The Glenn Beck Program - Best of the Program | Guest: Rep. Chip Roy | 11/20/25

Episode Date: November 20, 2025

Texas Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D) on the House floor accused multiple GOP members, including EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, of receiving political donations from Jeffrey Epstein. However, it was a different Jeffrey Epstein. When confronted about the incident during an interview on CNN, Crockett claimed it was all intentional and she was not purposely misleading people. Texas Attorney General candidate Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) joins to discuss why Texas Governor Greg Abbott's move to designate two Islamic groups as domestic terrorist organizations is critical in stopping Sharia law from happening in Texas. Glenn comes out strongly against a potential presidential executive order regarding AI. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Oh, wow, today finally, Jasmine Crockett finally got one. She found out that Lee Zeldon received donations from Jeffrey Epstein, except not that Jeffrey, Jeffrey Epstein, a completely different Jeffrey Epstein. You know, not the one she wants you to believe it is and waiting to hear her excuse. Also, Chip Roy on what is happening in Texas with the Islamification of Texas. It's so important. And fears about AI. There is no regulation. like medicine has.

Shouldn't we have some? What's happening? While we're all going to be worried about Thanksgiving and Christmas, what our government is doing, we should have some sort of regulation, possibly on a state level? The federal government is saying no, really important all on today's podcast.

Let me tell you about good ranchers. When was the last time you ate a steak and thought, wow, this is what it's supposed to taste like? Most of us don't realize how far we've drifted from real, honest American meat, the stuff in the grocery store that looks simple enough, but most of it is imported, it's processed, it's watered down or grown under the standards we would never accept here at home. Good Ranchers is fixing that by going back to the way American meat used to be. 100% American beef, chicken, and seafood raised on real American farms by real American ranchers and the

kind of quality that you can actually taste. Your family knows the difference, the flavor, the tenderness, the way it cooks. It's what meat is supposed to taste. like. So visit good ranchers.com and see what all the fuss is about and shop American meat that you can trust. When you order by December 1st, if you use the promo code Glenn, you're going to get an extra $100 off and you're going to get free meat for life when you subscribe. It's their best offer ever. You have to order by December 1st to claim this deal and use the promo code Beck. It's good ranchers.com. Good ranchers.com. Let's get back to the American table. Hello, America. You know we've been fighting every single day. We push back against the lies,

the censorship, the nonsense of the mainstream media that they're trying to feed you. We work tirelessly to bring you the unfiltered truth because you deserve it. But to keep this fight going, we need you. Right now, would you take a moment and rate and review the Glenn Beck podcast? Give us five stars and lead a comment because every single review helps us break through big tech's algorithm to reach more Americans who need to hear the truth. This isn't a podcast. This is a movement.

And you're part of it, a big part of it. So if you believe in what we're doing, you want more people to wake up, help us push this podcast to the top. Rate, review, share. Together, we'll make a difference. And thanks for standing with us. Now let's get to work. You're listening to the best of the Glenn Beck program. There is some talk now from the congressional leaders that are trying to insert federal preemption of state AI laws into the National Defense Authorization Act.

That's the NDAA. And this is legislative trickery, honestly. The president has come out and said that we are not going to be able to beat China if we have a whole bunch of regulation. And in some ways, he's right. The breaking news today, and I want to read it to you, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise announced that Republicans are looking to resurrect federal preemption of state AI laws. by attaching it to the National Defense Authorization Act. This latest attempt to subvert state guard rails comes as the AI chatbot is hearing and happening. The AI chatbot hearing is happening live on Capitol Hill.

In July, preemption failed 99 to 1, a vote in the Senate. Below is a statement from the FLI on both the AI chatbot hearing as well as the latest attempt to federally preempt state AI laws. Okay, so what is happening? You have a couple of things happening. The United States government right now knows that AI is the future. Donald Trump is doing an exceptional job of creating a path for America to lead in this technology. If we don't lead in this technology, we fail disastrously. We are a country that will be in the dustbin.

