Santorum speaks to Glenn about his surge in Iowa

January 03, 2012

Writer

One man who has experienced a sudden surge in Iowa the past few days has been Rick Santorum, a candidate that Glenn has praised in the past. In fact, Glenn said that the two candidates he would vote for today would be Santorum and Bachmann, with Bachmann narrowly ahead of Santorum. Apparently others are realizing the value of a Rick Santorum as he is currently in the top three contenders in the polls alongside Mitt Romney and Ron Paul.

Read the transcript below:

GLENN: Today live from Dallas, Texas, the Lone Star state, tonight we begin our broadcast from GBTV on our brand new sound stage. We will show it to you. But today all eyes are on Iowa. That's why new frontrunner or the guy surging, Rick Santorum is on with us, now.

VOICE: Things are going back in a very healthy direction.

GLENN: Rick Santorum in Iowa, I think he could win tonight. I think it's because we didn't endorse him.

STU: (Laughing).

GLENN: Whenever that happens, they surge ahead. It is Rick Santorum, a good friend, a good friend of the program and a guy who is probably the strongest on the Middle East out there. Rick, how are you, sir?

SANTORUM: I'm doing great, Glenn. Thanks so much for having me on and thanks for all of the help that you've given me by giving me the opportunity to come on your program and for saying the kind things you have about me. I appreciate it very much.

GLENN: I will tell you this: We gave the opportunity to Newt Gingrich and it's really what you do with the time.

PAT: (Laughing).

GLENN: Rick, I want to ask

SANTORUM: Okay. I'll leave it at that.

GLENN: Yeah. I want to ask you a couple of a couple of tough questions because and you know that I'm your friend and I hope we're friends forever, but we're not electing a friend. We're electing the president of the United States and if you can't handle the Glenn Beck program, you know, what are you going to do. You shouldn't be the president of the United States. So let me ask you some tough questions. You supported Pat Toomey

PAT: No. Other way around.

GLENN: No, no.

SANTORUM: No. Other way around.

GLENN: Yeah, Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey. What the hell is wrong with you?

PAT: (Laughing.) That's about as direct as it gets right there.

SANTORUM: I like you know, when I was right after that happened in Pennsylvania, the question I got more than "how are you today" was "Why are you support Specter." And the answer to that question is it's a little complex but it's I did it because I thought it was in the best interest of the cause I believed in. As you know, Glenn, the most powerful branch of government unfortunately today is the is the judiciary and the Supreme Court and we were the 51/49 majority at the time in the United States Senate and President Bush was running for reelection and we believed there would be two and maybe even three Supreme Court nominees and Arlen Specter was slated to be chairman of the judiciary committee. Specter as you know from the days of Bork and Thomas was really the decider. If Specter supported the candidate for the court, he would pass. If he didn't, they wouldn't. That's because moderate Republicans and conservative Democrats basically followed his lead. And he came to me at the end of the campaign and asked for help. I had not been active in the campaign at all and he asked for help and I said, you know, Arlen, I've got concerns. I said, you're going to be chairman of the judiciary committee. He said I said, I'm not comfortable. He said, well, he says, I'll support whatever nominee the president puts up as long as I'm properly consulted as chairman of the committee and I'll make sure those nominations get through. And for me two to three Supreme Court justices for 30 years on the court was probably the most important thing we could have gotten out of that election. We had a 51 49 majority. Specter would hold onto the seat and guarantee the Supreme Court. We got Roberts, and I all the folks listening, go and read the reports. Read the news stories when Justice Alito's confirmation. There were repeated series of attacks on Alito. Every single time those attacks were waged, Arlen Specter was the first guy to jump up and knock them down. And I can say without question that Alito would not be on the court. It was a close vote. He would not have been on the court and we would not have a 5 4, well well, at least four and a half strong conservatives on that court right now and Alito being one of the best of them. So I

GLENN: Okay. All right. You're pissing me off because I really

SANTORUM: I made a decision which I felt was best. And let me just say this, Glenn. I knew it would cost I knew people would question me saying, oh, you're selling out, you're being for the liberal guy. No, I was being for what I thought was in the best interest of our country and I was willing to take the heat and continue to take the heat for doing so.

