process, and maybe a court process too to get to the bottom of it.

GLENN: So I know, that for my charity, let's say. If I raise money, and it is designated for, let's say, hurricanes. I can only use that money to help people recover from the hurricane.

I cannot transfer it to another, and even if it's a bigger emergency, legally, I can't move that money. To any other place.

It's the same kind of thing with this, isn't it?

SEAN: I mean, it's a big question. What these donors were told. And what they thought they were given to. To your point. All these people were giving money, they thought to reelect Joe Biden as president. And now they're being told, no. Actually, this money is going to a completely different candidate. That you may or may not really approve of. One of the big questions that happens under the FEC guidance is whether donors in that kind of situation are entitled to a refund. Or to have the campaign be required to ask their permission, to redesignate it.

I think one of the big problems though, is really just the lack of time on the clock. Where a situation where, the election is less than 13 weeks away, at this point.

GLENN: Jeez.

SEAN: And the wheels of government move so slow. I'm concerned that really none of this is going to be resolved before Election Day.

GLENN: And it won't really matter, after Election Day, will it?

SEAN: I mean, I think for all intents and purposes, right.

Any fine or any unwinding that happens, after the fact. Israel will not really do anything to change the vote count on Election Day.

GLENN: So the money she got from the Biden/Harris campaign. They transfer it over. But is that really -- that's really not that important. Compared to what she's raising now.

I mean, she's raising money hand over fist.

Like I've never seen before.

SEAN: No. I think that's a fair point, about why maybe at the end of the day, this won't matter much.

I mean, reportedly both the Harris committee, and the Trump committee, right?

Are raising hundreds of millions of dollars every month. They have to report that to the FEC. Every month on the 20th. So, for example, in a little bit less than two weeks here.

We'll get the hard numbers on what they raised in July.

Harris Committee, I believe, reported over $300 million raised. So it may be the case, that whatever cash was left over from the Biden committee, doesn't make a big difference at the end of the take.

GLENN: We're talking to the Federal Election Commission chairperson. He's the guy who is at the SEC, that is -- or at the FEC, that is making sure all the money is on the up and up.

And everything is played by the rules.

His name is Sean Cooksey. And, Sean, to be fair to them, you could make the case, that when I gave money to Biden/Harris.

A lot of people would say, I was just giving it, because I didn't want Donald Trump.

And Harris was part of that team.

And if Joe Biden would have died.

Wouldn't the money have gone to her anyway?

VOICE: Well, I think the big problem with that possibility, is that this happened before the convention.

One of the big sorted of open questions is what happened, when she's on the paperwork. It's called, you know -- they call her the vice presidential nominee.

But she really hasn't gone through the role -- she hasn't been nominated by the convention yet.

In that case, you know, it would have also been possible for Joe Biden to switch vice presidential nominees. And things would be very different.

I think, again, it will have to go through some court process, ultimately, at the end of the day. To get that settled.

And I don't think that will happen before the election unfortunately.

GLENN: So I don't know if this is your purview.

Or if you can comment on this.

But this is the first time that I have seen in American history, where the democratic process didn't really happen.

I mean, it happened.

People went to vote. But they didn't vote for her, to be president.

And it was -- you know, really funky.

I think a lot of people on the democratic side.

Wanted a different candidate.

But the DNC shut it down.

And then at the last minute, they say this was a grassroots movement.

But it appeared to me, at least, a coup. You know, he's not going to leave. He's not going to leave. They give him a deadline of Sunday.

Deadline for what? He's already made his decision. Then Sunday, at the very last minute, he changes his mind. And then Barack Obama comes out and says, we will see how this Democratic process works, and there were no votes.

It was just going to the -- the electors, and the superdelegates. And that's just the party.

It -- I mean, it is -- there's -- is this totally funky?

Is this legal?

The way this has happened.

SEAN: I think you're right. It's absolutely not a grassroots nomination process. I think it's really the exact opposite of that.

Which is party leaders.

Party elders. Coming together.

To decide, you know, amongst a couple dozen of them. Who they want as their nominee.

In fact, it's really sort of a throw back to the way parties used to nominate presidential candidates.

Right?