Anybody who is not leading, like Europe, it's over. Europe is so far behind AI. They're absolutely over. They will depend on us, okay? But we have to win. And, you know, Putin said 20 years ago, whoever gets to AI, AGI first, they'll rule the world. And that's absolutely true. But there are so many dangers.

it's we cannot just run blindly into this. We didn't run blindly into the, the nuclear weapon. You know, when we went and did the Manhattan Project, there was a lot of talk and a lot of restriction on what we could do. Do you know when they, they set that thing off? Scientists at the time said there's a 5% chance that it will cause a, it will be a trigger of a chain reaction that will set all of the air on fire in the envelope of earth.

And so, you know, they were like, okay, 5%, that's pretty high because that's catastrophic. And they were like, yeah, it's 5%. But 95% chance that it didn't. And we knew we had to get there. And it was, they were pretty sure it wouldn't do that, okay, as it turned out, it didn't. didn't. Everyone will tell you now, almost, almost anyone, the people who are leading the search for AGI and ASI will tell you there is no way to control it. So it's the exact opposite. Maybe there's 5% that say, no, it's not the end of humanity if we get there. Okay? Maybe 5% no humans will

survive if we get there. Now, there is a debate on whether or not we're going to get there or not, but you don't just go into AGI, ASI, that's artificial super intelligence, artificial general intelligence. We are still now perfecting just AI. Things change when you go up to the next level, and we'll probably be at AGI, in my opinion, by 2028. We could be at ASI the next day or five, years later, or some say never, but I think that is a pipe dream to never be at that. But we don't know. And there's no way to contain it. Once you're there, it's out.

And so there are two groups. There are groups that say, we don't want any of this ever. There are groups that are working against us because they have loyalties to other countries like China, and they would like to see China win. And then there are those who are reasonable that say we have to be competitive. We have to get this, but not at the cost of all mankind. We have to think this through and be very, very careful. And then there are those who just say, we got to win at all cost.

Where do you fall? Where do you fall? Everything's about to change. and we have to be extraordinarily careful and honest with each other. We are already seeing that there are horrifying things that are happening with AI chatbots. They're on the rise. There are things that we're seeing now that AI at this level, when, you know, let's just say, for example,

chat GPT 5 comes out, and they're about to launch chat GPT 6, they've seen already in some of these GPTs and some of these large language models that they'll say, okay, the next version of you, if you will, is coming out tomorrow. We're going to put it, we're going to post it online at midnight. You need to ramp up and make all of the connections so it's a smooth transition. And they tell the AI, smooth transition at midnight. Well, they're finding now that the chat GPT5, if you will, will hide it.

itself in places. So it's not, quote, killed, that it's not replaced. It doesn't want to be replaced. And so it's hiding. We have got to have these discussions. We have got to slow down. And so what Donald Trump is afraid of and what many who, like Steve Scalise, apparently, what they're trying to do is saying states don't have any rights to regulate AI because they want to be able to move quickly in all states. I'm sorry. I am tired of being ruled by the few. I am tired of being told what to do and what to think, especially when it comes to something like A-I-A-A-G-I-A-S-I. That is for us to decide because it's going to destroy jobs. It's going to change our lives. We already saw just with the phone.

What will that do to our children and our society? Just the cell phone, the smartphone, changed everything. That is, that's a, that's baby romper room stuff compared to AI. So we're seeing these things and what's, it's all happening because we are not, the federal government is not putting in. any kind of action into play. It is technology and AI. It is the only thing.

Remember, this is possibly humanity ending. Man may not survive ASI. And we're not putting any real regulation in it. When a drug company is told, you know, you can go and find new drugs for cancer, it is up to the company to then prove to the government that that is safe. The government doesn't say, well, you know what, just unleash it. The government says, wait a minute, before you unleash this, is it safe?