GLENN: Okay.

PAT: But it was based solely on Supreme Court decisions? Because the guy is not a conservative like you are.

SANTORUM: No, he's no, look, he's not a conservative.

PAT: No.

SANTORUM: That, you know, he did support some things and changed his opinion. He supported the partial birth abortion ban which he know he hadn't in the past and, you know, I will say that when I asked him for his help and support on key issues, most of the time he did help us out. But look, I understand this was going to be a he's not a conservative. I mean, I agree with that. I mean, he eventually switched to become a Democrat.

GLENN: He was a Democrat in the beginning.

PAT: But

PAT: I didn't leave the Republican Party, Glenn. The Republican Party left me.

STU: Rick, this is interesting because I think I understand your point on the Supreme Court and I think it's valid and Bush was fantastic

GLENN: It is.

STU: with Supreme Court justices. But isn't the point that isn't your point for endorsing Specter there because you believe he was more electable than Toomey who is the conservative, which is the same point people make against you with Romney now?

GLENN: No. No, he's not making that.

SANTORUM: No, I'm not saying that. Look, I don't know, Pat Toomey might have been able to won, he might not have been. Certainly would have been harder. You know, Bush lost the State of Pennsylvania that year in 2004. He lost it by 2 or 3 points. You know, Pat Toomey didn't get elected to the Senate. But I was got elected in the Senate, a pretty good year for Republican which 2004 was not. And the gubernatorial candidates for Pennsylvania, our candidate for governor who led the ticket like Bush would have won by 10 and Pat won by 1. So, you know, I don't know whether he would have won or not but it would have been certainly a much harder race. I don't think there's any question about that. And with a one seat majority, I was looking for something where I could, if I could say, look, by supporting Specter, we could guarantee Supreme Court nominees, that's a pretty good that's a pretty good reason to support someone in my opinion.

GLENN: Okay. Rick, earmarks.

SANTORUM: Yeah.

GLENN: You've defended Rick Perry brought this up and you defended earmarks. How can you possibly

SANTORUM: Yeah, what I said was that for 200 plus years in American history, if you look at the Constitution, Glenn, the Constitution says that the congress shall appropriate money. The congress is supposed to spend money, not the president. The congress spends this money. What happened was there was abuse. And there was abuse that led to higher spending. And when and people justifiably got upset. But the idea that congress shouldn't allocate money is against what the Constitution, in fact, requires the congress to do. What happened is that congress were using earmarks to get folks to vote for higher spending, which is what exploded this deficit in the last few years after I left the United States Senate. And so what I've said is

GLENN: No, no, no, no. No, no, no.

SANTORUM: That when that happened and Pat Toomey tied together what?

GLENN: No, no. No, no. I'm not going to let you get away I'm not going to let you get away with, "And then I left the Senate and spending was..." spending has been out of control for 20, 30 years.

SANTORUM: I would agree, but it's look at the rates of spending in discretionary accounts in Washington over the past 15 years and you will see, you know, low single digit increases in discretionary spending up until the time Obama came in and they exploded. And that's when people got all bent out of shape about earmarks and there was a rally, legitimately so to end it because they were being used to get people to vote for that higher spending. So look, I've said I'll support a ban of earmarks, and I do support a ban of earmarks. I will say that Jim DeMint who led this charge also supported earmarks. Ron Paul supported earmarks. Because, in fact, I don't know of too many people who didn't do earmarks because all of us thought it was our responsibility under the Constitution and representing our several states to make sure that when federal dollars were spent, they were allocated equally among the states as our job was to do.