Sort of in the proverbial smoke-filled rooms, where they would say, you know, primary be damned. We don't really care what the voters think. We are going to just make this election, as bosses, of who is going to be up for president.

And I think that's really kind of a good summation of what will happen here.

GLENN: And that's still legal to do that?

I mean, do parties get to make their own rules, right?

SEAN: Right. At the end of the day, the parties make their own rules. They chose several decades ago, to really go to primary voting processes. They don't have to do that.

Ultimately, the party decides how they want to select their nominees.

GLENN: Okay. So tonight, we have been following this -- this Act Blue. And all of these organizations, that are raising money for the Democrats.

And to me, and I'm not asking to you comment on this. Nor am I putting words in your mouth. This is me saying this. I've done enough research on the Tides foundation to know how this shell game works.

And they're raising all kinds of dark money through things like Act Blue. And they're setting up all these different organizations.

And I guess you can do that. That's fine. The one thing that is happening right now, is there are reports that they're doing something called smurfing. It's being called smurfing.

And that is, if someone makes a donation of let's say $100,000, all of a sudden, it will show up on the books that they made an 18,000-dollar donation, and they did it in ways that aren't even humanly possible.

And we looked into this, tonight -- I mean, when we show you this, America.

I think you're going to be. You're going to be flabbergasted. James O'Keefe did a recent report, where he highlighted donations to a Cindy Nowe. N-O-W-E of Maryland. She claimed to have not made the majority of the donations.

If you go to the FEC database, on Cindy Nowe of Maryland, the donations through Act Blue do seem suspicious. We're not saying that it's illegal.

We don't know yet. Coincidentally, through an accident, as we were double-checking the work. One of our researchers typed in Cindy Rowe, R-O-W-E, of Massachusetts. And you find the same exact donation pattern, on a Cindy Rowe instead of a Cindy Nowe.

So, yes, James O'Keefe was right about Cindy Nowe.

But the same pattern is there with Cindy Rowe. What makes it even more suspicious, is that the names are nearly identical. Only one difference.

Are you guys looking into these -- these irregularities here? Or these strange instances?

SEAN: Well, you know, as you said, as a matter of law and FEC policy, I can't comment on any investigation the FEC may or may not be doing.

But what I can say, at a general level, that the FEC takes misreporting and straw donor schemes, which is I think another name for what you called smurfing, we take those things extremely seriously.

Those are some of the most serious violations. That we have at the FEC. Where you are misreporting your identity on campaign reports.

Where you're giving someone else money, in order to make a political contribution for you. Those are serious violations. Many people have gone to prison for those kinds of things.

And I know this is an issue that reporters have been focused on. I know it's one that other government agencies are looking into.

The Virginia attorney general, I know, and the committee on how the administration in Congress are looking into this.

I think it's worth watching their work on that issue, and any results that come out of their investigations.

GLENN: And is that because the FEC is -- I mean, you may or may not be investigating it?
But you're so slow. Will it matter, if the FEC picks it up?

SEAN: Well, ultimately, we do move as fast as our resources allow on any enforcement matter. And there's opportunities for private parties to get involved. If we -- if we move too slow, under the statute. Whether something can come out --

GLENN: Wait. Wait. Wait.

What does that mean?

Private parties can get involved. What does that mean?

Under the statute of the FEC, when you file a complaint with the FEC, any private person can file a complaint with the FEC, alleging a violation of campaign finance law.

And under the statute, if the FEC does not act on that complaint. Doesn't give an up-or-down vote, whether this is something that we'll look into or not. Within 120 days, the person who filed the complaint, can then sue.

Saying, we are too slow.

We are not acting on their complaint fast enough.

And ultimately, if it's shown, we're not acting on that complaint fast enough. That person can then file a private lawsuit, to enforce the law themselves.

GLENN: Wow. Wow.

And the -- like the Virginia attorney general, I'm not sure, you know, if you can answer this. Or if you can -- if you even know the answer.

But the attorneys general, they can only look at the -- the potential fraud, that's happening in their state.

So Cindy Rowe in Massachusetts, would have to be the Massachusetts attorney general.