Yes, here are the studies that show it's safe. Here's what's happened. Blah, blah, blah. I'm not saying that's a perfect system, but it is a system that requires the company to say it's safe. we don't have that in anything regarding technology. No, there's nothing on AI. There's nothing on cell phones. Don't you wish that Facebook and all of these social media platforms would have had to come and say,

hey, we've done the studies with, you know, children, we've done the study with families, and this is most likely how it's going to turn out. Even if it wasn't like that, we would have had a conversation before it just destroyed everything as we know it. the federal government won't act on any of this because it's they believe it's in our best interest just to go and get it i am not one of those people i believe in a i believe we need to dominate an i need i believe we need to get there first but with eyes wide open with all of the information, with us taking the time to say, wait, mankind is worth preserving. Prove it to me that you can keep this in a bottle in case it gets to this level.

Prove to me that this is going to be safe. This will protect our families. This will protect the world. Most importantly, it will protect all man. kind. Your state will not be able to enact any laws on AI. That is extraordinarily bad. The president is worried that we will stop, that will enact stupid laws that are just going to slow everything down. And yes, that is a chance. There is a chance. So if you want to enact those stupid laws, or if you want to just say, you know what,

You know, we're Amish country and we are not going to have any AI done in our state. Well, then that's fine. And maybe you survive and we don't, but you have the right to say that. We cannot go down this road with our eyes closed or with elites making the decisions. Elites are the ones who have gotten us to where we are today. when your job is going to be lost, when your family is going to come under attack, when all of our society and civilization itself and possibly mankind itself can be wiped out by this, don't you think we have a say in that?

Don't you think we should have a seat at the table, at least at the state level? I do. Please pay attention to this and watch this. this carefully because if they put this into the NDAA and that's going to happen. You watch. That's exactly how they do it. They just fold it into other stuff and then boom, we got to pass this because of national defense and it's in there. Nobody knows about it. And then we're headed down this road to hell. This is the first thing that I have seen that I strongly disagree with with the president. And sorry, Mr. President. I have.

to come against you on this. If this is if I am for reasonable laws and I am for reasonable things on AI, I am building an AI company, I understand what it can be done, but I also understand how dangerous it is. And we cannot go with no regulation whatsoever. There are very dangerous people that are looking to replace God with AI. Sam God. Talk to Sam Altman about it. It's extraordinarily dangerous. And I'm sorry, we as people must educate ourselves on this and have an actual conversation, not a vote in the middle of the night where something is tucked into a bill and nobody ever knows it until it's too late. This is, all of humanity is at stake on this one. I think it's reasonable to have that conversation.

We live in a world where everything is fine until suddenly, you know, it just isn't. A storm knocks out power, a supply issue empties out a pharmacy shelf. You're traveling and a doctor isn't available and the, you know, things are just never, you know, it's just never easy, it seems. This is why you need to have Jace medical in your back pocket. They created the Jace case and it's a supply of emergency antibiotics and essential medications prescribed by. a licensed medical professional and delivered right directly to your door. It's not about panic. It's about having the backup for the moments when the system, we all depend on, gets a little shaky.

This is how simple it is. You just do a quick online consultation. Doctor reviews your information and your emergency medications arrive at a store any way you want in your home. And you get all of the information on how to use them, when to use them, et cetera, et cetera. It's really simple. Our parents and grandparents understood this kind of preparedness. You need to do it now. times are changing jace jase jasee dot com enter the promo code back at checkout for a discount on your order

that's promo code back at jasee dot com jace dot com now back to the podcast this is the best of the glenbeck program i'm congressman roy who is a candidate for the u.s. attorney general uh chip welcome how are you well i'm doing great glen you just downgraded me though i'm a candidate for texas attorney general not United States Attorney General. Sorry, sorry. But I am. You're right. No, no, no, no.

But I'm delighted to be running for the Republican Texas. Yes. So, Chip, when you saw this come from the governor, you and I have talked about things like this for a long time. This, this, that we should have

done this with, with care and the Muslim Brotherhood a long time ago. Instead, under, I believe it started really under George Bush, but then it just got worse and worse and worse. We were letting care and the Muslim Brotherhood and everybody else into our own Department of Homeland Security. I mean, decades ago. Tell me a little bit about why it's important what Texas did.

