Did Hillary use her personal email to send classified information?

July 27, 2015

WRITER

Buck Sexton filled in for Glenn on Monday, and kicked off the show with a deep dive into Hillary Clinton’s ongoing email saga. The former Secretary of State claims she never used her personal email account for classified information - but is she telling the truth? Buck delved into his own background in the CIA and why he thinks she isn’t telling the full story. After all, the Clintons have a long history of protecting their own secrets.

Listen to the segment in the opening moments of today's radio show:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it may contain errors:

BUCK: Buck Sexton here. Buck Sexton in for Glenn Beck today on the Glenn Beck Program. Thank you so much for joining. Good to have you with me. 877-727-BECK is the phone number. You can call in. Love to chat with you. Hope you had a good weekend. We have a lot to get to today. Thank you very much for your time. Those of you who may not be familiar with me. I'm the Blaze's National Security Editor, also the host of the Buck Sexton Show on the Blaze. Formerly a CIA analyst and an NYPD Intelligence Division Specialist for counterterrorism. So counterterrorism is what I did before. I was able to join all of you fine folks and do some media.

So Hillary Clinton's email is still a big issue, although not if you listen to the Clinton camp. It was a pretty amazing situation on Friday, where you had the revelation -- and this was apparently a leak of some kind -- that there was a desire to look more closely at Hillary's private email account.

Now, before we even get into the particulars of this, and this holds a real resonance for me, as someone who held the top secret security clearance in the United States government and had to learn all the various protocols and the, including classification origination, all of that stuff, and had to live with the constant reality, the constant possibility of a complete and utter annihilation were I ever to transgress while a CIA officer, even accidentally, by the way. Accidentally does not mean that you would not get into some sort of trouble. It didn't mean there wouldn't be some sort of issue as well. You might not go to jail for a long time, but your career would be ruined. That much is to be sure. For real issues of national security, you can understand why the sanctions are so severe.

You have an understanding of that. You can't lose the nuclear codes while you're out getting a burger. I get that. We all get that. We can all understand that. To give you a sense of just how extreme it was, to give you a sense of what we're talking about here, I saw fellow officers, fellow CIA officers reduced to tears because perhaps a young lady walked out to her car and had something in her pocket that she should not have in terms of sensitive information. And was essentially told that she had almost made the terrorists win because of this. Now, you could say that, of course, you have these strict procedures and protocols. But I'm pretty sure the Russians, I'm sure Bin Laden didn't sneak a peek into her pocket into the 30-second walk outside of the facility. But that just gives you a sense of how strict it is in these government agencies with the protection of classified information. That's what the rest of us all have to live with.

Meanwhile, we have to go back and forth in this sort of lawyerly discussion, lawyerly debate with Hillary Clinton, in which we talk about whether or not it was classified when she sent it. Now, keep in mind, and this is very, very important indeed. Keep in mind that Hillary could have avoided all of this. We wouldn't even have to have this discussion if the woman who now really believes that the presidency is, in fact, something that she is entitled to, if she had just decided that she would do what everybody else would have done in these circumstances, she could have avoided this whole thing. This is entirely of her making. Which is largely why a lot of Democrats are annoyed about this, upset about this. Who recognize that this is probably going to be a real problem. And it didn't have to be a problem at all.

But the Clintonian obsession with secrecy -- and when people talk about the obsession with secrecy, keep in mind that's because the Clintons need to keep secrets. Right? That's a relatively straightforward proposition. The Clintonian obsession with secrecy is something that we have pay pretty close attention to because there are reasons for it.

They are secretive because they should be secretive because they do things that they should not do. And then they look at all of us and suggest that somehow this is a right-wing conspiracy. This is some sort of issue that's been foisted upon their shoulders. It's only because of all the other people. You see. They're the real problem.

On Friday, we're told there was a referral, a referral as to whether there was criminality inherent using her home brew server that she decided to do. To send communications in her role as Secretary of State. Thousands and thousands of times.

If she used classified information in those emails, that is at a minimum, a violation of her duty to protect classified information. That could be criminally charged. You see, the way this works. And this is where the Clintons love. They love the gray areas. The shades of complexity here. They'll say the information wasn't classified when she sent it. Of course, it's not inherently classified. You can write something down in an email and send it to all your buddies, it hasn't been classified at the top of that email. But there's still a recognition that the sensitivity of that information could be national security data. There could be a classification issue there. And if Hillary is using this email address for most of her communications, it is beyond anyone's wildest imagination that she did not somehow use information that is classified.