GLENN: All right. You are and I've said this for years. You're probably the only guy that really I can't say that. You're one of the leaders on really understanding what is happening in the Middle East, what we face, the threat from Iran. We've talked about this, Rick, for what? Five years, seven years?

SANTORUM: Oh, more than that, Glenn. We've been talking about it since, I remember at least 2005 and maybe before.

GLENN: Yeah. So we I mean, we've been talking about this for a very long time. You knew who the twelfth imam was before anybody knew who it was. However, let me go here: I saw that you which I agree with. I saw that you said this weekend that you would launch a strike against Iran if they have nuclear weapons. They're in the straits of

SANTORUM: Well, no, I said I would launch a

GLENN: Make sure they don't.

SANTORUM: Look, I laid out a variety of things that I would do. And I said if all those things failed, then you have to set an ultimatum and say that, you know, we can't have a policy, Glenn, that says Iran shouldn't get a nuclear weapon and then don't do anything to stop them from getting it.

GLENN: Correct.

SANTORUM: That is the paper tiger and weakness because as you know, as you know the Middle East, the weak course is not one that's particularly well respected.

GLENN: No.

SANTORUM: And so when you say that you have a policy, which we do, which every presidential candidate does except Ron Paul that says that Iran should not get a nuclear weapon, then you better have a policy that, you know, actually tactical things that you're going to do to make sure that doesn't happen.

GLENN: Okay.

SANTORUM: And I laid them out in sequence. The last of the sequence was if all else fails, then we have to be very public that we will work with the State of Israel and that we will use whatever force is necessary, air strikes, to degrade those facilities.

GLENN: Okay.

SANTORUM: Before they get a nuclear weapon.

GLENN: Here's the here's the thing. We are stretched so thin financially.

SANTORUM: We will be stretched even more thin if Iran has a nuclear weapon, Glenn, and starts launching attacks in the Middle East, against the State of Israel, in this country. You think the economy's struggling now, just wait until we have a series of terrorist attacks because Iran will feel impervious to being attacked because they have a nuclear weapon.

GLENN: I know.

SANTORUM: That is something that

GLENN: You and I, Rick, I'm playing devil's advocate here. I cannot there is a strong part of me that says enough of the wars. Enough of the wars. What are we fighting? Five wars right now?

SANTORUM: We're trying to prevent a war here. We're trying to prevent one of the most nefarious the most nefarious regime in the entire world from you know, this is the equivalent as you know, Glenn, you know this. This is the equivalent of Al Qaeda or maybe even worse than Al Qaeda being in control of a country with enormous resources and capability.

GLENN: No, this is Hitler.

SANTORUM: We're trying to prevent them from having the failsafe so they can go out and reign terror around the world.

GLENN: The the idea that Iran is in the Straits of Hormuz right now firing missiles

SANTORUM: They think we're weak. They think we won't do anything. They're testing. They continue to prod, poke and test the will of the American president and he continues to show that he is going to be complacent and allow them to have their way. That's what this president has shown from the attempted attacks here in this country on a Saudi ambassador, the improvised explosive devices that have been used for years now to kill our troops that are manufactured in Iran. Iran as you saw on the front page of the Washington Post yesterday with and you've talked about this on your program with its influence now growing in Central and South America, we can sit on the sidelines and say, well, we'll just, you know, we'll let them go ahead and do this because we're tired of war. And then we will really be tired of war because it will be on our shores.

PAT: For so long now we've been asking you how you turn this thing around from the 1 to 2% that you were receiving and now here you are suddenly surging. This has got to feel pretty good. You are at 15% according to the latest poll. You have a real legitimate shot at winning this. This would really give you a shot in the arm if you finish in, I'd say the top three, wouldn't it?

