Beck: Panetta testimony was cover for Obama

So why in the world is Panetta so freely disassociating Obama from the night of Sept 11? It seems quite damaging to the President and the story he’s presented so far on his involvement with Benghazi. Glenn’s theory is that another hammer is about to drop - something even worse - that the President needs cover from. What news is coming?

"Let's just play this out. At first nobody knew anything. We were getting information as quickly as we can, right?" Glenn said.

"And I said at the time: Why are there no pictures like there was with Bin Laden? Why are there no pictures of the situation room? The Secretary of Defense, while it's going on, we have drones up in the sky. It's easy to deploy a drone. You know we had drones up in the sky of Libya at this time. It goes ‑‑ it's beyond reason to think we didn't."

"So the State Department originally said 'I'm watching on a monitor realtime.' It is beyond reason to think that this nation on September 11th in the greatest hot spot in the world, that we don't have ‑‑ especially after all the threats that we now know came in, that we don't have a drone somewhere in the area. We know we have open lines of communication for realtime information. We know that former Navy SEALs were in the area and they were told to stand down, but they heard about it. They went and joined the fight. They lost their lives. But they went on their own accord are. So we know that people knew what was going on, and we were told that the president was engaged and the president, you know, just didn't have the information fast enough."

"Then we're told, when we say ask ‑ where was (Obama)? Where was he? Can we find out, what was the timetable? Can we give ‑‑ you know where the president is at all times."

"There is a record of where the president is at all times. Can I tell you something? When I am ‑‑ when I am driving, I have a security detail. And when I'm driving ‑‑ I'm not the president of the United States. When I'm driving, there are certain checkpoints, and the guys look down at their cellphone and they push a button and it says, checkpoint 1, checkpoint 2. So I think there's like five of them between here and my house. That is communicated to the other security detail that's not with me and to the security headquarters in Los Angeles. And so they are caught ‑‑ they know when I leave and they know if you don't hit that checkpoint from this time to this time, call. Because there's a problem. Okay. That's my security detail. So you know the president of the United States, you know exactly where he is within six feet at any given time, and there's record of it."

"Well, they don't know where he is. They don't know where the president is."

"Then they send out pictures to show that he's engaged, having meetings: This is where the president was on September 11th. Remember the pictures that came out, make him look very presidential? He's meeting with the generals and Panetta and everything else. Okay. To make us feel like he was engaged and watching everything."

"Now Panetta comes out and says, 'Oh, well, that's just from a meeting. We met with him for just a few minutes and we told him and he said, well, you guys handle it.' I don't even believe that's constitutional. Do you? Do you have a ‑‑ I don't even know if that's constitutional. 'You guys handle it.' He didn't even ask what assets we have. Nothing. 'You guys do it.' And then they left him alone from 5:30 for the rest of the night. And he doesn't check in."

"Why would they now make the president look like he wasn't engaged at all, that he wasn't a part of this?"

"Remember the president wants to be viewed as a guy who killed Osama Bin Laden. So why would you do that? Why would you make it look like he doesn't ‑‑ had nothing to do with it?"

"Okay. Here's why: Because as bad as that is, we'll play some audio for you here in a minute from Rand Paul. Rand Paul is the first guy that I have heard in the public eye that has said, yes, they were running drugs ‑‑ or guns. I told you that Week 1 when this happened: They're running guns. Those guns that had just suddenly disappeared and all those weapons of mass destruction, they suddenly disappeared, we were running guns. Later the New York Times reports that, yes, and they found a captain of a ship that was running those guns, and we were part of it."

"So here's what happened. This is why this testimony came out yesterday. What is on the horizon about what that ambassador was doing and what our response was is so much worse than the president being involved. So they know that the president is going to get heat and people are going to say, 'You weren't involved at all' So when the real story comes out, he can say, 'Oh, my gosh.'"

"'I should have been involved. That's why they kept me at arm's‑length. That's why they told me that they could take care of it and they wanted me out of it. I had nothing to do with this at all.'"

"This is to protect the president from some ‑‑ from another shoe that's going to fall, and that shoe is going to be bad. And hear me now: This president was involved. He knew. And they are protecting him right now. Do not believe the cover. Because that's all Panetta's was yesterday was a coverup, to distance the president from what is going to be exposed in the future."

On the radio program Thursday, Glenn Beck sat down with chief researcher Jason Buttrill to go over two bombshell developments that have recently come to light regarding former Vice President Joe Biden's role in the 2016 dismissal of Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.

"Wow! Two huge stories dropped within about 24 hours of each other," Jason began. He went on to explain that a court ruling in Ukraine has just prompted an "actual criminal investigation against Joe Biden in Ukraine."

This stunning development coincided with the release of leaked phone conversations, which took place in late 2015 and early 2016, allegedly among then-Vice President Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry, and Ukraine's former President Petro Poroshenko.

One of the audiotapes seems to confirm allegations of a quid pro quo between Biden and Poroshenko, with the later admitting that he asked Shokin to resign despite having no evidence of him "doing anything wrong" in exchange for a $1 billion loan guarantee.