In fact, we find out that, later on, they decided that some of it was classified. So what -- this whole thing hinges on a very straightforward concept. And I want those of you who haven't held a clearance and those of you who haven't worked in national security before, I want you to be very clear on this because this is what the whole issue now turns on. They're going to say that when she sent them, it wasn't classified. What I'm going to tell you is that that's not the standard that other people with clearances are held to. It's not, well, it didn't have a stamped "secret" at the top of it when I sent it, therefore, it's not classified. That's not how it works. It's the information and the sensitivity of that information. This is not just a bureaucratic procedural issue. This is an issue of what is she putting out there on the open internet for others to see. And that she's using a personal home brew email address I think tells you a lot of what's going on here. That she deleted thousands and thousands of emails before there could be any review of them whatsoever. I think tells you a lot.

I think it tells you that the Clintons are lying to you. But that's nothing new, is it? That's nothing surprising. In fact, at this point, as depressing as it is to say, that's really our expectation, isn't it? We expect that the Clintons would lie. We expect that Hillary Clinton is going to obfuscate the truth. Attack those who point out the obfuscation. She's trying to muddy the waters. We expect that they'll have some ridiculous justification for their behavior. And it really is just the best defense is a good offense. That's what the Clinton strategy comes down to.

But on these emails, there's another issue that I want to raise here because it's essential. It's very, very important. It's not just a question of what the Clintons are doing. It's also inside the machinery. It's inside the many headed hydro of the federal bureaucracy in D.C. We initially heard there was a referral from two inspectors general, saying they would want a look into whether there was criminality into this. Into whether or not it may have violated US federal criminal law. Then there was a huge walkback. Oh, no. That's not it. The New York Times broke the story Friday. Then we heard over the weekend, this is all nonsense and garbage. See, the media in reactionary way, knee-jerk fashion, knew they had to do whatever was necessary to protect Hillary's chances to be the next president of the United States, and to enforce this narrative, this narrative that no person could really believe with more than a few moments of thoughts. Of course, she was hiding emails from us. That was the purpose of all of this. You would say, why would anyone be so foolish. That's a huge vulnerability. Didn't she know it would come out? That's what the Clintons deal with. That's how they are, who they are. There's no shock here. It's also shocking and surprising for a normal human being to think they can accept speeches for half a million, three-quarters of a million. Hey, why not make it a cool million? While your wife is the most powerful foreign policy official in the world, and you as her husband are going around giving speeches to organizations, not just that would want to curry favor in a sort of general sense, but in that very specific sense of, I have business. Me, we, this foreign entity, we have business in front of the Secretary of State.

Why not pay her husband a half a million to give a speech. Can't hurt. We have the money. That sort of rampant corruption. And that's what it is, by the way. Is the sort of thing that only a power couple at the top of American politics that believes that they are untouchable would ever engage in.

Unless you understand that mentality, then all of a sudden the logic of this email position becomes very clear indeed. They can get away with taking away huge fees for speeches. Just like they can get away with running their own home email servers. Because Bill could get away with any number of transgressions -- and that's putting it far too kindly, by the way -- in the '90s, including though very notably, lying under oath, which would be a federal felony for normal people. But for Bill Clinton, it's nothing. Not even charged with a crime. This is what we're dealing with. These are the individuals standing before us now and pretending to be absolutely pure and outraged that anyone would question their integrity. The real trick with the Clintons is that they have no integrity to protect. There is nothing they will not do as long as it serves their interest because why not? What are you going to do about it? You're going to rely on prosecutors to go after them? You're going to rely on the enforcement of the law? Let me tell you something, there are a lot of Democrat prosecutors out there.

In fact, just as the infiltration of universities by the Democratic Party has essentially made it a one-party situation on college campuses across the country, you have a preponderance, you have Democrat prosecutors all over the place who are very politicized, who view the tools of the prosecutor's office as both of social justice -- we've seen that time and again. And I'm not just talking about the civil rights division of this Department of Justice, which we know is absolutely politicized, but across the country as well.

You have a lot of lawyers who are Democrats, of course, though it's a little more split there. But if you start to look at party affiliation of prosecutors, I think you'll find out really quickly that in blue areas of the country, but also outside of them, you have a very -- a sort of stunning disparity of prosecutors who happen to be Democrats, who happen to give money to Democrats. You have a lot of federal prosecutors out there who give money to the Clintons. I'm sure of it, my friends. So when they now tell us, oh, no, it's not a criminal referral. There's nothing to see here. Just remember that the same federal apparatus that can't enforce immigration law, we're now relying on to tell us all about the latest with the Clintons and their violations of law.