SANTORUM: Yeah, I think the top three is what we're shooting for. I mean, obviously 10, 12 days ago we were in last place and we were getting the question that we got here on the program last time I was on: What's wrong with you, Rick? I mean, you're not doing anything, it's not happening. I'd like to support you, but... and I've always said, you know, I'm going to go out and do what I've done here, Glenn. I mean, I love you, I really do. I love you as a brother and I agree with you on 90 plus percent of the things but, you know, what, Glenn, when we disagree, I'm not going to sugar coat it to you. I'm going to tell you exactly what I believe and I respect the fact that, you know, you have a different opinion on things but I also respect you enough to be able to tell you, you know, that I what I think and lay it all out there. And the people of Iowa, I've heard this repeatedly. They said, you know what, I don't agree with you on everything but I think you are an honest guy, you actually are saying what you believe is the right thing to do, and I trust you. And nobody I mean, we can't all run for president. Therefore there's no perfect candidate. And so you take what you think is the best and when you disagree, you at least understand that they are doing it for the reasons they believe in their heart is the right thing to do. And that's what I'm trying to lay out here in Iowa, and the people of Iowa have responded to it.

GLENN: Good luck tonight, Rick. Good luck.

SANTORUM: Thank you, my friend, and I really appreciate it. By the way, I do appreciate, I mean this all sincerity. I appreciate you asking me the tough questions and the things that we disagree on because, you know, if you don't put those out there, then people can go and think what they want. And there are disagreements but I hope you believe as I hope you know this

GLENN: I wouldn't

SANTORUM: I'm doing it because I do believe it's the best thing for the country.

GLENN: I wouldn't lose a second of time worrying about what you were doing behind anybody's back or behind closed doors. Not one second of time would I worry about that.

SANTORUM: Thank you, my friend.

GLENN: God bless you.

SANTORUM: And if you go to RickSantorum.com and help us out, I'd appreciate it. Thank you.

Washington Post EXPOSED: How Watergate editors almost published a fake Pulitzer Prize-winning story

Episode 6 of Glenn’s new history podcast series The Beck Story releases this Saturday.

This latest installment explores the history of Left-wing bias in mainstream media. Like every episode of this series, episode 6 is jam-packed with historical detail, but you can’t squeeze in every story, so some inevitably get cut from the final version. Part of this episode involves the late Ben Bradlee, who was the legendary editor of the Washington Post. Bradlee is legendary mostly because of the Watergate investigation that was conducted on his watch by two young reporters named Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. Bradlee, Woodward, and Bernstein became celebrities after the release of the book and movie based on their investigation called All the President’s Men.

But there is another true story about the Washington Post that you probably won’t see any time soon at a theater near you.

In 1980, Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee wanted to expand the Post’s readership in the black community. The paper made an effort to hire more minority journalists, like Janet Cooke, a black female reporter from Ohio. Cooke was an aggressive reporter and a good writer. She was a fast-rising star on a staff already full of stars. The Post had a very competitive environment and Cooke desperately wanted to win a Pulitzer Prize.

Readers were hooked. And outraged.

When Cooke was asked to work on a story about the D.C. area’s growing heroin problem, she saw her chance to win that Pulitzer. As she interviewed people in black neighborhoods that were hardest hit by the heroin epidemic, she was appalled to learn that even some children were heroin addicts. When she learned about an eight-year-old heroin addict named Jimmy, she knew she had her hook. His heartbreaking story would surely be her ticket to a Pulitzer.

Cooke wrote her feature story, titling it, “Jimmy’s World.” It blew away her editors at the Post, including Bob Woodward, who by then was Assistant Managing Editor. “Jimmy’s World” would be a front-page story:

'Jimmy is 8 years old and a third-generation heroin addict,' Cooke’s story began, 'a precocious little boy with sandy hair, velvety brown eyes and needle marks freckling the baby-smooth skin of his thin brown arms. He nestles in a large, beige reclining chair in the living room of his comfortably furnished home in Southeast Washington. There is an almost cherubic expression on his small, round face as he talks about life – clothes, money, the Baltimore Orioles and heroin. He has been an addict since the age of 5.'