SEAN: I don't know the -- the specific limits on their authority. Certainly, attorneys general have really wide-ranging, you know, subpoena authority, and investigative authority, to launch their own inquiries into their own things.
To start demanding documents and witnesses and interviews.

Whether that could be limited to their own state. It might depend on their state. It might depend on where act blue is located. And sort of where their servers are and things like that, as a sort of jurisdictional perspective. But I think the one thing you do know, Congress has jurisdiction throughout the entire country. And they wouldn't be limited in that kind of way. One last question, and I believe we have to run. Because I have a network break.

But the -- they'll say that this is just all politics. This is just a smear campaign. I don't want to be involved in any of that.

I want to look for real things. Is there enough smoke here, to believe that this is worth questioning? No outcome.

But it is a legitimate line of inquiry.

SEAN: I mean, I think the action sort of speaks for themselves here. When you have multiple agencies. Members of Congress. Attorney general, who have been alerted. And are interested enough, to operationalize their offices.

To or the of get the machinery moving, to get the facts. I think that really speaks -- speaks for itself.

GLENN: This is the Federal Election Commission. The FEC chairman, Sean Cooksey. Sean, thank you so much. God bless.

SEAN: Thank you so much, Glenn.

SHOCK POLL: The % of Young People Who Support SOCIALISM is Insane

New polling reveals a shocking truth: young Americans aren’t just open to socialism... they overwhelmingly want a socialist president in 2028. Glenn Beck and Justin Haskins break down five alarming surveys showing massive ideological shifts among voters ages 18-39, including young Republicans. Why is socialism exploding in popularity, and what does this mean for the future of America? Are we on the brink of a political transformation or potentially even a national crisis?

Watch This FULL Episode of 'Glenn TV' HERE

Property Taxes are OUT OF CONTROL - And Here's Why! | Guest: Texas Gov. Greg Abbott

Texas Governor Greg Abbott joins Glenn Beck to expose why Texans are being crushed by skyrocketing property taxes — and how local governments, not the state, keep driving homeowners deeper into financial distress. Gov. Abbott breaks down his five-point plan to impose strict spending limits, force voter approval for tax hikes, reform out-of-control appraisals, empower citizens to slash taxes themselves, and eliminate school district property taxes for homeowners altogether. Glenn argues that property tax is morally wrong because it prevents Texans from ever truly owning their land, and Abbott lays out his strategy to fight both parties in the legislature to finally deliver lasting relief.

Joe Rogan & Glenn AGREE: We just got CLOSER to civil war

Joe Rogan recently warned that we may have gotten to Step 7 of 9 in the lead-up to civil war. Glenn reviews the 9 Steps and explains why he believes Rogan nailed this one. But Glenn also lays out what Americans MUST do to reverse this trend...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So if you take what Fetterman said yesterday about how people are cheering for him to die on the left, and then you couple it with something that was on the Joe Rogan show on Tuesday. He was saying that the reaction to the death of Charlie Kirk makes him think that the US is closer to Civil War than -- than he thought.

Now, let me quote him. He said, after the Charlie Kirk thing. I'm like, oh, my.

We might be at seven. This might be he step seven on the way to a bona fide Civil War. Charlie Kirk gets shot, and people are celebrating.

Like, whoa. Whoa. Whoa.

You want people to die that you disagree with?

Where are we now on the scale of Civil War?

Well, let me go over the scale of Civil War, because it's sobering.

Now, none of this has to be true. If we wake up and decide, I don't want to do this anymore!

Okay?

Here's step one.

Step one. Loss of civic trust.

Every civil conflict begins when people stop believing that the system is fair. Are we there?

We're so far -- we're so far past the doorway, we are comfortably asleep on the couch on this one. Gallup and Pew both show trust in Congress, the media courts, and the FBI government are now at record lows.

The Edelman Trust Barometer classifies the US now as severely polarized. Majority of Republicans distrust federal elections. Majority of Democrats don't trust the Supreme Court.

Americans are really united on one thing, and that is the other side is corrupt!

When faith in the rules collapses, the republic begins to wobble. But that's step one. Step two, polarization hardens into identity!

Political disagreement is normal!

Identity conflict is fatal!

But that's what Marxists push. Identity politics. This is when politics stopped being about policy, and started being about who you are as a person.

