Ed Klein: Bill Clinton encouraged Hillary to resign in the wake of the Benghazi scandal

Author Ed Klein joined Glenn on radio this morning to discuss the unfolding story of what really happened in Libya the night Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans were killed. Klein made some pretty shocking allegations about the White House response to the attacks, including that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ordered more security at the embassy only to have her request denied. He also said that her husband, Bill Clinton, encouraged her to resign rather than to take the full blame for the attacks on the embassy.

Transcript of interview is below:

Now the question is Hillary Clinton knew as well. The question that the press should be asking today is who gave the order to not go in and save these guys? Who made the decision, "Do not launch a plane, do not send a Marine?" Who made the decision "Let them die"? Hillary Clinton stepped up and she said she takes full responsibility. However, Ed Klein was on with Andrew Wilkow last night and he says that the Obama administration knew and Hillary requested extra security, she requested things, she was overridden, and Bill Clinton stepped in, and I'll let him tell you the rest of the story. Ed is here. Ed Klein, welcome to the program, sir.

KLEIN: Again, how are you?

GLENN: I'm very good. I'm a little ‑‑ I'm nervous about this information because I don't know your sources, and you're the only one saying it. And this is quite a charge to make.

KLEIN: Well, I've been saying a lot of things that I've proved to be true including the fact that I put an op‑ed piece out on the Daily Caller not so long ago saying that all the traffic between Libya and the State Department was, in fact, being monitored by the National Security Council which monitors these kinds of traffic so that even before the attack, Glenn, before the attack, they knew in the National Security Council which, of course, is located in the West Wing of the White House ‑‑

GLENN: Yes.

KLEIN: ‑‑ that there was a severe security threat to this consulate, and Hillary, according to my sources ‑‑ and I've got very good sources on this, I give you my word.

GLENN: How many sources do you have?

KLEIN: I have two sources.

GLENN: Okay.

KLEIN: Two separate sources on this. And Hillary claims, and I tend to believe her, that she ordered beefed‑up security in Benghazi because it had been requested and that this order was never carried out and that furthermore when and if she is subpoenaed, along with her internal memoranda and the cable traffic from the State Department by the House committee, it will prove that she did just that.

Now, if it doesn't prove that she did just that, then they're lying to me, and the sources are ‑‑ you know, I'm not suggesting that that's impossible, but I seriously doubt it since I'm talking to legal counsel to Hillary Clinton. Legal counsel. These people don't generally lie.

PAT: Ed, if that happened, why did she then later accept full responsibility for what took place? Why would she do that?

KLEIN: This was a big debate within the Clinton camp itself, between Hillary and Bill. Bill did not want her to take full responsibility. He wanted her to, in fact, consider the possibility of even resigning if the White House continued to try to make her the scapegoat in this. Hillary and her legal team decided she should look presidential, above ‑‑ she should look moderate, she should come forward and say, "Look, I take responsibility. I'm the Secretary of State" and by comparison making the president look a hell of a lot smaller because he was ducking all responsibility and knowing full well that when the full story came out, she would be, in her words, or at least the words of her legal counsel, exonerated.

GLENN: Who ‑‑ do you have any idea, was ‑‑ when they were watching this video, do you know if she was watching the video as well?

KLEIN: No, I don't. I don't know that.

GLENN: Because we do ‑‑

KLEIN: I don't speculate and I don't know that.

GLENN: We do know that the live video was available to the State Department.

KLEIN: Absolutely.

GLENN: It was live video. Somebody was watching.

KLEIN: This should come as no surprise to anybody who realizes what our intelligence capabilities are and that cable traffic between the State Department and its embassies and consulates when it's regarding threats to the lives of our ambassadors and our State Department people, this is outline monitored in the National Security Council in the White House. This is not something new. This has been going on for probably 40, 50 years. And so to even begin to think that Tom Donilon, the National Security Council adviser, the national security adviser didn't know and didn't brief the president daily on the threat that was building in Benghazi and then after the ‑‑ during the actual battle didn't actually brief the president? I mean, if not Tom Donilon should be fired along with the president.

GLENN: What do you expect to happen in this case? Because still, the press is treating this like an "also ran" story.

KLEIN: You're right.

GLENN: Ed, do you know of a story? This ‑‑ I believe this is far bigger than Watergate

KLEIN: I think so, too.

GLENN: This is huge.

KLEIN: Because you've got dead people here.

GLENN: Yeah.

KLEIN: Dead Americans.

GLENN: Yeah. And not only dead Americans. Nobody is asking the question, why was the ‑‑ why was Ambassador Stevens in this safe house, which was a CIA safe house, protected by Libyan guards? I mean, that's crazy on September 11th.

KLEIN: Of course it is. Of course it is.

