What Won't End up in Hillary Clinton's 'Burn Bag'?

Filling in while Glenn was on vacation, Doc Thompson and Skip Lacombe reflected on how Hillary Clinton has gotten away with scandal after scandal on The Glenn Beck Program Tuesday.

RELATED: WikiLeaks Publishes Over 30,000 Hillary Clinton Emails

Inexplicably, some of Clinton's schedules were included among the various documents she caused to be destroyed. Why, the co-hosts wondered, would the schedule of the Secretary of State ever need to be private (save a couple of extreme examples)?

Listen to the segment or read the transcript below.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors.

DOC: What does Hillary Clinton have to do to actually get fired? For the people to say, we've had enough of your nonsense. To get arrested. What does she have to do?

I mean, you know all the scandals, the alleged scandal, the conspiracy theories regarding the Clintons. There's plenty of things there that you'd go, okay, that could be something that you could potentially go to jail for.

But forget those. Skip, think about the obvious things that they have done.

What does she have to do to get arrested?

SKIP: I don't at this point. For some reason, it seems like the Clintons in particular seem to have this pass in terms of being able to do whatever they want. And their big key, just wait it out. Don't even talk about it. Don't mention it. Any questions about it, just wait it out. Deflect and it'll eventually just pass. People forget. People have such a short attention span and memory these days, as long as you can get through those first couple of days, weeks, months of the scandal, you're fine.

DOC: What does Hillary have to do to get arrested now? Seriously. She meets with the FBI for three hours over the weekend, and they talked to her about the email scandal. Right? I mean, that's how this rolls out. And then you have people like Sherrod Brown the dirtbag senator from Ohio and Cory Booker the dirtbag Senator from New Jersey saying she's not going to be arrested. Nothing to see here. There's no problem here. In all first of all, how do they know? Is there just them trying to influence the public and public opinion and the FBI?

SKIP: Yeah.

DOC: Or do they know something or saying, nope, not going to be arrested.

SKIP: At this point I think they're trying to influence public opinion. At the end of the day, regardless of where you stand on this scandal, yes she should be arrested or no, she shouldn't, the FBI is actually -- and the Department of Justice is investigating. So there is a there, there, no matter how you want to look at the scandal or how little you want to put towards the scandal, there is a there, there. Otherwise they wouldn't be investigating. This is Obama's Justice Department, the FBI, there has to be something there for them to at least pick up a finger and start.

DOC: So Huma apparently was deposed in connection with the Freedom of Information Act request about Hillary's emails and whatever, but it wasn't the FBI. It was because of a Freedom of Information Act request. And in this, she said that Hillary destroyed at least some of her schedules. She put them in the burn bag. Now, the burn bag is the official area or box or bag that they collect things that have to be destroyed. Sensitive information that would be destroyed.

And she said she was directed on numerous occasions to put Hillary's schedule in the burn bag.

I don't want anyone to know where she was at that time and on that day! And that's what Hillary is saying. I don't want anybody to know what I was doing. Why would your schedule, save a couple of extreme examples, ever be private as Secretary of State?

I get ahead of time if you're going on flying into a dangerous area, and I can't tell people that I'm going to be there because it could be -- you know, they could plan some sort of threat against me.

SKIP: If you that's more about like schedules in the future as opposed to historic documents of what had happened.

DOC: Right.

SKIP: It's not a security issue to find out that she was in Somalia or whatever.

DOC: Not that I agree with it, but when the President had his people negotiating with Iran for the Iran deal, remember, that was going on for a couple of years and we didn't know about it, which I think is wrong, because in order for you and I to be good citizens and be active in our government, we have to have this information.

But having said that, you could even make an argument that said, well, I don't want people to know that I was meeting with Iran yet. Because we're still working on the deal. So I'll delay that schedule for six months, then you can see what I was up to.

That's not what happened.

Hillary Clinton said, I direct you to burn my schedule, to destroy any records of where I was and what I was doing at certain times.

Why, I ask you, would you ever have to do that?

I can come up with only one reason: Because you don't want people to know what you were doing because you were doing something improper.

Is there any other reason? Folks, come on! Democrat, Republican, progressive, conservative, Libertarian, is there any other reason? And I challenge you, Democrats today, to stand up and start calling her out on this.

This is wrong. And if you do not, you are part of the problem. Not because you vote for Democrats, not because you are progressive but because you're not holding accountable people that are running this government. If you don't do it, you are a bigger problem that know Hillary Clinton. What does she have to do to get fired?

Here's what Huma said. This is the official testimony she gave.

