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

July 05, 2016

Editor

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.

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)

The truth behind ‘defense’: How America was rebranded for war

PAUL J. RICHARDS / Staff | Getty Images

Donald Trump emphasizes peace through strength, reminding the world that the United States is willing to fight to win. That’s beyond ‘defense.’

President Donald Trump made headlines this week by signaling a rebrand of the Defense Department — restoring its original name, the Department of War.

At first, I was skeptical. “Defense” suggests restraint, a principle I consider vital to U.S. foreign policy. “War” suggests aggression. But for the first 158 years of the republic, that was the honest name: the Department of War.

A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

The founders never intended a permanent standing army. When conflict came — the Revolution, the War of 1812, the trenches of France, the beaches of Normandy — the nation called men to arms, fought, and then sent them home. Each campaign was temporary, targeted, and necessary.

From ‘war’ to ‘military-industrial complex’

Everything changed in 1947. President Harry Truman — facing the new reality of nuclear weapons, global tension, and two world wars within 20 years — established a full-time military and rebranded the Department of War as the Department of Defense. Americans resisted; we had never wanted a permanent army. But Truman convinced the country it was necessary.

Was the name change an early form of political correctness? A way to soften America’s image as a global aggressor? Or was it simply practical? Regardless, the move created a permanent, professional military. But it also set the stage for something Truman’s successor, President Dwight “Ike” Eisenhower, famously warned about: the military-industrial complex.

Ike, the five-star general who commanded Allied forces in World War II and stormed Normandy, delivered a harrowing warning during his farewell address: The military-industrial complex would grow powerful. Left unchecked, it could influence policy and push the nation toward unnecessary wars.

And that’s exactly what happened. The Department of Defense, with its full-time and permanent army, began spending like there was no tomorrow. Weapons were developed, deployed, and sometimes used simply to justify their existence.

Peace through strength

When Donald Trump said this week, “I don’t want to be defense only. We want defense, but we want offense too,” some people freaked out. They called him a warmonger. He isn’t. Trump is channeling a principle older than him: peace through strength. Ronald Reagan preached it; Trump is taking it a step further.

Just this week, Trump also suggested limiting nuclear missiles — hardly the considerations of a warmonger — echoing Reagan, who wanted to remove missiles from silos while keeping them deployable on planes.

The seemingly contradictory move of Trump calling for a Department of War sends a clear message: He wants Americans to recognize that our military exists not just for defense, but to project power when necessary.

Trump has pointed to something critically important: The best way to prevent war is to have a leader who knows exactly who he is and what he will do. Trump signals strength, deterrence, and resolve. You want to negotiate? Great. You don’t? Then we’ll finish the fight decisively.

That’s why the world listens to us. That’s why nations come to the table — not because Trump is reckless, but because he means what he says and says what he means. Peace under weakness invites aggression. Peace under strength commands respect.

Trump is the most anti-war president we’ve had since Jimmy Carter. But unlike Carter, Trump isn’t weak. Carter’s indecision emboldened enemies and made the world less safe. Trump’s strength makes the country stronger. He believes in peace as much as any president. But he knows peace requires readiness for war.

Names matter

When we think of “defense,” we imagine cybersecurity, spy programs, and missile shields. But when we think of “war,” we recall its harsh reality: death, destruction, and national survival. Trump is reminding us what the Department of Defense is really for: war. Not nation-building, not diplomacy disguised as military action, not endless training missions. War — full stop.

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Names matter. Words matter. They shape identity and character. A Department of Defense implies passivity, a posture of reaction. A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

So yes, I’ve changed my mind. I’m for the rebranding to the Department of War. It shows strength to the world. It reminds Americans, internally and externally, of the reality we face. The Department of Defense can no longer be a euphemism. Our military exists for war — not without deterrence, but not without strength either. And we need to stop deluding ourselves.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Unveiling the Deep State: From surveillance to censorship

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

From surveillance abuse to censorship, the deep state used state power and private institutions to suppress dissent and influence two US elections.

The term “deep state” has long been dismissed as the province of cranks and conspiracists. But the recent declassification of two critical documents — the Durham annex, released by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), and a report publicized by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard — has rendered further denial untenable.

These documents lay bare the structure and function of a bureaucratic, semi-autonomous network of agencies, contractors, nonprofits, and media entities that together constitute a parallel government operating alongside — and at times in opposition to — the duly elected one.

The ‘deep state’ is a self-reinforcing institutional machine — a decentralized, global bureaucracy whose members share ideological alignment.

The disclosures do not merely recount past abuses; they offer a schematic of how modern influence operations are conceived, coordinated, and deployed across domestic and international domains.

What they reveal is not a rogue element operating in secret, but a systematized apparatus capable of shaping elections, suppressing dissent, and laundering narratives through a transnational network of intelligence, academia, media, and philanthropic institutions.

Narrative engineering from the top

According to Gabbard’s report, a pivotal moment occurred on December 9, 2016, when the Obama White House convened its national security leadership in the Situation Room. Attendees included CIA Director John Brennan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Secretary of State John Kerry, and others.

