Rand Paul talks to Glenn about Hagel, Brennan, and the sequester

Yesterday, Glenn learned Senator Rand Paul was one of four Republicans to vote in favor of the confirmation of Chuck Hagel as America's new Secretary of Defense. Hagel has a very controversial history, once referring to the United States as the "biggest bully" on the planet and holds a concerning record on Israel and Iran. Needless to say, Glenn doesn't believe this is the man who should be advising the president on national security issues, and wanted to ask the Senator about his decision.

This morning, Rand Paul joined the radio program to explain his decision to vote in favor of Hagel's nomination, where he stands on the nomination of John Brennan as the CIA director, and what's going to happen with the sequester.

"We beg you, help us understand your decision to vote for Hagel," Glenn said to Rand.

"I hope I can," the Senator responded. "You know, a lot of people have been confused by this. I'll try the best I can to try to explain it to you.

First of all I was the deciding vote to filibuster him.  The only way to defeat him was filibuster. The only way to delay him was through filibuster. The only way to get information on him was through filibuster. So we had 41 votes.  I was called and lobbied hard from the other side to change the 41. I was the 41st vote to keep the filibuster going.

Within three days many Republicans announced they weren't going to filibuster anymore, yet we didn't get any information, which is why we have filibustering.  We never had 51 votes to defeat him, but we had 41 for a while. 

We come back the next week and I vote again to filibuster him — i was one of 27, but that's when the game was over. There was no stopping him when 27 voted. 14 people bailed on us, and that's when Hagel was nominated. 

On the final passage I did vote to allow him to go through, mainly because I said all along that the way I treat political appointees is that for the most part I give deference to the President.  I will fight tooth and nail to get information and to get information in advance. But, in this case, I decided that no information came forward that would have eventually disqualified him."

"I can respect that.  You're an advise and consent kind of guy," Glenn responded.

But Glenn still seemed skeptical. Before letting Paul transition into the bigger battle approaching with Brennan, Glenn had a few more on his Hagel decision.

"But why do you vote to support him?" Glenn asked. "Why wouldn't you vote 'present' or 'no'? I mean, you're fine with him? you're fine with Hagel?"

"Well, no. It one of these things where i don't treat it the same as an issue. I treat it as a presidential nomination to a political office," he answered. "I think the president does have the right to form his cabinet. I voted for John Kerry and I got some grief for that,” he continued, “I agree with nothing that Kerry represents … I just have made the decision that on these type of appointees, unless I can find information that they’ve taken money from a foreign government or given us information that was not accurate, then I go ahead and let the president make his political appointees.”

The senator went on to explain that he also had bigger goals in mind. He explained that he wants the Republicans to stick together and help him get information on Brennan and that his role, in being a part of the filibuster team, will now allow him to get help with the Brennan nomination.

Brennan, currently nominated for the position of CIA Director, has made concerning statements about limitations on drones strikes — basically that he doesn't have any. This is something both Glenn and the Senator find disturbing.

But, if Rand Paul is trying to be consistent on his votes, will he vote for Brennan if he makes it through the hearing? That's what Glenn wanted to know.

"I'm going to do everything I can to stop him until there's a public pronouncement from the White House saying that they won't kill Americans on American soil without judicial review," Senator Paul said.

“I think the leverage of the filibuster with this is what I’m using to try to get the White House to admit publicly – and if they do admit publicly that they will not and do not claim the authority to do drone strikes in America – basically I will have created a precedent,” Sen. Paul explained.

Senator Paul went on to add, “Even though it’s not a law, it’ll have been a president admitting that he doesn’t have authority. And no president (Republican or Democratic) likes to ever admit that they don’t have the authority.”

Glenn had one final question for the Senator. And this time he got a answer he really liked.

"Please tell me the sequester stands," Glenn said.

"I think it does," Paul responded.

He added that he has a bill the shows you can do the sequester with zero layoffs. It proves to the President that there are places where spending cuts can occur without job loses — his plan cuts $85billion in one year through not hiring new workers for federal jobs when people retire, cutting foreign aid, and decreasing federal salaries to match the private sector.

"The sequester is just a slow down in the rate of growth," the Senator said. "It's not even really significant cuts over 10 years. The president is parading a bunch of police and firemen who aren't even paid for by the federal government. He's being dishonest with us."

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.