If there was a schedule that was created that was her, Secretary of State daily schedule, and a copy of that was put in the burn bag, that, that -- I'm sorry.

She said it was put in the burn bag. That's how the whole thing lays out.

She said, that it was put in the bag that certainly happened on -- on more than one occasion.

SKIP: Again, if you're really trying to even be a devil's advocate here and explain some sort of a reason why this would be, I can't think of a legitimate reason why you would do that.

Even specific too, the concept of a burn bag, I stupidly didn't even realize that there are documents that are on a regular basis burned.

DOC: Destroyed.

SKIP: I understand shredding and whatnot. But there is a barrel standing out back with a fire?

DOC: I don't know how they destroyed it nowadays but at one point they burned it. It's referred to historically as the burn bag, the area we collect stuff that's going to be destroyed. Maybe. Maybe so. Why would her schedule be a part of it? Let me put another way for you. Hillary Clinton, do you remember her excuse for having the -- the security on the server? Her own server?

SKIP: It was easier for her, more simple.

DOC: Easier, whatever. With no regard to the law, history, or national security. Because that was an unsecure server. It was not done from the government. Right? Hillary put it up herself. It was unsecure. Right?

SKIP: Yeah.

DOC: Okay. So she's saying what? That her information, her schedule, is of such a national security issue that she has to destroy it, yet she had her own server which was unsecure.

How do you have both of those? They don't add up. It's not consistent.

The only reasonable explanation for both of those things, to say I want my own private server which is not secure, I'm not concerned with security, and to say I want my schedule burned, can be only one thing. She was hiding something improper, illegal, immoral, some sort of troubling behavior.

SKIP: Something she didn't want someone else to know.

DOC: Right. That's the only reason you have those two things. See, those things are inconsistent with each other. If you're going to cling to national security as a reason you have your schedule destroyed, then why did you have your own private server?

If your own private server is so -- if you're so cavalier about it, you're not worried about, you know, secure information on it or whatever, and we know now secure information was, you know, in those emails and via her private server, then why would you destroy your schedule after the fact for national security?

The only thing you can cling to about having your schedule destroyed is for national security. And even that is pretty low. But that goes all out the wind when you have your own private server. These things do not add up.

So I ask, what does it take for Hillary Clinton to be arrested? What does it take for the American people to stand up and say, I've had enough, you are fired, we are done here? What does it take?

If Hillary Clinton is able to navigate this latest scandal and not be arrested, navigate and actually become President of the United States, that is the indicator we have completely lost control. That it's done. And then it's just a matter of ride it out until the end until the whole thing collapses around us. You cannot have that level of corruption go for several years and this is just the latest. This doesn't account for everybody else that she's been involved in over the years.

We've lost it at that point.

Featured Image: Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton addresses the 95th Representative Assembly of the National Education Association July 5, 2016 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

EXCLUSIVE: Tech Ethicist reveals 5 ways to control AI NOW

MANAURE QUINTERO / Contributor | Getty Images

By now, many of us are familiar with AI and its potential benefits and threats. However, unless you're a tech tycoon, it can feel like you have little influence over the future of artificial intelligence.

For years, Glenn has warned about the dangers of rapidly developing AI technologies that have taken the world by storm.

He acknowledges their significant benefits but emphasizes the need to establish proper boundaries and ethics now, while we still have control. But since most people aren’t Silicon Valley tech leaders making the decisions, how can they help keep AI in check?

Recently, Glenn interviewed Tristan Harris, a tech ethicist deeply concerned about the potential harm of unchecked AI, to discuss its societal implications. Harris highlighted a concerning new piece of legislation proposed by Texas Senator Ted Cruz. This legislation proposes a state-level moratorium on AI regulation, meaning only the federal government could regulate AI. Harris noted that there’s currently no Federal plan for regulating AI. Until the federal government establishes a plan, tech companies would have nearly free rein with their AI. And we all know how slowly the federal government moves.

This is where you come in. Tristan Harris shared with Glenn the top five actions you should urge your representatives to take regarding AI, including opposing the moratorium until a concrete plan is in place. Now is your chance to influence the future of AI. Contact your senator and congressman today and share these five crucial steps they must take to keep AI in check:

Ban engagement-optimized AI companions for kids

Create legislation that will prevent AI from being designed to maximize addiction, sexualization, flattery, and attachment disorders, and to protect young people’s mental health and ability to form real-life friendships.

Establish basic liability laws

Companies need to be held accountable when their products cause real-world harm.