During this meeting, the consensus view up to that point — that Russia had not manipulated the election outcome — was subordinated to new instructions.

The record states plainly: The intelligence community was directed to prepare an assessment “per the President’s request” that would frame Russia as the aggressor and then-presidential candidate Donald Trump as its preferred candidate. Notably absent was any claim that new intelligence had emerged. The motivation was political, not evidentiary.

This maneuver became the foundation for the now-discredited 2017 intelligence community assessment on Russian election interference. From that point on, U.S. intelligence agencies became not neutral evaluators of fact but active participants in constructing a public narrative designed to delegitimize the incoming administration.

Institutional and media coordination

The ODNI report and the Durham annex jointly describe a feedback loop in which intelligence is laundered through think tanks and nongovernmental organizations, then cited by media outlets as “independent verification.” At the center of this loop are agencies like the CIA, FBI, and ODNI; law firms such as Perkins Coie; and NGOs such as the Open Society Foundations.

According to the Durham annex, think tanks including the Atlantic Council, the Carnegie Endowment, and the Center for a New American Security were allegedly informed of Clinton’s 2016 plan to link Trump to Russia. These institutions, operating under the veneer of academic independence, helped diffuse the narrative into public discourse.

Media coordination was not incidental. On the very day of the aforementioned White House meeting, the Washington Post published a front-page article headlined “Obama Orders Review of Russian Hacking During Presidential Campaign” — a story that mirrored the internal shift in official narrative. The article marked the beginning of a coordinated media campaign that would amplify the Trump-Russia collusion narrative throughout the transition period.

Surveillance and suppression

Surveillance, once limited to foreign intelligence operations, was turned inward through the abuse of FISA warrants. The Steele dossier — funded by the Clinton campaign via Perkins Coie and Fusion GPS — served as the basis for wiretaps on Trump affiliates, despite being unverified and partially discredited. The FBI even altered emails to facilitate the warrants.

ROBYN BECK / Contributor | Getty Images

This capacity for internal subversion reappeared in 2020, when 51 former intelligence officials signed a letter labeling the Hunter Biden laptop story as “Russian disinformation.” According to polling, 79% of Americans believed truthful coverage of the laptop could have altered the election. The suppression of that story — now confirmed as authentic — was election interference, pure and simple.

A machine, not a ‘conspiracy theory’

The deep state is a self-reinforcing institutional machine — a decentralized, global bureaucracy whose members share ideological alignment and strategic goals.

Each node — law firms, think tanks, newsrooms, federal agencies — operates with plausible deniability. But taken together, they form a matrix of influence capable of undermining electoral legitimacy and redirecting national policy without democratic input.

The ODNI report and the Durham annex mark the first crack in the firewall shielding this machine. They expose more than a political scandal buried in the past. They lay bare a living system of elite coordination — one that demands exposure, confrontation, and ultimately dismantling.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Trump's proposal explained: Ukraine's path to peace without NATO expansion

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor | Getty Images

Strategic compromise, not absolute victory, often ensures lasting stability.

When has any country been asked to give up land it won in a war? Even if a nation is at fault, the punishment must be measured.

After World War I, Germany, the main aggressor, faced harsh penalties under the Treaty of Versailles. Germans resented the restrictions, and that resentment fueled the rise of Adolf Hitler, ultimately leading to World War II. History teaches that justice for transgressions must avoid creating conditions for future conflict.

Ukraine and Russia must choose to either continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

Russia and Ukraine now stand at a similar crossroads. They can cling to disputed land and prolong a devastating war, or they can make concessions that might secure a lasting peace. The stakes could not be higher: Tens of thousands die each month, and the choice between endless bloodshed and negotiated stability hinges on each side’s willingness to yield.

History offers a guide. In 1967, Israel faced annihilation. Surrounded by hostile armies, the nation fought back and seized large swaths of territory from Jordan, Egypt, and Syria. Yet Israel did not seek an empire. It held only the buffer zones needed for survival and returned most of the land. Security and peace, not conquest, drove its decisions.

Peace requires concessions

Secretary of State Marco Rubio says both Russia and Ukraine will need to “get something” from a peace deal. He’s right. Israel proved that survival outweighs pride. By giving up land in exchange for recognition and an end to hostilities, it stopped the cycle of war. Egypt and Israel have not fought in more than 50 years.

Russia and Ukraine now press opposing security demands. Moscow wants a buffer to block NATO. Kyiv, scarred by invasion, seeks NATO membership — a pledge that any attack would trigger collective defense by the United States and Europe.

President Donald Trump and his allies have floated a middle path: an Article 5-style guarantee without full NATO membership. Article 5, the core of NATO’s charter, declares that an attack on one is an attack on all. For Ukraine, such a pledge would act as a powerful deterrent. For Russia, it might be more palatable than NATO expansion to its border

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

Peace requires concessions. The human cost is staggering: U.S. estimates indicate 20,000 Russian soldiers died in a single month — nearly half the total U.S. casualties in Vietnam — and the toll on Ukrainians is also severe. To stop this bloodshed, both sides need to recognize reality on the ground, make difficult choices, and anchor negotiations in security and peace rather than pride.