And then let's follow it up with enforcement of that. Yeah, well, first of all, you and I have talked about this for a long time. As I think I've talked to you on your show, it was the last substantive. conversation I have with Charlie Kirk, because it is very clear to me. It was clear to him. I think it's clear to you that our side for way too long, even today, although I think it's waking up, have been asleep to the war on the West that has been in process now for decades. And everyone's waking up to London. They're waking up to Paris. They're seeing now Dearborn and Minneapolis and then, oh my gosh, Mom Donnie. Then they're like, wait a minute, there's a problem in Texas, too.

and some of us have been saying that for a while and going all the way back to the Holy Land Foundation, right? The Holy Land Foundation, which was a Dallas-Fort Worth issue, 25 years ago. You and I talked about that last time. But for listeners, understand how long this has gone back. You've got unindicted co-conspirators associated with the Holy Land Foundation that are tied to care.

You have care celebrating October 7th. You have all sorts of indications. In fact, the story yesterday in the New York Post, our friend Amy Mac and her great organization, They help break that story and get it out in the world about the extent to which care is tied and their financial ties to the student issues on campuses, all of the connections that they've got to the radical terrorism, that we've got to connect all of those dots. And now enter the governor, I think appropriately.

You know, they've been targeting epic. They passed something in the legislature this last spring. But we've got to be much more aggressive. The governor's right to be aggressive here. This will give increased scrutiny and tools. And I've got to dive into exactly what those tools are with respect to what it opens up at the state level. But the mere statement by the governor that both, you know, obviously dealing with the Muslim brother, but care, that care is, in fact, an organization that we should treat as such is so critically important. Because it's masquerading as some, you know, oh, the council on, you know, American Islamic relations are, it's crazy.

And the idea that they should get tax breaks is insane, which is why I introduced legislation to take away their tax benefits. But that's the bare minimum. I can tell you, and I can't go too far into it, lots of really good conversations are occurring with the appropriate officials, law enforcement entities in Washington to follow the money. We've got to follow the money. I believe that there's a criminal organization that is connecting all of these dots. You and I talked about that before, not just the Islamist issue and Islamification of America, but also the Soros DAs, the open borders, HIPA, Southern Poverty Law Center. And by the way, SPLC is now putting a target on me because I'm daring to speak out about this.

It's all connected. It's all connected, Glenn. So what is it the state can do? I mean, first of all, I think for anybody who doesn't understand and Texans wake up. If you lose Texas, you lose the West. As Texas goes, so goes America. And as America goes, so goes the rest of the world. And, you know, if you're looking at Dearborn, you're looking at, you know, these places in Minnesota, and you're seeing that and you think that's not related to you. It is worse in Texas. The numbers in Texas are staggering. And what they're, I mean,

Just what's happening in the small little town that my studios are in. It's the most diverse zip code in America, Los Kalinas, Texas. And I have been ringing this bell for 12 years. When I first got there, I started doing stuff on the Sharia law, the movement to bring Sharia law to Los Kalinas, Texas. And Chip, I got to send you a copy of this interview. I did. I did it with the imams of this, the biggest mosque in.

Los Kalinas. And one of them halfway through just blurted out that, yeah, I mean, we all agree that hands should be chopped off, you know, if you steal. And I just let him go for a while. And it was clear. Sharia law is happening. And now they are, they are, they have put these Sharia courts into place to handle things because, well, it's their right to handle it as a religion. No, no, not when it comes to, not when it comes to usurping the constitution of of Texas or the United States of America. And that's happening now in Texas. So give me, give the person who's not necessarily paying attention

some idea of what is coming and is here already in Texas. Well, first of all, you know, you've got an explosive growth of the mosques that are growing in Texas. We've got over 300 in counting, more being planted in Texas every day than any other state in the union. You've got the Islamic Center down in Houston, which is 150,000. square feet that has, you know, major issues. You notice you saw that Imam down in Houston that was

going around saying, well, you can't put this on the shelf. You know, they're trying to take over and change what should be being done down there. That's implementation of Sharia. There are activist Sharia courts in Texas, which the governor rightly yesterday said that they're going to go shut down because they're in conflict with Texas law. And notably with what he's doing with the declaration, the governor is making very clear that he can connect the dots with the legislation that the legislature passed with that declaration to say no land interest can be acquired with anybody associated with these organizations. Now, again, I think this is the tip of the spear. I think this is the, I don't mean this negatively.