Pass increased whistleblower protections

Protect concerned technologists working inside the AI labs from facing untenable pressures and threats that prevent them from warning the public when the AI rollout is unsafe or crosses dangerous red lines.

Prevent AI from having legal rights

Enact laws so AIs don’t have protected speech or have their own bank accounts, making sure our legal system works for human interests over AI interests.

Oppose the state moratorium on AI 

Call your congressman or Senator Cruz’s office, and demand they oppose the state moratorium on AI without a plan for how we will set guardrails for this technology.

Glenn: Only Trump dared to deliver on decades of empty promises

Tasos Katopodis / Stringer | Getty Images

The Islamic regime has been killing Americans since 1979. Now Trump’s response proves we’re no longer playing defense — we’re finally hitting back.

The United States has taken direct military action against Iran’s nuclear program. Whatever you think of the strike, it’s over. It’s happened. And now, we have to predict what happens next. I want to help you understand the gravity of this situation: what happened, what it means, and what might come next. To that end, we need to begin with a little history.

Since 1979, Iran has been at war with us — even if we refused to call it that.

We are either on the verge of a remarkable strategic victory or a devastating global escalation. Time will tell.

It began with the hostage crisis, when 66 Americans were seized and 52 were held for over a year by the radical Islamic regime. Four years later, 17 more Americans were murdered in the U.S. Embassy bombing in Beirut, followed by 241 Marines in the Beirut barracks bombing.

Then came the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996, which killed 19 more U.S. airmen. Iran had its fingerprints all over it.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, Iranian-backed proxies killed hundreds of American soldiers. From 2001 to 2020 in Afghanistan and 2003 to 2011 in Iraq, Iran supplied IEDs and tactical support.

The Iranians have plotted assassinations and kidnappings on U.S. soil — in 2011, 2021, and again in 2024 — and yet we’ve never really responded.

The precedent for U.S. retaliation has always been present, but no president has chosen to pull the trigger until this past weekend. President Donald Trump struck decisively. And what our military pulled off this weekend was nothing short of extraordinary.

Operation Midnight Hammer

The strike was reportedly called Operation Midnight Hammer. It involved as many as 175 U.S. aircraft, including 12 B-2 stealth bombers — out of just 19 in our entire arsenal. Those bombers are among the most complex machines in the world, and they were kept mission-ready by some of the finest mechanics on the planet.

USAF / Handout | Getty Images

To throw off Iranian radar and intelligence, some bombers flew west toward Guam — classic misdirection. The rest flew east, toward the real targets.

As the B-2s approached Iranian airspace, U.S. submarines launched dozens of Tomahawk missiles at Iran’s fortified nuclear facilities. Minutes later, the bombers dropped 14 MOPs — massive ordnance penetrators — each designed to drill deep into the earth and destroy underground bunkers. These bombs are the size of an F-16 and cost millions of dollars apiece. They are so accurate, I’ve been told they can hit the top of a soda can from 15,000 feet.

They were built for this mission — and we’ve been rehearsing this run for 15 years.

If the satellite imagery is accurate — and if what my sources tell me is true — the targeted nuclear sites were utterly destroyed. We’ll likely rely on the Israelis to confirm that on the ground.

This was a master class in strategy, execution, and deterrence. And it proved that only the United States could carry out a strike like this. I am very proud of our military, what we are capable of doing, and what we can accomplish.

What comes next

We don’t yet know how Iran will respond, but many of the possibilities are troubling. The Iranians could target U.S. forces across the Middle East. On Monday, Tehran launched 20 missiles at U.S. bases in Qatar, Syria, and Kuwait, to no effect. God forbid, they could also unleash Hezbollah or other terrorist proxies to strike here at home — and they just might.

Iran has also threatened to shut down the Strait of Hormuz — the artery through which nearly a fifth of the world’s oil flows. On Sunday, Iran’s parliament voted to begin the process. If the Supreme Council and the ayatollah give the go-ahead, we could see oil prices spike to $150 or even $200 a barrel.

That would be catastrophic.

The 2008 financial collapse was pushed over the edge when oil hit $130. Western economies — including ours — simply cannot sustain oil above $120 for long. If this conflict escalates and the Strait is closed, the global economy could unravel.

The strike also raises questions about regime stability. Will it spark an uprising, or will the Islamic regime respond with a brutal crackdown on dissidents?

Early signs aren’t hopeful. Reports suggest hundreds of arrests over the weekend and at least one dissident executed on charges of spying for Israel. The regime’s infamous morality police, the Gasht-e Ershad, are back on the streets. Every phone, every vehicle — monitored. The U.S. embassy in Qatar issued a shelter-in-place warning for Americans.