Have we crossed this one into step two?

I mean, we're neck deep into this. A study on this, from PRRI.

It's a survey, found 23 percent of Americans believe political violence may be necessary to save the that I guess.

I think that's an old study. Americans now sort themselves by ZIP code into ideological enclaves. The big sort: Universities, activists, corporations. Everybody is promoting oppressor versus oppressed.

And that -- does what?

It puts us into incompatible tribes. Opponents aren't wrong anymore. The opponent is dangerous!

If I go back and you look at civil wars, Lebanon, before 1975. Yugoslavia, before 1991. That's -- we're doing that. Okay?

Step three. Breakdown of the gatekeepers. The gatekeepers are kind of like the referees of society. It's the media, political parties, churches, civic leaders.

When they fail, extremism fills the vacuum. Okay. Where are we on this? Have our gatekeepers failed us?

Yeah. I think both parties, especially the left, you know, everything I predicted that the left was going to be eaten by the extreme left, and then the communists and the socialists is now happening.

They've lost control of the fringe of each party. Media transformed, you know, from referees into team coaches. Tech platforms. It's outrage for profit. Universities are not there to cool things down. They heat them up.

Churches. Churches are useless. Useless.

When the referees leave the field, the game devolves into a brawl. And the refs are gone off the field. So there are only nine steps. We're at step four. Here's step four.

Are you ready for this one?

Parallel information realities.

Civil wars don't require different opinions. They require different realities.

I remember reading about Germany, at the beginning of, you know, the Nazi era. How the two new newspapers. One was propaganda for the government.

And the other one, it was the last one that was kind of the holdout.

And they said, you could read them, and they would cover the same thing.

But they had almost no information was the same. Except, that happened yesterday.

Here's what they said. And then everything else was different. That's exactly -- I mean, step four is complete!

We can't agree on facts, right?

Crime rates. Border numbers. Inflation. Election security.

Two Americans can watch the same video. And see opposite truths.

Social media algorithms are creating customized political universes.

Digital echo chambers. Deepfakes. We're just at the beginning of that. And both sides accuse the other of running disinformation machines.

Why? Because we don't have a shared reality. So if you don't have a shared reality. How do you settle any dispute?

On the nine steps, we're up to number five. Coming in at number five.

Loss of neutral rule of law.

This out of the nine steps with, five is the pivot point.

It's not corruption, it's the belief that the law is no longer neutral.

Are we there yet?

Let me tell you the CBS you.gov poll. 67 percent say the justice system is used for political purposes.

I think that's low. January 6 defendants given years in prison, 2020 rioters were released. High profile political figures, prosecuted or shielded based on party.

FBI whistle-blowers alleging pressure to inflate domestic extremism numbers. States like Texas, directly defying federal directives, on border enforcement.

And now, leading the way, with the federal government.

History is really cold and unforgiving on this point.

Once the people believe justice is political! Remember, this is the turning point.

The republic stands on borrowed time. Once you no longer believe that justice is achievable. Step six.

Are we there?

I think we are.

Step six. Normalization of political violence!

This is where violence stops shocking the system. Are we there?

Remember, where violence stops shocking the system. Look at evidence just from Virginia. What they just voted for.

He was calling for the death of a -- a political opposition.

Calling for his children to be killed.

Was called on it, never apologized.

Never said anything other than, yeah. I know. He dug it deeper.

Was anyone shocked by it? Apparently not. They elected him. Here's the evidence. 2020 riots.
574 events. $2 billion in damage. Was anybody outraged by that? Or was it downplayed and excused?
Assassination attempts. Assassination attempts against the president. Supreme Court justice.

Fistfights. And mob actions on college campuses. To silence speakers. Rising to do for punching a fascist or stopping genocide. Depending on the ideology. Online chatter discussing Civil War, national divorce, and revolution.

When violence becomes part of the political language, a nation crosses an invisible line. We're now up to step seven out of nine.

This is where Joe Rogan said, are we at step seven?

The rise of militias and parallel forces.

When a state loses he is monopoly on force.

Countdown accelerates. So where are we on this one?

I think we're seeing, maybe early signs of this.

You're starting to see the -- the states kind of organize these mobs, you know, to go after ICE.