"Poroshenko said, 'despite the fact that we didn't have any corruption charges on [Shokin], and we don't have any information about him doing something wrong, I asked him to resign,'" Jason explained. "But none of the Western media is pointing this out."

Watch the video below for more details:


Listen to the released audiotapes in full here.

Use code GLENN to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multiplatform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

A recently declassified email, written by former National Security Adviser Susan Rice and sent herself on the day of President Donald Trump's inauguration, reveals the players involved in the origins of the Trump-Russia probe and "unmasking" of then-incoming National Security Adviser, Gen. Michael Flynn.

Rice's email details a meeting in the Oval Office on Jan 5, 2017, which included herself, former FBI Director James Comey, former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, former Vice President Joe Biden, and former President Barack Obama. Acting Director of National Intelligence, Richard Grenell, fully declassified the email recently amid President Trump's repeated references to "Obamagate" and claims that Obama "used his last weeks in office to target incoming officials and sabotage the new administration."

On Glenn Beck's Wednesday night special, Glenn broke down the details of Rice's email and discussed what they reveal about the Obama administration officials involved in the Russia investigation's origins.

Watch the video clip below:

Fellow BlazeTV host, Mark Levin, joined Glenn Beck on his exclusive Friday episode of "GlennTV" to discuss why the declassified list of Obama administration officials who were aware of the details of Gen. Michael Flynn's wiretapped phone calls are so significant.

Glenn argued that Obama built a covert bureaucracy to "transform America" for a long time to come, and Gen. Flynn was targeted because he happened to know "where the bodies were buried", making him a threat to Obama's "secret legacy."

Levin agreed, noting the "shocking extent of the police state tactics" by the Obama administration. He recalled several scandalous happenings during Obama's "scandal free presidency," which nobody seems to remember.

Watch the video below for more:


Use code GLENN to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Colleges and universities should be home to a lively and open debate about questions both current and timeless, independent from a political bias or rules that stifle speech. Unfortunately for students, speaking out about personal beliefs or challenging political dogma can be a dangerous undertaking. I experienced this firsthand as an undergraduate, and I'm fighting that trend now as an adjunct professor.

In 2013, Glenn Beck was one of the most listened to radio personalities in the world. For a college senior with hopes of working on policy and media, a job working for Glenn was a ticket to big things. I needed a foot in the door and hoped to tap into the alumni network at the small liberal arts school where I was an undergrad. When I met with a career services specialist in early March 2013 about possible alumni connections to Glenn Beck, she disdainfully told me: "Why would you want to work for someone like him?" That was the beginning and end of our conversation.

I was floored by her response, and sent an email to the school complaining that her behavior was inappropriate. Her personal opinions, political or otherwise, I argued, shouldn't play a role in the decision to help students.

That isn't the kind of response a student should hear when seeking guidance and help in kick starting their career. Regardless of the position, a career specialist or professors' opinion or belief shouldn't be a factor in whether the student deserves access to the alumni network and schools' resources.

Now, seven years later, I work full time for a law firm and part time as an adjunct teaching business to undergraduate students. The culture at colleges and universities seems to have gotten even worse, unfortunately, since I was an undergrad.

College is a time to explore, dream big and challenge assumptions.

I never want to see a student told they shouldn't pursue their goals, regardless of their personal or political beliefs. College is a time to explore, dream big and challenge assumptions. I never got access to the alumni network or schools' resources from the career services office.

Lucky for students in 2020, there are several legal organizations that help students protect their rights when an issue goes beyond what can be handled by an undergraduate facing tremendous pressure from a powerful academic institution. Organizations like Speech First and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), for instance, are resources I wish I knew about at the time.

When I experienced mistreatment from my college, I spoke up and challenged the behavior by emailing the administration and explaining what happened. I received a letter from the career services specialist apologizing for the "unprofessional comment."

What she described in that apology as a "momentary lapse of good judgement" was anything but momentary. It was indicative of the larger battle for ideas that has been happening on college campuses across the country. In the past seven years, the pressure, mistreatment and oppression of free expression have only increased. Even right now, some are raising concerns that campus administrations are using the COVID-19 pandemic to limit free speech even further. Social distancing guidelines and crowd size may both be used to limit or refuse controversial speakers.

Students often feel pressure to conform to a college or university's wishes. If they don't, they could be expelled, fail a class or experience other retribution. The college holds all the cards. On most campuses, the burden of proof for guilt in student conduct hearings is "more likely than not," making it very difficult for students to stand up for their rights without legal help.

As an adjunct professor, every student who comes to me for help in finding purpose gets my full support and my active help — even if the students' goals run counter to mine. But I have learned something crucial in my time in this role: It's not the job of an educator to dictate a student's purpose in life. I'm meant to help them achieve their dreams, no matter what.

Conner Drigotas is the Director of Communications and Development at a national law firm and is a Young Voices contributor.