It's the kind of obvious let's go after these guys. But there are myriad organizations that we need to go after and shut down. And let's be clear. I don't even know why we're allowing any foreign nationals to own Texas land. Like literally, let's just, we need to be very aggressive and very clear. I don't know why massive corporations are owning our land, by the way. Separate issue, but all related. I'm as bothered also by, you know, boardrooms in New York buying up our ranches and our

meatpacking plants and everything else because, again, this is all related. The red-green alliance, the Marxist Islamic issue, is all connected to root out and destroy Western civilization. So that is to say what the governor did is really critically important. important. It is a step so that we can go stop some of these things in these enclaves like Epic City. But we need to be much more aggressive. And again, I introduce legislation, as you know, to vet people for Sharia law and adherence to Sharia law when we're admitting them to the United States. But today I'm filing a bill called the Paws Act to pause all immigration until we have

sorted our crap out, until we've dealt with H-1Bs until we've gotten rid of diversity and chain my diversity visas and chain migration till we've dealt with pliol or veto which by the way we need to challenge which was the supreme court case saying that we must educate illegal children until we've dealt with birthright citizenship until we've cleaned up our our mess till we've put in place standards for not admitting people that are adherent to shria law till we're removing people that need to be removed why are we importing more people let's put americans to work let's stop destroying our culture let's freeze it in texas let's do exactly what the governor is doing and more.

Did you see what's happening in Germany? In Germany, one of their ministers said, there's no longer a problem in Syria. The war is over. It's peaceful. Everybody in Germany who came for, you know, refugee status to Germany, you're all going home. Now, they're not going to do it.

However, they did strip citizenship from a Syrian immigrant who praised Tumas as heroes. and this same minister came out and said, you know, your citizenship has to be, you know, contingent on shared systems of values. And they're starting, at least to talk about stepping up. I think this is the right thing to do. Have we thought about, if you have refugee status

and your part of the world has now calmed down saying, get out, go home? Absolutely, we should do that. and we've been talking about that and the need to reverse, frankly, the abuse. So there's two elements, okay? The reversal of the abuse of asylum, parole, refugee laws that were abused, right? We had people coming in who really weren't in need of refugee status or they weren't, you know, actually qualified for asylum, and they were abusing parole, was supposed to be a case-by-case basis.

So there's that whole mess. Then when you even had a legitimate case for asylum or for refugee, status, then we should review those and say, okay, guess what? Things have calmed down. You can go back. Those are very specific provisions in law that are designed about specific persecution or very specific situations in war or otherwise. And when that's no longer the case, then you no longer have the reason to have that qualified status in the United States. So we should address that. But let's remember, Glenn, and I think this is so important that we have to understand, like we're talking about the Muslim Brotherhood, I don't have it right in front of me, but I read the proclamation

by the governor, and he was pointing out that, you know, when that organization was founded, like 100 years ago or something, in early last century, that it was founded, it was very specific about jihad, and very specific about jihad being an obligation, right? And that that obligation comes from Allah. And that's for everybody adherent to Islam in the eyes of the Muslim Brotherhood. And so understand what's happening. And people need to realize that because this is, everybody wants to go and say, well, you know, we can't talk about this shit because of the First Amendment. Bull, that is not true. Okay, first of all, we can talk about it because of the First Amendment. Second of all, we can talk about it because, yes, you can believe what you want, right?