Right?

Armed groups, right-wing, left-wing radical secessionists. Anyone.

Once they start forming their own police forces. Or their own option forces, then you have -- then you have everything really falling apart.

Entirely!

I don't think we're there, yet!

But we're starting to see the beginnings of this.

Step eight. The trigger event.

Civil Wars don't begin with a plan. They begin with a spark.

So where are we?

We're not here yet. The conditions are right. Potential triggers, disputed election in '26 or '28.

Political assassination or major attack.

Supreme Court decision that ignites mass unrest.

Financial crisis or dollar crisis.

A state federal standoff turning violent!

Nothing is ignited yet, but the room is soaked in gasoline. So we don't have seven. We're on the verge of eight, at any time. And here's nine.

This is the point of no return.

When police, military, or federal agencies split, even if no one calls it that, well, where are we?

Well, I just read a story about how with the Mamdani election in New York, a good number of the police force is going to leave. And they're going to go join police forces elsewhere. You also have the tension between the state National Guard, and the federal directives, the state guard and the state directives. Law enforcement recruitment is at crisis lows. The distrust of the FBI, DOJ, CIA. Tens of millions of Americans. I always really respected those institutions. I have no respect for them now. If you have states openly defying federal rules on immigration, drug laws, sanctuary policies.
Whistle-blower claims of internal politicization.

All of these things are in play for the first time in 150 years, people can imagine!

So I give this to you, not to be fearful of, but to know where you are. As a map!

Know where you are.

And hopefully, it might wake some people up, if you chart America on, on the nine step model of Civil War. Steps one through four, completed!

Step five, happening!

Step six, happening! Step seven, beginning! Step eight, just waiting for it. And step nine, avoidable, only if step eight, never happens. Again, I'm not telling you for doom purposes, this is diagnosis. This is a doctor going, I want you to look at the chart.

And this is a doctor saying, I want you to look at -- do you see what's happening to your body?

If you don't stop this habit, you are going to die. You don't have to die. You can stop smoking and drinking right now. You can start exercising. But if you don't, you are going to die.

The question is, are we the nation that says, nah, that's not going to happen to me. Or are we the nation that wakes up and sees our chart and says, good heavens, it's way far more gone than I thought it was. But I feel something in the air.

I'm going to change my behavior. The nation that refuses to look and wake up and stop calling their neighbors enemies, is the nation that fails!

We have to strengthen these things that have already fallen. And, you know what, the easiest one to do is?

Church. Where are you ministers and pastors priests and rabbis?

Where the hell are you?

I think there's going to be a special section for you, when you cross over to the -- because you're doing things in the name of God!

So when you get to the other side, I think there's going to be a special section for those who remained silent. While his rights were being taken away.

You don't own that right.

I don't own that right.

The Lord gave us those rights, and said, protect them!

By you, being the representative, the voice box, if you will, of the Lord, to shepherd his people. By you not standing up and saying, hey, by the way, we have -- we have a moral responsibility to protect these rights for the next generation! By you refusing because you're afraid. Because I think, there's no politics in the Bible! There's no politics in the Bible. Really?

The whole thing is about politics. Is about the moral way you have to live your life.

Calling things as you see them. Calling them back to eternal principles.

He didn't tell anybody how to vote. Render to Caesar what is Caesar's.

But there are certain principles that you have to have, or you lose not only this citizenship, but the next citizenship. The one that really matters. And, boy, if you are doing it because you're a coward, you are in the wrong business!

Get out of the pulpit, and go to work at Jack in the Box.

Democrat “SMOKING GUN” on Trump & Epstein gets DESTROYED by facts

The House Oversight Democrats recently released "new" emails allegedly proving President Trump lied about his knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein's crimes. However, Glenn points out a glaring issue with these emails that destroys their entire narrative...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Well, let's dive right into the Epstein Maxwell emails. My gosh, Stu!

Why are they trying to cover up that Donald Trump had sex with children!

STU: I mean, it's just clear, as -- as day, in the emails!

GLENN: Yeah. No.

STU: He spent hours with one of the victims. What else could have possibly have occurred in that arrangement? We don't know!