Readers were hooked. And outraged. The mayor’s office instructed the police to immediately search for Jimmy and get him medical treatment. But no one was able to locate Jimmy. Cooke wasn’t surprised. She told her editors at the Post that she had only been able to interview Jimmy and his mother by promising them anonymity. She also revealed that the mother’s boyfriend had threatened Cooke’s life if the police discovered Jimmy’s whereabouts.

A few months later, Cooke’s hard work paid off and her dream came true – her story was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for feature writing. Cooke had to submit some autobiographical information to the Prize committee, but there was a slight snag. The committee contacted the Post when they couldn’t verify that Cooke had graduated magna cum laude from Vassar College. Turns out she only attended Vassar her freshman year. She actually graduated from the University of Toledo with a B.A. degree, not with a master’s degree as she told the Pulitzer committee.

Cooke’s editors summoned her for an explanation. Unfortunately for Cooke and the Washington Post, her resume flubs were the least of her lies. After hours of grilling, Cooke finally confessed that “Jimmy’s World” was entirely made up. Jimmy did not exist.

The Pulitzer committee withdrew its prize and Cooke resigned in shame. The Washington Post, the paper that uncovered Watergate – the biggest political scandal in American history – failed to even vet Cooke’s resume. Then it published a front-page, Pulitzer Prize-winning feature story that was 100 percent made up.

Remarkably, neither Ben Bradlee nor Bob Woodward resigned over the incident. It was a different time, but also, the halo of All the President’s Men probably saved them.

Don’t miss the first five episodes of The Beck Story, which are available now. And look for Episode 6 this Saturday, wherever you get your podcasts.

5 Democrats who have endorsed Kamala (and two who haven't)

Zach Gibson / Stringer, Brandon Bell / Staff | Getty Images

With Biden removed from the 2024 election and only a month to find a replacement before the DNC, Democrats continue to fall in line and back Vice President Kamala Harris to headline the party's ticket. Her proximity and familiarity with the Biden campaign along with an endorsement from Biden sets Harris up to step into Biden's shoes and preserve the momentum from his campaign.

Glenn doesn't think Kamala Harris is likely to survive as the assumed Democratic nominee, and once the DNC starts, anything could happen. Plenty of powerful and important Democrats have rallied around Harris over the last few days, but there have been some crucial exemptions. Here are five democrats that have thrown their name behind Harris, and two SHOCKING names that didn't...

Sen. Dick Durbin: ENDORSED

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

High-ranking Senate Democrat Dick Durbin officially put in his support for Harris in a statement that came out the day after Biden stepped down: “I’m proud to endorse my former Senate colleague and good friend, Vice President Kamala Harris . . . our nation needs to continue moving forward with unity and not MAGA chaos. Vice President Harris was a critical partner in building the Biden record over the past four years . . . Count me in with Kamala Harris for President.”

Michigan Gov. Whitmer: ENDORSED

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

The Monday after Biden stepped down from the presidential VP hopeful, Gretchen Whitmer released the following statement on X: “Today, I am fired up to endorse Kamala Harris for president of the United States [...] In Vice President Harris, Michigan voters have a presidential candidate they can count on to focus on lowering their costs, restoring their freedoms, bringing jobs and supply chains back home from overseas, and building an economy that works for working people.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: ENDORSED

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

Mere hours after Joe Biden made his announcement, AOC hopped on X and made the following post showing her support: "Kamala Harris will be the next President of the United States. I pledge my full support to ensure her victory in November. Now more than ever, it is crucial that our party and country swiftly unite to defeat Donald Trump and the threat to American democracy. Let’s get to work."