Featured Image: CARROLL, IA - JULY 26: Democratic presidential hopeful and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaks to guests gathered for a house party on July 26, 2015 in Carroll, Iowa. Although Clinton leads all other Democratic contenders, a recent poll had her trailing several of the Republican candidates in Iowa. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

Colorado counselor fights back after faith declared “illegal”

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

The state is effectively silencing professionals who dare speak truths about gender and sexuality, redefining faith-guided speech as illegal.

This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.

The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.

The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.

Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?

One‑sided freedom

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.

Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.

Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?

If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.

Censored belief

I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.

I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.

I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.

And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.

Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.

Faith on trial

In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.

That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The real test

No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.

Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?

If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.

The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck joins Megyn Kelly LIVE — One night ONLY in Fort Worth!

Get ready for sparks to fly. For the first time in years, Glenn will come face-to-face with Megyn Kelly — and this time, he’s the one in the hot seat. On October 25, 2025, at Dickies Arena in Fort Worth, Texas, Glenn joins Megyn on her “Megyn Kelly Live Tour” for a no-holds-barred conversation that promises laughs, surprises, and maybe even a few uncomfortable questions.

What will happen when two of America’s sharpest voices collide under the spotlight? Will Glenn finally reveal the major announcement he’s been teasing on the radio for weeks? You’ll have to be there to find out.

This promises to be more than just an interview — it’s a live showdown packed with wit, honesty, and the kind of energy you can only feel if you are in the room. Tickets are selling fast, so don’t miss your chance to see Glenn like you’ve never seen him before.

Get your tickets NOW at www.MegynKelly.com before they’re gone!

What our response to Israel reveals about us

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

I have been honored to receive the Defender of Israel Award from Prime Minister Netanyahu.

The Jerusalem Post recently named me one of the strongest Christian voices in support of Israel.

And yet, my support is not blind loyalty. It’s not a rubber stamp for any government or policy. I support Israel because I believe it is my duty — first as a Christian, but even if I weren’t a believer, I would still support her as a man of reason, morality, and common sense.

Because faith isn’t required to understand this: Israel’s existence is not just about one nation’s survival — it is about the survival of Western civilization itself.

It is a lone beacon of shared values in the Middle East. It is a bulwark standing against radical Islam — the same evil that seeks to dismantle our own nation from within.

And my support is not rooted in politics. It is rooted in something simpler and older than politics: a people’s moral and historical right to their homeland, and their right to live in peace.

Israel has that right — and the right to defend herself against those who openly, repeatedly vow her destruction.

Let’s make it personal: if someone told me again and again that they wanted to kill me and my entire family — and then acted on that threat — would I not defend myself? Wouldn’t you? If Hamas were Canada, and we were Israel, and they did to us what Hamas has done to them, there wouldn’t be a single building left standing north of our border. That’s not a question of morality.

That’s just the truth. All people — every people — have a God-given right to protect themselves. And Israel is doing exactly that.

My support for Israel’s right to finish the fight against Hamas comes after eighty years of rejected peace offers and failed two-state solutions. Hamas has never hidden its mission — the eradication of Israel. That’s not a political disagreement.

That’s not a land dispute. That is an annihilationist ideology. And while I do not believe this is America’s war to fight, I do believe — with every fiber of my being — that it is Israel’s right, and moral duty, to defend her people.

Criticism of military tactics is fair. That’s not antisemitism. But denying Israel’s right to exist, or excusing — even celebrating — the barbarity of Hamas? That’s something far darker.

We saw it on October 7th — the face of evil itself. Women and children slaughtered. Babies burned alive. Innocent people raped and dragged through the streets. And now, to see our own fellow citizens march in defense of that evil… that is nothing short of a moral collapse.

If the chants in our streets were, “Hamas, return the hostages — Israel, stop the bombing,” we could have a conversation.

But that’s not what we hear.

What we hear is open sympathy for genocidal hatred. And that is a chasm — not just from decency, but from humanity itself. And here lies the danger: that same hatred is taking root here — in Dearborn, in London, in Paris — not as horror, but as heroism. If we are not vigilant, the enemy Israel faces today will be the enemy the free world faces tomorrow.

This isn’t about politics. It’s about truth. It’s about the courage to call evil by its name and to say “Never again” — and mean it.

And you don’t have to open a Bible to understand this. But if you do — if you are a believer — then this issue cuts even deeper. Because the question becomes: what did God promise, and does He keep His word?

He told Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you.” He promised to make Abraham the father of many nations and to give him “the whole land of Canaan.” And though Abraham had other sons, God reaffirmed that promise through Isaac. And then again through Isaac’s son, Jacob — Israel — saying: “The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I give to you and to your descendants after you.”

That’s an everlasting promise.

And from those descendants came a child — born in Bethlehem — who claimed to be the Savior of the world. Jesus never rejected His title as “son of David,” the great King of Israel.