GLENN: And it's -- it's one of the victims, Stu. One of the victims!

STU: One of the victims, that's all we know. One of the victims.

GLENN: Let me read what Jeffrey Epstein wrote. I want you to realize that the dog who hasn't barked is Trump. Victim redacted. Victim spent hours at my house with him. He has never once been mentioned. Police chief, et cetera.

Okay. New information, just released. Or is it?

Because in 2011, 2011, that was released and everybody knew it. It's been out floating around. Here's the change: In 2011, this is what it read.

I want you to realize that the dog hasn't barked is Trump. Virginia spent hours at my house with him.

Why would you redact a name that is already out in the public square!

It's already out!

The memo is already out. The email is already out. It's been out for years. Why would you redact that name now?

Well, because it makes it all of a sudden, new and shiny. Shiny and new. If you don't know who said it, you see victim, and you're like, oh, you see victim. Who is the victim?

I don't know. But when you know it's Virginia, you know this has already gone to court. This is -- she already testified about this!

He didn't partake in any of this, any sex with any of it. It's true. He didn't partake in any sex with us, and I'm quoting, this is from the testimony. But it's not true, that he flirted with me. Donald Trump never flirted with me. Have you ever met him?

Yes, at Mar-a-Lago, my dad and him. I wouldn't say they were friends, but my dad knew him, and they would talk. Have you ever been in Donald Trump or Jeffrey Epstein's presence with one another? No!

What's the basis of your statement that Donald Trump is a good friend of Jeffrey? Jeffrey has told me that Donald Trump is a good friend of his.

He didn't partake in any of -- any of the sex with any of it. He flirted with me.

It's true, that he didn't partake in any sex with us. But it's not true that he flirted with me.

So I don't understand that. But she goes on. Donald Trump never flirted with me!

Okay. So what -- what's new about this?

This is the same girl, this is the same person that -- didn't she work at Mar-a-Lago?

Or she was going to get a job at Mar-a-Lago.

STU: Yeah. I believe she did at one point.

GLENN: Yeah. So we know they know each other. We know they know each other.

We know that at Mar-a-Lago, Jeffrey Epstein would come, and he was poaching the employees. The girls there. To go work for him.

And Donald Trump went to him. And said, "Hey, man. Stop it. Stop poaching people from me. That's not cool. Don't do it." And then he said, "Oh, yeah. All right." And then he did it a second time. And he's like, "You know what, you're out. I don't want you here anymore. I asked you not to do it, and you did it." Now, that doesn't mean that he knew what was happening to the girls or what was happening or anything else.

And even if it did mean something was happening with the girls, he was saying, "Hey. Stop it! Don't take any of the girls or the women here.
Don't do it." I don't believe he knew anything about any of this. But God only knows! And really, God only knows!

This is not new news. Donald Trump, he might end up beating Bezos as the richest man on the planet! When all is said and done!

Because, again, the -- they're presenting this as new fact, a giant scandal. Stu, I don't know if you know this. This is -- this breaking news is a giant scandal.

STU: Yeah. I've heard democratic representatives saying that over the past 24 hours. Yeah. We need to investigate this.

This is shocking stuff. It's a massive scandal. Even ABC News, I heard, pushed back against this. And said, well, what scandal? What are you implying occurred here?

We know who the victim was. We know the victim. Like why. Why did you even redact that name?

And they're like we always redact name of victims.

Do you really? When they're already out publicly?

Not to mention, this particular victim is not even alive.

You know, she sadly died. I mean, it's a terrible, terrible story.

GLENN: Terrible story.

STU: Yeah. She passed away.

A suicide. It was at least the report I believe. But she has a posthumous book coming out. But like a terrible, terrible story.

But, you know, to act as if you have to protect her identity when, number one, she's dead.

GLENN: Is ridiculous.

STU: Number two, everybody already knows who she was, including the news sources, who also have a policy, you would think.

And ABC has a policy. They redact, that was in this type of situation. But it's already been out. We already knew who it was.

So they redacted to make it look like he's with other people who have not already told us nothing bad occurred! You know, and it is an absolutely awful tactic. And at least --

GLENN: I think litigation should follow again. I think he should sue them again. Anyone who is presenting this as new information.