Rep. Nancy Pelosi: ENDORSED

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is arguably one of the most influential democrats, backed Harris's campaign with the following statement given the day after Biden's decision: “I have full confidence she will lead us to victory in November . . . My enthusiastic support for Kamala Harris for President is official, personal, and political.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren: ENDORSED

Drew Angerer / Stringer | Getty Images

Massasschesets Senator Elizabeth Warren was quick to endorse Kamala, releasing the following statement shortly after Harris placed her presidential bid: "I endorse Kamala Harris for President. She is a proven fighter who has been a national leader in safeguarding consumers and protecting access to abortion. As a former prosecutor, she can press a forceful case against allowing Donald Trump to regain the White House. We have many talented people in our party, but Vice President Harris is the person who was chosen by the voters to succeed Joe Biden if needed. She can unite our party, take on Donald Trump, and win in November."

Former President Barack Obama: DID NOT ENDORSE

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Former President Barack Obama wasted no time releasing the following statement which glaringly omits any support for Harris or any other candidate. Instead, he suggests someone will be chosen at the DNC in August: "We will be navigating uncharted waters in the days ahead. But I have extraordinary confidence that the leaders of our party will be able to create a process from which an outstanding nominee emerges. I believe that Joe Biden's vision of a generous, prosperous, and united America that provides opportunity for everyone will be on full display at the Democratic Convention in August. And I expect that every single one of us are prepared to carry that message of hope and progress forward into November and beyond."

Prominent Democratic Donor John Morgan: DID NOT ENDORSE

AP Photo/John Raoux

Prominent and wealthy Florida lawyer and democrat donor John Morgan was clearly very pessimistic about Kamala's odds aginst Trump when he gave the following statement: “You have to be enthusiastic or hoping for a political appointment to be asking friends for money. I am neither. It’s others turn now . . . The donors holding the 90 million can release those funds in the morning. It’s all yours. You can keep my million. And good luck . . . [Harris] would not be my first choice, but it’s a done deal.”

How did Trump's would-be assassin get past Secret Service?

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Former President Donald Trump on Saturday was targeted in an assassination attempt during a campaign rally in Pennsylvania. It occurred just after 6:10 p.m. while Trump was delivering his speech.

Here are the details of the “official” story. The shooter was Thomas Matthew Crooks. He was 20 years old from Bethel Park, Pennsylvania. He used an AR-15 rifle and managed to reach the rooftop of a nearby building unnoticed. The Secret Service's counter-response team responded swiftly, according to "the facts," killing Crooks and preventing further harm.

Did it though? That’s what the official story says, so far, but calling this a mere lapse in security by Secret Service doesn't add up. There are some glaring questions that need to be answered.

If Trump had been killed on Saturday, we would be in a civil war today. We would have seen for the first time the president's brains splattered on live television, and because of the details of this, I have a hard time thinking it wouldn't have been viewed as JFK 2.0.

How does someone sneak a rifle onto the rally grounds? How does someone even know that that building is there? How is it that Thomas Matthew Crooks was acting so weird and pacing in front of the metal detectors, and no one seemed to notice? People tried to follow him, but, oops, he got away.

How could the kid possibly even think that the highest ground at the venue wouldn't be watched? If I were Crooks, my first guess would be, "That’s the one place I shouldn't crawl up to with a rifle because there's most definitely going to be Secret Service there." Why wasn't anyone there? Why wasn't anyone watching it? Nobody except the shooter decided that the highest ground with the best view of the rally would be the greatest vulnerability to Trump’s safety.

Moreover, a handy ladder just happened to be there. Are we supposed to believe that nobody in the Secret Service, none of the drones, none of the things we pay millions of dollars for caught him? How did he get a ladder there? If the ladder was there, was it always there? Why was the ladder there? Secret Service welds manhole covers closed when a president drives down a road. How was there a ladder sitting around, ready to climb up to the highest ground at the venue, and the Secret Service failed to take it away?

There is plenty of video of eyewitnesses yelling that there was a guy with a rifle climbing up on a ladder to the roof for at least 120 seconds before the first shot was fired. Why were the police looking for him while Secret Service wasn't? Why did the sniper have him in his sights for over a minute before he took a shot? Why did a cop climb up the ladder to look around? When Thomas Matthew Cooks pointed a gun at him, he then ducked and came down off the ladder. Did he call anyone to warn that this young man had a rifle within range of the president?