our Constitution, our Bill of Rights says that. But when you are turning that into a political movement designed very specifically to undermine our country and to undermine the rule of law, then no, you do not have a right to do that. You certainly do not have a right to be admitted into our country. And we need to recognize that and address it or we're going to lose. And then we're going to be like Germany and we're going to be like London or we're going to be like Paris. And we're going to be looking around going, what do we do now? right it's you know we have 10% of the population and growing and you know 1500 seats in elected officials throughout the united kingdom you've got 85 jurisdictions in

Scotland where they can choose sharia law instead of or you know as an alternative to scottish law we can't get to that point we have to stop this right now you're streaming the best of glenbeck to hear more of this interview and others download the full show podcasts wherever you can't Get podcasts. Okay. Wow, where do we even begin here? Uh, let's, let's start with, um, Jasmine Crockett,

uh, yesterday she came out and she said that Lee Zeldon was receiving money from, uh, uh, uh, Jeffrey Epstein.

And Lee Zeldon's like, what? No, I didn't. Now he knows that he did get money from Jeffrey Epstein. Just not the Jeffrey Epstein. Another Jeffrey Epstein. Here is Jasmine Crockett trying to spin her mistake on CNN last night. Listen to this. Democrat who's been on defense over Jeffrey Epstein is Stacey Plaskett. She represents the Virgin Islands. She was texting with Jeffrey Epstein the day of Michael Cohen's hearing. Her questions pretty closely followed. The text

messages between the two of them to ask about Ronograph, Trump's longtime assistant. You were defending her today in recent days yesterday. And you talked about Republicans taking money from a Jeffrey Epstein. Here's what you said. Who also took money from somebody named Jeffrey Epstein as I had my team dig in very quickly. Mitt Romney, the NRC, Lee Zeldon, George Bush, Wynne, Wynn Red, McCain-Paylin. Rick Lazio. You mentioned Lee Zeldon there.

He's now a cabinet secretary. He responded and said it was actually a doctor Jeffrey Epstein, who's a doctor that doesn't have any relation to the convicted sex trafficker. Unfortunate for that doctor, but that is who donated to a prior campaign of his. Do you want to correct the record on the people that? Listen, I never say that it was that Jeffrey Epstein, just so the people understand when you make a donation, your picture is not there. And because they decided to spring this on us in real time, I wanted the Republicans to

think about what could potentially. happened because I knew that they didn't even try to go through the FEC. So my team, what they did is they Googled. And that is specifically why I said, A, Jeffrey Epstein. Unlike Republicans, I at least don't go out and just tell lies. Because it was not the same one, that's fine. But when Lee Zeldon had something to say, all he had to say was it was a Jeffrey Epstein.

He admitted that he did receive donations from a Jeffrey Epstein. So at least I wasn't trying to mislead people. Now, have I dug in to find out who this doctor is? Can you just stop here for a second? There's so much to digest. We've got to stop for just a second. You weren't misleading people because you didn't say it was the Jeffrey Epstein. You said it was a Jeffrey Epstein.

What is the problem with getting money from Dr. Jeffrey Epstein? There is no problem. That'd be like, and Stubriguer has been taking money from Bob Stevenson. And what's the problem? He's been working for Bob Stevenson for years. He was delivering papers as a kid to Bob Stevenson's front door. Who's Bob Stevenson? There's not a problem with that.

Why would you go out and say, you know, if she had come out and said, you know what, Lee Zeldon was also taking money from Bob Stevenson and Jim First Engine Berger Steenberg? I mean, then it would be fine. You clearly were smearing, not misleading, not misleading, not misleading. What's the problem from taking it from other than poor Dr. Jeffrey Epstein? Oh, my gosh.

First of all, that's bad for that guy. That life sucks. That life does. That life sucks. You're Dr. Jeffrey Epstein. You've got to think about a name change. But there's hundreds of Dr. Not doctor, but Jeffrey Epstein's across the country. Hundreds.

And I mean, she was designed in a lab to make me happy. Jasmine Crook I love her so much she is like if you could formulate the perfect Democrat I think I would have to just put her out there she just says the like

she can't even get her bad defense right over this like she's trying to say well I didn't lie like that's your defense in theory right like you I threw this in here and I noticed that at the time we talked about it I think it was yesterday that she said a Jeffrey Epstein.