ABC did their job. Congratulations for ABC. They did their job.

They pointed out, this is not new information.

Why would you redact. Why are you releasing this now? And you're redacting a name this -- this email is already out!

You're presenting this as a new scandal.

And you redacted that name. This is completely dishonest. The news media shouldn't even run with it. They shouldn't even run with it. They should have said, old news. Old news. And if you did run with it, you should have handle it had like ABC handle it had. Wait a minute. Why did you redact name.

What do you mean that there's a new scandal. She already testified exactly opposite of what you're believing Jeffrey Epstein over the victim right now. I just want to make sure you understand the Democrats right here. You're taking the name of Epstein, over the victim.

Oh, okay. All right.

STU: And Epstein doesn't even say that anything occurred.

GLENN: No.

STU: There's not -- it's just -- it would be something you would have to jump to a conclusion, to accuse Donald Trump of something like this.

And we know what happened, because the victim said nothing!

Said, it was nothing!

GLENN: Right.

STU: In fact, it wasn't even a flirtation. Which, by the way, even that, you might have thought was creepy. It wasn't even a crime.

It wasn't even flirtation. So it's a disgrace in every single way.

GLENN: All right. So let me take you here. Let me take you here.

If you remember when the shutdown first started, what did the Democrats say, the reason why they did the shutdown?

Not them! Why Mike Johnson and everybody else wouldn't negotiate!

Why wouldn't -- why wouldn't the Republicans negotiate?

Because the heat was on, to release the Epstein files.

And they didn't want to have to do that. So they shut the government down!

Okay?

They wouldn't negotiate. You didn't hear any of this? Oh, it's so arrogant.

STU: It doesn't make any sense at all. That's probably what they said.

GLENN: I know. I know. So the government is open, and what does Mike Johnson do yesterday?

He said the House is going to vote on a bill to release all of the files related to the late financier, convicted child sex offender, Jeffrey Epstein next week. He said on Wednesday that a discharge position to bypass leadership and force a vote on the bill, hit the benchmark for needed signatures. It's been decided by him to expedite the vote for the bill, which under the current rules could have been delayed until at least early September.

So he says, as soon as that petition hit, the needed 218 signatures, I brought it up. Unanimous consent. Let's go! Release it.

So he's pushing this forward. Good, Mike!
Release all of it. Thank you!

Get it out. Lance this boil.

I mean, if anybody thinks that you're ever going to get the truth on this in the first place, it's madness. It's madness. Everybody -- I mean, so many important people were involved in this, and it was in the hands of the Democrats for the longest time. Okay?

So they had all of this information. You don't think it was all picked through? And if there was anything about Donald Trump, you don't think that would have come up between 2020 and 2024?

There's nothing in there about Donald Trump. These people are so stupid. This time, we've got him, boys. This time, we've got him.

No, you don't. This time, it's like Wile E. Coyote. This time, we've got the Roadrunner!

No. You're never going to catch him on this. It doesn't work. The guy was the most investigated person in the history of the world, and you've got nothing! Now, it's good to come out.

But if you think you're going to catch a bunch of people on the left, you're not going to. Because they had it, you know, in their possession.

You don't think all of the names were taken out? You don't think things were destroyed, if there was anything? I believe there was something. But I don't believe there's any names in it anymore. You're not going to get the truth on this one. You're just not going to get the truth, but release everything that we have. Everything!

Oh. Oh, by the way, also in the Epstein emails. How come nobody is talking about this one, Stu?

This one is from Michael Wolff, to Jeffrey Epstein. And then Jeffrey Epstein responds.

So Michael Wolff writes, "What's the thumbnail on Nes Baum (phonetic) Foster?"

And Jeffrey Epstein writes back, "Nes Baum White House Counsel, dot, dot, dot, Hillary doing naughties with Vince."

Now, Vince Foster killed himself, you know, and then killed himself at the White House. And then drug himself across the street to the park.

I mean, I don't know -- the Vince Foster thing is so old. And it doesn't -- but why is nobody talking about that one?

Why is no one talking about that?

Also, this the Jeffrey Epstein email bundle, ABC, you don't feel that's necessary to bring that one up?

Huh. Interesting.