Russia and China both condemned the strike. On Monday, a senior Iranian official flew to Moscow to meet with Vladimir Putin. That meeting should alarm anyone paying attention. Their alliance continues to deepen — and that’s a serious concern.

Now we pray

We are either on the verge of a remarkable strategic victory or a devastating global escalation. Time will tell. But either way, President Trump didn’t start this. He inherited it — and he took decisive action.

The difference is, he did what they all said they would do. He didn’t send pallets of cash in the dead of night. He didn’t sign another failed treaty.

He acted. Now, we pray. For peace, for wisdom, and for the strength to meet whatever comes next.


This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Globalize the Intifada? Why Mamdani’s plan spells DOOM for America

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

If New Yorkers hand City Hall to Zohran Mamdani, they’re not voting for change. They’re opening the door to an alliance of socialism, Islamism, and chaos.

It only took 25 years for New York City to go from the resilient, flag-waving pride following the 9/11 attacks to a political fever dream. To quote Michael Malice, “I'm old enough to remember when New Yorkers endured 9/11 instead of voting for it.”

Malice is talking about Zohran Mamdani, a Democratic Socialist assemblyman from Queens now eyeing the mayor’s office. Mamdani, a 33-year-old state representative emerging from relative political obscurity, is now receiving substantial funding for his mayoral campaign from the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

CAIR has a long and concerning history, including being born out of the Muslim Brotherhood and named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror funding case. Why would the group have dropped $100,000 into a PAC backing Mamdani’s campaign?

Mamdani blends political Islam with Marxist economics — two ideologies that have left tens of millions dead in the 20th century alone.

Perhaps CAIR has a vested interest in Mamdani’s call to “globalize the intifada.” That’s not a call for peaceful protest. Intifada refers to historic uprisings of Muslims against what they call the “Israeli occupation of Palestine.” Suicide bombings and street violence are part of the playbook. So when Mamdani says he wants to “globalize” that, who exactly is the enemy in this global scenario? Because it sure sounds like he's saying America is the new Israel, and anyone who supports Western democracy is the new Zionist.

Mamdani tried to clean up his language by citing the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, which once used “intifada” in an Arabic-language article to describe the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. So now he’s comparing Palestinians to Jewish victims of the Nazis? If that doesn’t twist your stomach into knots, you’re not paying attention.

If you’re “globalizing” an intifada, and positioning Israel — and now America — as the Nazis, that’s not a cry for human rights. That’s a call for chaos and violence.

Rising Islamism

But hey, this is New York. Faculty members at Columbia University — where Mamdani’s own father once worked — signed a letter defending students who supported Hamas after October 7. They also contributed to Mamdani’s mayoral campaign. And his father? He blamed Ronald Reagan and the religious right for inspiring Islamic terrorism, as if the roots of 9/11 grew in Washington, not the caves of Tora Bora.

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

This isn’t about Islam as a faith. We should distinguish between Islam and Islamism. Islam is a religion followed peacefully by millions. Islamism is something entirely different — an ideology that seeks to merge mosque and state, impose Sharia law, and destroy secular liberal democracies from within. Islamism isn’t about prayer and fasting. It’s about power.

Criticizing Islamism is not Islamophobia. It is not an attack on peaceful Muslims. In fact, Muslims are often its first victims.

Islamism is misogynistic, theocratic, violent, and supremacist. It’s hostile to free speech, religious pluralism, gay rights, secularism — even to moderate Muslims. Yet somehow, the progressive left — the same left that claims to fight for feminism, LGBTQ rights, and free expression — finds itself defending candidates like Mamdani. You can’t make this stuff up.

Blending the worst ideologies

And if that weren’t enough, Mamdani also identifies as a Democratic Socialist. He blends political Islam with Marxist economics — two ideologies that have left tens of millions dead in the 20th century alone. But don’t worry, New York. I’m sure this time socialism will totally work. Just like it always didn’t.

If you’re a business owner, a parent, a person who’s saved anything, or just someone who values sanity: Get out. I’m serious. If Mamdani becomes mayor, as seems likely, then New York City will become a case study in what happens when you marry ideological extremism with political power. And it won’t be pretty.

This is about more than one mayoral race. It’s about the future of Western liberalism. It’s about drawing a bright line between faith and fanaticism, between healthy pluralism and authoritarian dogma.

Call out radicalism

We must call out political Islam the same way we call out white nationalism or any other supremacist ideology. When someone chants “globalize the intifada,” that should send a chill down your spine — whether you’re Jewish, Christian, Muslim, atheist, or anything in between.