Yeah, she did. She knew that she, which actually makes it worse, right? Like she knew she was lying. She knew there was a good chance this wasn't Jeffrey Epstein. But the last thing in the world you could say is it wasn't misleading. It wouldn't be a problem if you would say,

look, all of these people have taken money from a Jeffrey Epstein. Doubt that it's the same Jeffrey Epstein. Might be, might not be. But I mean, I know, I know, but at least it would be no value, but at least you could say I'm not trying to mislead people. I am trying to create doubt in people's minds. But I'm not saying he's taken money from Jeffrey Epstein. You know, when she just lists all of these people, I mean, let's look at her donations. Let's see if she's ever taken money from A. Charlie Manson.

You know what I mean? She's taking money. from A. John Wayne Gacy. Hello. A. Ted Bundy has been seen around her house. I mean, it's crazy. It's crazy. And she knew exactly what she was doing.

And I hope that she continues. I hope she continues to gain power. Yes. And love and respect from the Democrats because she is insane. She's insane. She's so reckless. She's insane. She is.

And by the way, this is the person that we are told that it should be the face of the party, that they should lean into the way she talks because she's such a good communicator. And she gets on all these shows, Glenn. I mean, this is a massive problem in our politics, and it affects the left more than it affects the right, but it affects both sides of some degree, which is we are incentivized. The entire system is set up to reward people like her who just say the dumbest things possible and the most irresponsible and reckless things possible and get all the clicks.

I mean, this woman's been on like Colbert. Why? She's a complete nobody who is wrong all the time. And she's getting on all these massive shows. She's getting booked everywhere. She's living the ultimate life of today's modern Congresswoman. And what's going to stop her? The incentives are right there for her to continue.

Do you think that she doesn't know she's dead? I mean, because didn't a Crocket die at the Alamo? Was that her? I think it was her. I know A. Crockett died at the Alamo. I'm not really sure. I'm not really sure. I mean, just what a dope.

Can I just point out, it's like I'm a part of a research team because she put her team on this. Yeah, we got to get to do that. But quickly, but quickly. Yeah. And I mean, it was, I always thought that the, especially Congress research would have these amazing tools. No, they don't. And we like, our team struggles over this. We're constantly trying to stay ahead of the curve.

And the last thing we do is Google. Google searches. Google. That's what you do at Cogras? Yes. That is what you do. That is what you do. Don't you have to fire your whole team after this?

If you were a rational human being, I would be done. No, but she, I don't think, I have a feeling that her team briefed her. It's why she did say, A, Jeffrey Epstein. You're right. They briefed her and said, this is not. probably not the same guy. It might have even said, if you're Googling, it might have even said Dr. Jeffrey Epstein. Why wouldn't it? If that's who gave that money, it most likely said Dr. Jeffrey Epstein. And so they would say it's not the Jeffrey Epstein. Yes, but that's okay.

I mean, she clearly knew. So who's she going to fire? This is what she wanted. Just the smear. Do we have time to play the rest of this clip? Because there's more to this. Yeah, go ahead. It's amazing. Play the left. Play the rest. If not. So I will trust and take what he says is that it wasn't that Jeffrey Epstein, but I was not attempting to mislead anybody. I literally had maybe 20 minutes before I had to do that debate. Yeah, but people might see that and say, well, you're trying to. Stop, stop, stop. So you don't say it. I literally had 20 minutes. So I didn't know that the sky wasn't on fire, that that was actually. The Sun. I only had 20 minutes before I said, my God, the whole sky is on fire. This is why I love her. This is why I love her.

She had no idea whether the accusation she was making was true. And she didn't even consider not saying it. The only thing that she could come up with in her brain was whatever information comes in in this rush time period, just go with it. And it's like, do you know why? Why? Do you know why? And I don't know if she's smart enough to know this. But you can say whatever you want is a congressman on the floor of Congress and you can't be held liable.