Peace or bloodshed?

Both Russia and Ukraine claim deep historical grievances. Ukraine arguably has a stronger claim of injustice. But the question is not whose parchment is older or whose deed is more valid. The question is whether either side is willing to trade some land for the lives of thousands of innocent people. True security, not historical vindication, must guide the path forward.

History shows that punitive measures or rigid insistence on territorial claims can perpetuate cycles of war. Germany’s punishment after World War I contributed directly to World War II. By contrast, Israel’s willingness to cede land for security and recognition created enduring peace. Ukraine and Russia now face the same choice: Continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The loneliness epidemic: Are machines replacing human connection?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Seniors, children, and the isolated increasingly rely on machines for conversation, risking real relationships and the emotional depth that only humans provide.

Jill Smola is 75 years old. She’s a retiree from Orlando, Florida, and she spent her life caring for the elderly. She played games, assembled puzzles, and offered company to those who otherwise would have sat alone.

Now, she sits alone herself. Her husband has died. She has a lung condition. She can’t drive. She can’t leave her home. Weeks can pass without human interaction.

Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

But CBS News reports that she has a new companion. And she likes this companion more than her own daughter.

The companion? Artificial intelligence.

She spends five hours a day talking to her AI friend. They play games, do trivia, and just talk. She says she even prefers it to real people.

My first thought was simple: Stop this. We are losing our humanity.

But as I sat with the story, I realized something uncomfortable. Maybe we’ve already lost some of our humanity — not to AI, but to ourselves.

Outsourcing presence

How often do we know the right thing to do yet fail to act? We know we should visit the lonely. We know we should sit with someone in pain. We know what Jesus would do: Notice the forgotten, touch the untouchable, offer time and attention without outsourcing compassion.

Yet how often do we just … talk about it? On the radio, online, in lectures, in posts. We pontificate, and then we retreat.

I asked myself: What am I actually doing to close the distance between knowing and doing?

Human connection is messy. It’s inconvenient. It takes patience, humility, and endurance. AI doesn’t challenge you. It doesn’t interrupt your day. It doesn’t ask anything of you. Real people do. Real people make us confront our pride, our discomfort, our loneliness.

We’ve built an economy of convenience. We can have groceries delivered, movies streamed, answers instantly. But friendships — real relationships — are slow, inefficient, unpredictable. They happen in the blank spaces of life that we’ve been trained to ignore.

And now we’re replacing that inefficiency with machines.

AI provides comfort without challenge. It eliminates the risk of real intimacy. It’s an elegant coping mechanism for loneliness, but a poor substitute for life. If we’re not careful, the lonely won’t just be alone — they’ll be alone with an anesthetic, a shadow that never asks for anything, never interrupts, never makes them grow.

Reclaiming our humanity

We need to reclaim our humanity. Presence matters. Not theory. Not outrage. Action.

It starts small. Pull up a chair for someone who eats alone. Call a neighbor you haven’t spoken to in months. Visit a nursing home once a month — then once a week. Ask their names, hear their stories. Teach your children how to be present, to sit with someone in grief, without rushing to fix it.

Turn phones off at dinner. Make Sunday afternoons human time. Listen. Ask questions. Don’t post about it afterward. Make the act itself sacred.

Humility is central. We prefer machines because we can control them. Real people are inconvenient. They interrupt our narratives. They demand patience, forgiveness, and endurance. They make us confront ourselves.

A friend will challenge your self-image. A chatbot won’t.

Our homes are quieter. Our streets are emptier. Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

Before we worry about how AI will reshape humanity, we must first practice humanity. It can start with 15 minutes a day of undivided attention, presence, and listening.

Change usually comes when pain finally wins. Let’s not wait for that. Let’s start now. Because real connection restores faster than any machine ever will.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn's Show Prep

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

The truth behind ‘defense’: How America was rebranded for war

Donald Trump emphasizes peace through strength, reminding the world that the United States is willing to fight to win. That’s beyond ‘defense.’

A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

From ‘war’ to ‘military-industrial complex’

Peace through strength

Names matter

Unveiling the Deep State: From surveillance to censorship

From surveillance abuse to censorship, the deep state used state power and private institutions to suppress dissent and influence two US elections.

Narrative engineering from the top

Institutional and media coordination

Surveillance and suppression

A machine, not a ‘conspiracy theory’

Trump's proposal explained: Ukraine's path to peace without NATO expansion

Strategic compromise, not absolute victory, often ensures lasting stability.

Ukraine and Russia must choose to either continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

Peace requires concessions

Peace or bloodshed?

The loneliness epidemic: Are machines replacing human connection?

Seniors, children, and the isolated increasingly rely on machines for conversation, risking real relationships and the emotional depth that only humans provide.

Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

Outsourcing presence

Reclaiming our humanity