The left may try to shame you into silence with words like “Islamophobia,” but the record is worn out. The grooves are shallow. The American people see what’s happening. And we’re not buying it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

How private stewardship could REVIVE America’s wild

Jonathan Newton / Contributor | Getty Images

The left’s idea of stewardship involves bulldozing bison and barring access. Lee’s vision puts conservation back in the hands of the people.

The media wants you to believe that Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) is trying to bulldoze Yellowstone and turn national parks into strip malls — that he’s calling for a reckless fire sale of America’s natural beauty to line developers’ pockets. That narrative is dishonest. It’s fearmongering, and, by the way, it’s wrong.

Here’s what’s really happening.

Private stewardship works. It’s local. It’s accountable. It’s incentivized.

The federal government currently owns 640 million acres of land — nearly 28% of all land in the United States. To put that into perspective, that’s more territory than France, Germany, Poland, and the United Kingdom combined.

Most of this land is west of the Mississippi River. That’s not a coincidence. In the American West, federal ownership isn’t just a bureaucratic technicality — it’s a stranglehold. States are suffocated. Locals are treated as tenants. Opportunities are choked off.

Meanwhile, people living east of the Mississippi — in places like Kentucky, Georgia, or Pennsylvania — might not even realize how little land their own states truly control. But the same policies that are plaguing the West could come for them next.

Lee isn’t proposing to auction off Yellowstone or pave over Yosemite. He’s talking about 3 million acres — that’s less than half of 1% of the federal estate. And this land isn’t your family’s favorite hiking trail. It’s remote, hard to access, and often mismanaged.

Failed management

Why was it mismanaged in the first place? Because the federal government is a terrible landlord.

Consider Yellowstone again. It’s home to the last remaining herd of genetically pure American bison — animals that haven’t been crossbred with cattle. Ranchers, myself included, would love the chance to help restore these majestic creatures on private land. But the federal government won’t allow it.

So what do they do when the herd gets too big?

They kill them. Bulldoze them into mass graves. That’s not conservation. That’s bureaucratic malpractice.

And don’t even get me started on bald eagles — majestic symbols of American freedom and a federally protected endangered species, now regularly slaughtered by wind turbines. I have pictures of piles of dead bald eagles. Where’s the outrage?

Biden’s federal land-grab

Some argue that states can’t afford to manage this land themselves. But if the states can’t afford it, how can Washington? We’re $35 trillion in debt. Entitlements are strained, infrastructure is crumbling, and the Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, and National Park Service are billions of dollars behind in basic maintenance. Roads, firebreaks, and trails are falling apart.

The Biden administration quietly embraced something called the “30 by 30” initiative, a plan to lock up 30% of all U.S. land and water under federal “conservation” by 2030. The real goal is 50% by 2050.

That entails half of the country being taken away from you, controlled not by the people who live there but by technocrats in D.C.

You think that won’t affect your ability to hunt, fish, graze cattle, or cut timber? Think again. It won’t be conservatives who stop you from building a cabin, raising cattle, or teaching your grandkids how to shoot a rifle. It’ll be the same radical environmentalists who treat land as sacred — unless it’s your truck, your deer stand, or your back yard.

Land as collateral

Moreover, the U.S. Treasury is considering putting federally owned land on the national balance sheet, listing your parks, forests, and hunting grounds as collateral.

What happens if America defaults on its debt?

David McNew / Stringer | Getty Images

Do you think our creditors won’t come calling? Imagine explaining to your kids that the lake you used to fish in is now under foreign ownership, that the forest you hunted in belongs to China.

This is not hypothetical. This is the logical conclusion of treating land like a piggy bank.

The American way

There’s a better way — and it’s the American way.

Let the people who live near the land steward it. Let ranchers, farmers, sportsmen, and local conservationists do what they’ve done for generations.

Did you know that 75% of America’s wetlands are on private land? Or that the most successful wildlife recoveries — whitetail deer, ducks, wild turkeys — didn’t come from Washington but from partnerships between private landowners and groups like Ducks Unlimited?

Private stewardship works. It’s local. It’s accountable. It’s incentivized. When you break it, you fix it. When you profit from the land, you protect it.

This is not about selling out. It’s about buying in — to freedom, to responsibility, to the principle of constitutional self-governance.

So when you hear the pundits cry foul over 3 million acres of federal land, remember: We don’t need Washington to protect our land. We need Washington to get out of the way.

Because this isn’t just about land. It’s about liberty. And once liberty is lost, it doesn’t come back easily.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.