He said plainly that He came “for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” And when He returns, Scripture says He will return as “the Lion of the tribe of Judah.” And where do you think He will go? Back to His homeland — Israel.

Tamir Kalifa / Stringer | Getty Images

And what will He find when He gets there? His brothers — or his brothers’ enemies? Will the roads where He once walked be preserved? Or will they lie in rubble, as Gaza does today? If what He finds looks like the aftermath of October 7th, then tell me — what will be my defense as a Christian?

Some Christians argue that God’s promises to Israel have been transferred exclusively to the Church. I don’t believe that. But even if you do, then ask yourself this: if we’ve inherited the promises, do we not also inherit the land? Can we claim the birthright and then, like Esau, treat it as worthless when the world tries to steal it?

So, when terrorists come to slaughter Israelis simply for living in the land promised to Abraham, will we stand by? Or will we step forward — into the line of fire — and say,

“Take me instead”?

Because this is not just about Israel’s right to exist.

It’s about whether we still know the difference between good and evil.

It’s about whether we still have the courage to stand where God stands.

And if we cannot — if we will not — then maybe the question isn’t whether Israel will survive. Maybe the question is whether we will.

America’s moral erosion: How we were conditioned to accept the unthinkable

MATHIEU LEWIS-ROLLAND / Contributor | Getty Images

Every time we look away from lawlessness, we tell the next mob it can go a little further.

Chicago, Portland, and other American cities are showing us what happens when the rule of law breaks down. These cities have become openly lawless — and that’s not hyperbole.

When a governor declares she doesn’t believe federal agents about a credible threat to their lives, when Chicago orders its police not to assist federal officers, and when cartels print wanted posters offering bounties for the deaths of U.S. immigration agents, you’re looking at a country flirting with anarchy.

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic.

This isn’t a matter of partisan politics. The struggle we’re watching now is not between Democrats and Republicans. It’s between good and evil, right and wrong, self‑government and chaos.

Moral erosion

For generations, Americans have inherited a republic based on law, liberty, and moral responsibility. That legacy is now under assault by extremists who openly seek to collapse the system and replace it with something darker.

Antifa, well‑financed by the left, isn’t an isolated fringe any more than Occupy Wall Street was. As with Occupy, big money and global interests are quietly aligned with “anti‑establishment” radicals. The goal is disruption, not reform.

And they’ve learned how to condition us. Twenty‑five years ago, few Americans would have supported drag shows in elementary schools, biological males in women’s sports, forced vaccinations, or government partnerships with mega‑corporations to decide which businesses live or die. Few would have tolerated cartels threatening federal agents or tolerated mobs doxxing political opponents. Yet today, many shrug — or cheer.

How did we get here? What evidence convinced so many people to reverse themselves on fundamental questions of morality, liberty, and law? Those long laboring to disrupt our republic have sought to condition people to believe that the ends justify the means.

Promoting “tolerance” justifies women losing to biological men in sports. “Compassion” justifies harboring illegal immigrants, even violent criminals. Whatever deluded ideals Antifa espouses is supposed to somehow justify targeting federal agents and overturning the rule of law. Our culture has been conditioned for this moment.

The buck stops with us

That’s why the debate over using troops to restore order in American cities matters so much. I’ve never supported soldiers executing civilian law, and I still don’t. But we need to speak honestly about what the Constitution allows and why. The Posse Comitatus Act sharply limits the use of the military for domestic policing. The Insurrection Act, however, exists for rare emergencies — when federal law truly can’t be enforced by ordinary means and when mobs, cartels, or coordinated violence block the courts.

Even then, the Constitution demands limits: a public proclamation ordering offenders to disperse, transparency about the mission, a narrow scope, temporary duration, and judicial oversight.

Soldiers fight wars. Cops enforce laws. We blur that line at our peril.

But we also cannot allow intimidation of federal officers or tolerate local officials who openly obstruct federal enforcement. Both extremes — lawlessness on one side and militarization on the other — endanger the republic.

The only way out is the Constitution itself. Protect civil liberty. Enforce the rule of law. Demand transparency. Reject the temptation to justify any tactic because “our side” is winning. We’ve already seen how fear after 9/11 led to the Patriot Act and years of surveillance.

KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic. The left cannot be allowed to shut down enforcement, and the right cannot be allowed to abandon constitutional restraint.

The real threat to the republic isn’t just the mobs or the cartels. It’s us — citizens who stop caring about truth and constitutional limits. Anything can be justified when fear takes over. Everything collapses when enough people decide “the ends justify the means.”

We must choose differently. Uphold the rule of law. Guard civil liberties. And remember that the only way to preserve a government of, by, and for the people is to act like the people still want it.