How is it the Secret Service has a female bodyguard who doesn't even reach Trump's nipples? How was she going to guard the president's body with hers? How is it another female Secret Service agent pulled her gun out a good four minutes too late, then looked around, apparently not knowing what to do? She then couldn't even get the pistol back into the holster because she's a Melissa McCarthy body double. I don't think it's a good idea to have Melissa McCarthy guarding the president.

Here’s the critical question now: Who trusts the FBI with the shooter’s computer? Will his hard drive get filed with the Nashville manifesto? How is it that the Secret Service almost didn't have snipers at all but decided to supply them only one day before the rally because all the local resources were going to be put on Jill Biden? I want Jill Biden safe, of course. I want Jill Biden to have what the first lady should have for security, but you can’t hire a few extra guys to make sure our candidates are safe?

How is it that we have a Secret Service director, Kimberly Cheatle, whose experience is literally guarding two liters of Squirt and spicy Doritos? Did you know that's her background? She's in charge of the United States Secret Service, and her last job was as the head of security for Pepsi.

This is a game, and that's what makes this sick. This is a joke. There are people in our country who thought it was OK to post themselves screaming about the shooter’s incompetence: “How do you miss that shot?” Do you realize how close we came to another JFK? If the president hadn't turned his head at the exact moment he did, it would have gone into the center of his head, and we would be a different country today.

Now, Joe Biden is also saying that we shouldn't make assumptions about the motive of the shooter. Well, I think we can assume one thing: He wanted to kill the Republican presidential candidate. Can we agree on that at least? Can we assume that much?

How can the media even think of blaming Trump for the rhetoric when the Democrats and the media constantly call him literally worse than Hitler who must be stopped at all costs?

These questions need to be answered if we want to know the truth behind what could have been one of the most consequential days in U.S. history. Yet, the FBI has its hands clasped on all the sources that could point to the truth. There must be an independent investigation to get to the bottom of these glaring “mistakes.”

POLL: Do you think Trump is going to win the election?

Kevin Dietsch / Staff, Chip Somodevilla / Staff, Kevin Dietsch / Staff | Getty Image

It feels like all of the tension that has been building over the last four years has finally burst to the surface over the past month. Many predicted 2024 was going to be one of the most important and tumultuous elections in our lifetimes, but the last two weeks will go down in the history books. And it's not over yet.

The Democratic National Convention is in August, and while Kamala seems to be the likely candidate to replace Biden, anything could happen in Chicago. And if Biden is too old to campaign, isn't he too old to be president? Glenn doesn't think he'll make it as President through January, but who knows?

There is a lot of uncertainty that surrounds the current political landscape. Trump came out of the attempted assassination, and the RNC is looking stronger than ever, but who knows what tricks the Democrats have up their sleeves? Let us know your predictions in the poll below:

Glenn's Show Prep

Santorum speaks to Glenn about his surge in Iowa

Washington Post EXPOSED: How Watergate editors almost published a fake Pulitzer Prize-winning story

Readers were hooked. And outraged.

5 Democrats who have endorsed Kamala (and two who haven't)

Sen. Dick Durbin: ENDORSED

Michigan Gov. Whitmer: ENDORSED

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: ENDORSED

Rep. Nancy Pelosi: ENDORSED

Sen. Elizabeth Warren: ENDORSED

Former President Barack Obama: DID NOT ENDORSE

Prominent Democratic Donor John Morgan: DID NOT ENDORSE

How did Trump's would-be assassin get past Secret Service?

POLL: Do you think Trump is going to win the election?

Is Trump going to win the election?

Did the assassination attempt increase Trump's chances at winning in November?

Did Trump's pick of J.D. Vance help his odds?

Did the Trump-Biden debate in June help Trump's chances?

Did Biden's resignation from the election hand Trump a victory in November?

Do the Democrats have any chance of winning this election?