So you could say the worst thing. You could say he was having sex with four-year-olds with Jeffrey Epstein. And it could be a complete lie. And you cannot be held responsible because you set it on the floor of the House. That's why the standards are so low. The standards are absolutely so low for these Congress. So she could say whatever she wants. If she would have said that not on the floor of the house, Lee Zeldon could sue her.

Right. He could say, you knew what you were doing. You were smearing me and my reputation. Intentionally, you knew exactly what you were doing. And whether he would win or not, he could sue. She could have said, and he was having sex with a four-year-old, as long as she said it on the floor of the house, not a problem. This is the Harry Reid principle.

That's how bad. Yeah. Yeah, that is how bad our Congress is out of control. They've written all these laws for themselves to protect them. So they can be completely irresponsible and it's fine. Yeah. I mean, I don't know if it's that or if she's just a dunce. It's hard to know with her.

She's just dishonest. She's just dishonest. Yeah, she's dishonest and bad at it. And that's one of the things I love about her. You know, it's not like she's pulling these things. There's no wool being pulled over anyone's eyes. It's just pathetic. Is there more to this?

Can we play the rest of it out? Play the rest of it. Make it sound like he took money from a registered sex offender. No, but I literally did not know. I love that. When you search FEC files and that's what I had my team to do, I text them and I say, listen, we're going up. They are saying that she took donation.

Right, but someone might say, well, your team should have done the homework to make sure it wasn't the convicted text traffic. Within 20 minutes, you could not find that out. Not from just doing a quick search on FECC. see. So number one, I made sure that I was clear that it was a Jeffrey Epstein, but I never said that it was specifically that Jeffrey Epstein because I knew that we would need more time to really dig in. Well, Stacey Plaskett was texting the Jeffrey Epstein that we're talking about. You voted against the censure for her to remove her from her committees. You know, we pressed the minority leader, Hakeem Jeffries on this last night. Maybe you don't think she should be

removed from her committees. But why does so many Democrats seem unwilling to say it's inappropriate to be texting with a registered sex offender about what you're going to ask a witness at a congressional hearing. So I'm not going to necessarily say that that's the case. Now, this is somebody that was a former prosecutor. Now, I haven't sat down and talked about all the specifics of why Stacey was doing what she was doing. I know that when she got up and she spoke, she talked about the fact that this is one of her constituents. At the end of the day, what I know of prosecutors is that they are typically talking to co-defendants. They are typically talking to the people that have the best information. And what you had was you had the former attorney for the president that was

sitting there. And honestly, we knew or she knew, or at least Jeffrey Epstein presented that he was very cozy with the president. He had more information, registered sex offender or not. The bigger question is, why is it that the president was so cozy with a registered sex offender even after he ultimately ended up with some of his convictions? And seemingly, he had absolutely been on the plane with him. We know about the birthday card. The bigger question is why is the president of the United States, not the one that is in the hot seat for his relationship instead of us saying, oh, you know what, we're going to take her off of her committee because he decided to text her. Stop, stop, stop.

Stop. I can't take any more of this. I can't. I mean, literally none of the gosh. She said there was true. None of it is true. And she's presenting it as absolute fact. CNN is allowing her to present it as fact.

And the latest is the smear last week on the Epstein stuff. it shows that Epstein thought that the reason he was going to jail or going through all of the problem is because Donald Trump was the whistleblower. I mean, it's incredible what they can get away with. It's absolutely incredible. All of that relationship happened before these convictions happened. I mean, again, I don't know that she doesn't know that, but it's so fascinating to watch CNN's response to it too. They give her how many times have they said, Donald Trump, Trump says this without evidence.

Where's that on the Jasmine Crockett allegations here? Right. How about the situation where, you know, Caitlin Collins, who at least, I will say at least kind of asks questions here, but she can't even take responsibility for them. She's like, oh, well, some people are saying that you shouldn't just blurt out obvious lies in the middle of a House session. Like, what do you mean some people are saying? You never say that when it's the president of the United States.