GLENN: And meeting with the general counsel of Turkey, which we are now finding out, we're running guns through Turkey to Syria. This was a gun‑running scandal. This ‑‑ there is so much here.

KLEIN: I know.

GLENN: It is ‑‑

KLEIN: And we've got only, what, 13 days until the election?

GLENN: It's terrifying. If this president can get away with this, this is truly terrifying.

KLEIN: Well, there's going to be, if not ‑‑ I think, what is it, 11:00 this morning or is it ‑‑ I'm not quite sure of the time, a White House briefing by Jay Carney. I would hope that the mainstream media will drop its pro Obama leanings and really ask these questions that you're asking. I mean, these are serious, serious questions and we need answers to these questions. I think the American people know this. I mean, we're not a stupid people. We under ‑‑ I mean, I'm talking to Glenn Beck who understands this better than anybody. People understand that this is a coverup. It's clear as a bell it's a coverup. And this has got to affect the president's chances for reelection. If it doesn't, I don't know what will.

GLENN: Nothing will.

KLEIN: That's right.

GLENN: Honestly nothing will. Ed, thank you so much. I appreciate it.

KLEIN: Oh, Glenn, it's always great to be with you. Thanks so much.

GLENN: Keep it up. Bye‑bye.

I don't know. You know, his sources are his sources. They're not our sources. And I can only claim our sources. He has been close to the Clintons. I mean, he's just said it was legal counsel. I don't know. But I ‑‑ that's the one thing that has confused me on this is the Hillary Clinton part. Because Hillary Clinton is ‑‑ they're political survivors. This is not something you survive. This is a scandal that quite honestly, if it goes where I think it goes, I ‑‑ this goes to drug‑running to our enemies. This involves the Muslim Brotherhood and Al‑Qaeda, and the Muslim Brotherhood knowingly hitting our guns and our stinger missiles. That's ‑‑ we are aiding and abetting the enemies of the United States of America and our closest allies. This is ‑‑ this goes to treason. This is so far beyond, you know, the Iran contra scandal or Watergate. This is way beyond that. Because this one aids and abets our enemies.

In light of the national conversation surrounding the rights of free speech, religion and self-defense, Mercury One is thrilled to announce a brand new initiative launching this Father's Day weekend: a three-day museum exhibition in Dallas, Texas focused on the rights and responsibilities of American citizens.

This event seeks to answer three fundamental questions:

  1. As Americans, what responsibility do we shoulder when it comes to defending our rights?
  2. Do we as a nation still agree on the core principles and values laid out by our founding fathers?
  3. How can we move forward amidst uncertainty surrounding the intent of our founding ideals?

Attendees will be able to view historical artifacts and documents that reveal what has made America unique and the most innovative nation on earth. Here's a hint: it all goes back to the core principles and values this nation was founded on as laid out in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.

Exhibits will show what the world was like before mankind had rights and how Americans realized there was a better way to govern. Throughout the weekend, Glenn Beck, David Barton, Stu Burguiere, Doc Thompson, Jeffy Fisher and Brad Staggs will lead private tours through the museum, each providing their own unique perspectives on our rights and responsibilities.

Schedule a private tour or purchase general admission ticket below:

Dates:
June 15-17

Location:

Mercury Studios

6301 Riverside Drive, Irving, TX 75039

Learn more about the event here.

About Mercury One: Mercury One is a 501(c)(3) charity founded in 2011 by Glenn Beck. Mercury One was built to inspire the world in the same way the United States space program shaped America's national destiny and the world. The organization seeks to restore the human spirit by helping individuals and communities help themselves through honor, faith, courage, hope and love. In the words of Glenn Beck:

We don't stand between government aid and people in need. We stand with people in need so they no longer need the government

Some of Mercury One's core initiatives include assisting our nation's veterans, providing aid to those in crisis and restoring the lives of Christians and other persecuted religious minorities. When evil prevails, the best way to overcome it is for regular people to do good. Mercury One is committed to helping sustain the good actions of regular people who want to make a difference through humanitarian aid and education initiatives. Mercury One will stand, speak and act when no one else will.

Support Mercury One's mission to restore the human spirit by making an online donation or calling 972-499-4747. Together, we can make a difference.

What happened?

A New York judge ruled Tuesday that a 30-year-old still living in his parents' home must move out, CNN reported.

Failure to launch …

Michael Rotondo, who had been living in a room in his parents' house for eight years, claims that he is owed a six-month notice even though they gave him five notices about moving out and offered to help him find a place and to help pay for repairs on his car.

RELATED: It's sad 'free-range parenting' has to be legislated, it used to be common sense

“I think the notice is sufficient," New York State Supreme Court Judge Donald Greenwood said.

What did the son say?

Rotondo “has never been expected to contribute to household expenses, or assisted with chores and the maintenance of the premises, and claims that this is simply a component of his living agreement," he claimed in court filings.

He told reporters that he plans to appeal the “ridiculous" ruling.

Reform Conservatism and Reaganomics: A middle road?

SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

Senator Marco Rubio broke Republican ranks recently when he criticized the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act by stating that “there's no evidence whatsoever that the money's been massively poured back into the American worker." Rubio is wrong on this point, as millions of workers have received major raises, while the corporate tax cuts have led to a spike in capital expenditure (investment on new projects) of 39 percent. However, the Florida senator is revisiting an idea that was front and center in the conservative movement before Donald Trump rode down an escalator in June of 2015: reform conservatism.

RELATED: The problem with asking what has conservatism conserved

The "reformicons," like Rubio, supported moving away from conservative or supply-side orthodoxy and toward policies such as the expansion of the child and earned income tax credits. On the other hand, longstanding conservative economic theory indicates that corporate tax cuts, by lowering disincentives on investment, will lead to long-run economic growth that will end up being much more beneficial to the middle class than tax credits.

But asking people to choose between free market economic orthodoxy and policies guided towards addressing inequality and the concerns of the middle class is a false dichotomy.

Instead of advocating policies that many conservatives might dismiss as redistributionist, reformicons should look at the ways government action hinders economic opportunity and exacerbates income inequality. Changing policies that worsen inequality satisfies limited government conservatives' desire for free markets and reformicons' quest for a more egalitarian America. Furthermore, pushing for market policies that reduce the unequal distribution of wealth would help attract left-leaning people and millennials to small government principles.

Criminal justice reform is an area that reformicons and free marketers should come together around. The drug war has been a disaster, and the burden of this misguided government approach have fallen on impoverished minority communities disproportionately, in the form of mass incarceration and lower social mobility. Not only has the drug war been terrible for these communities, it's proved costly to the taxpayer––well over a trillion dollars has gone into the drug war since its inception, and $80 billion dollars a year goes into mass incarceration.

Prioritizing retraining and rehabilitation instead of overcriminalization would help address inequality, fitting reformicons' goals, and promote a better-trained workforce and lower government spending, appealing to basic conservative preferences.

Government regulations tend to disproportionately hurt small businesses and new or would-be entrepreneurs. In no area is this more egregious than occupational licensing––the practice of requiring a government-issued license to perform a job. The percentage of jobs that require licenses has risen from five percent to 30 percent since 1950. Ostensibly justified by public health concerns, occupational licensing laws have, broadly, been shown to neither promote public health nor improve the quality of service. Instead, they serve to provide a 15 percent wage boost to licensed barbers and florists, while, thanks to the hundreds of hours and expensive fees required to attain the licenses, suppressing low-income entrepreneurship, and costing the economy $200 billion dollars annually.

Those economic losses tend to primarily hurt low-income people who both can't start businesses and have to pay more for essential services. Rolling back occupational licenses will satisfy the business wing's desire for deregulation and a more free market and the reformicons' support for addressing income inequality and increasing opportunity.

The favoritism at play in the complex tax code perpetuates inequality.

Tax expenditures form another opportunity for common ground between the Rubio types and the mainstream. Tax deductions and exclusions, both on the individual and corporate sides of the tax code, remain in place after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Itemized deductions on the individual side disproportionately benefit the wealthy, while corporate tax expenditures help well-connected corporations and sectors, such as the fossil fuel industry.

The favoritism at play in the complex tax code perpetuates inequality. Additionally, a more complicated tax code is less conducive to economic growth than one with lower tax rates and fewer exemptions. Therefore, a simpler tax code with fewer deductions and exclusions would not only create a more level playing field, as the reformicons desire, but also additional economic growth.

A forward-thinking economic program for the Republican Party should marry the best ideas put forward by both supply-siders and reform conservatives. It's possible to take the issues of income inequality and lack of social mobility seriously, while also keeping mainstay conservative economic ideas about the importance of less cumbersome regulations and lower taxes.

Alex Muresianu is a Young Voices Advocate studying economics at Tufts University. He is a contributor for Lone Conservative, and his writing has appeared in Townhall and The Daily Caller. He can be found on Twitter @ahardtospell.

Is this what inclusivity and tolerance look like? Fox News host Tomi Lahren was at a weekend brunch with her mom in Minnesota when other patrons started yelling obscenities and harassing her. After a confrontation, someone threw a drink at her, the moment captured on video for social media.

RELATED: Glenn Addresses Tomi Lahren's Pro-Choice Stance on 'The View'

On today's show, Pat and Jeffy talked about this uncomfortable moment and why it shows that supposedly “tolerant" liberals have to resort to physical violence in response to ideas they don't like.