Seriously?! Clinton Foundation suddenly finds $26 million in undisclosed donations

Just when you think it couldn’t get worse, it does. No, this isn’t about Benghazi or secret, private e-mails being used to conduct government business - although those are pretty bad too. No, the latest scandal plaguing Hillary Clinton involves her personal charity, the Clinton Foundation. Turns out the Clinton Foundation failed to disclose about $26 million. There’s no way that money came from any sketchy sources, right? Buck Sexton has the story and reaction.

Below is a rough transcript of this segment:

Up to $26 million. That's a lot of money, isn't it? That's pretty much in any context except for government spending. They can spend $26 million for toilet seats on the Pentagon. $26 million is generally speaking a lot of money. That's the kind of number you would think, well, could they really fail to disclose -- could someone just lose $26 million in the couch cushions. I mean, maybe some Saudi royals. But for normal folks. Could 26 million just sort of get lost in the shuffle? No. But for the Clintons apparently -- or the Clinton Foundation, about 26 million bucks, that sort of gets -- no one knows where it is. That's the latest on the information that we're getting about the Clinton Foundation. What they're telling us here that they may have failed to disclose, I don't know, you know, call it a couple of handfuls of cash. I'll go about with 20 to 25 million, maybe 26. Just whoopsie. Never said anything about it. Of course, this is not an isolated incident. They've had to readjust their tax returns. How many charities do you know of, by the way, that say, well, we'll just have to redo our tax returns for a while. How many charities do you know of where that's actually happened recently?

How many charities do you know where there's so many people who seem really intent really serious about making sure that nobody knows that they're giving to the charity? I know there are anonymous donations to some charities. But usually when corporations and major international entities of some kind or another give money to feed the children, promote women's education, stop the spread of malaria, whatever, usually they're really excited about people knowing about this or at least know the PR value of such that they want individuals to know about this. They want people to know that they had given this money. With the Clinton Foundation though, it always like, well, we don't want people to really know about this. We don't people to actually have to go down a list and see all the names.

There's a bunch of things in the latest revelation that I find interesting and a bunch of things that are worthy of a few minutes of our time. There's not much that's new in dealing with Clintons. In the sense, if there's such a thing as corruption, then the Clintons are corrupt. But, somehow, we won't hear very much from the Clintonistas about that. Right? They'll just try to talk about everything else, which is understandable to some degree.

But there's one thing I came across here in this piece in the Washington Post. Who is paying Chelsea Clinton for speeches, by the way? This doesn't not necessarily get thrown in and lumped in with the rest of this. But what are you paying Chelsea Clinton, the daughter of the Clintons, who, I don't know, could be a lovely human being, don't know, but I don't think she really should be giving speeches to major corporations or individuals or organizations, about what exactly? I mean, if it's about how to be successful and get ahead. Well, I suppose the best advice she could give, be really, really lucky and be born really rich and powerful. But they're paying her. Which also feels like another means of buying Clinton influence. Right?

That's what that's about. $600,000 for what was apparently ten minutes of work at MSNBC. That also has to be on the same side as a lot of these other Clinton arrangements. These sort of special Clinton details. Right?

That's something else that should be added in there. But if we'll be fair about this, there's nothing that can really compare to Mr. Bill because he really loves to give speeches. He just wants to hold the world close into his chest. Close into his bosom. I mean, he said bosom, didn't he? Get a little close in there, a little snuggle. It will cost you like half a million dollars. But a Clinton snuggle is the best kind of snuggle. It's getting creepy, I know. But the point is that people pay this guy way too much money for a speech. It's not just for the speech. It's for the access and the influence that comes with writing the check. We all know that, and more of this has come out.

The Clinton Foundation is starting to look like the charity equivalent of Slimer from Ghostbusters. Just trying to get as much money and bring in as much cash as it possibly can. With Slimer, it's hotdogs. With the Clinton Foundation, it's just donations. That's what's going on here. They cannot get enough. $26 million, they've said, over the last year or two?

There's never enough for them. There's one entity that donated -- or, paid a speaking fee of $250,000 to $500,000. I also love the ranges. Because they don't know how much they got paid. Anyway, was the energy minister of Thailand. Okay. If your wife is Secretary of State, you can have a foreign government entity pay you up to half a million dollars to show up and be like, hey, I like energy. Not as much as I like ladies, but I like energy.

I mean, half a million dollars for this. You must be joking. You can't be taking this seriously. But people seem to be taking this seriously for whatever reason. Or believe it. They want to believe it. The Clintons have become Santa Claus for Democrats. It's just too painful to think that this is not what they've been told it is. Half a million dollars -- up to half a million dollars from energy ministry in the Thailand.

South Korean energy and chemicals conglomerate Hanwha paid 500,000 to a million dollars for a speech by Clinton. Wow. Well done, South Korean energy conglomerate. I wonder if Hillary will be more favorably disposed towards something that may benefit you in the trade or foreign relations sector in the future. I'm guessing they're putting a yes up there on that one.

A China real estate development corporation paid the foundation from 250 to $500,000 for a speech by Bill Clinton.

Qatar First Investment Bank paid for a speech of around the same cost at around the same time.

The Telmex Foundation, founded by Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim provided between 250 and $500,000 for a speech by Hillary Clinton. Hmm.

Massive telecommunications conglomerate in Mexico owned by Carlos Slim and also, I believe, was a major owner of the New York Times, they're going to give money to Hillary. This is a really smart business proposition for people all around the world. Right?

If you're a major conglomerate, international corporation, 250K to buy off the Secretary of State. And it might even just be insurance. There might not be a specific quid pro quo. But, by the way, that's not the standard for corruption. Go talk to Senator Menendez. Go talk to indicted, convicted, and facing prison time Virginia governor Bob McDonnell about quid pro quo corruption, meaning you have to get something in exchange for something in order for it to be real, criminal corruption. That's not the standard.

The standard is looking unseemly. As I said, the Clintons are the global Slimer of looking unseemly when it comes to corruption. More money. More money. Shovel it in all the time. They raise $102 billion. They give out an average of 10 percent to actual charities. They're middlemen. They say, I want to help the starving children of the world. So you say, okay, here's a bunch of food. So they eat most of it and throw an apple core at the people that need it and we're supposed to applaud them and say, oh, well done, Clintons, you're fabulous. This is preposterous. It's a giant slush fund. It's a branding exercise. It's a means for them to fund their lifestyle.

Do you think the Clintons have paid for very much in the way of travel since starting this foundation. They get to fly all over the world in private jets. Do you think they pay for their meals? Or do you think the foundation picks that up? Do you think they can hire whoever they want, whatever cronies they want and pay them with money that they've been able to gather with tax protection, of course. Right?

This is money that people get a tax exemption for. So they can just pay off their buddies. Their giant jobs program. They're almost like a government in exile. They get to fly all over the world and talk about how wonderful they are and raise all this money.

Oh, she made $25 million since January of 2014. Bill Clinton has been paid more than 104 million from 2001 to 2012. Despite all this, Hillary is just a cuddly grandma who wants to sit with you at the dinner table and be your friend. She cares about how hard it is for you to pay your bills. She is a private jet progressive my friend, she doesn't care about you and your bills. She doesn't even know how bills get paid really. I'm sure she could figure it out with a check. But this whole online bill pay thing, that's probably skipped past her because she hasn't had to pay her own bills in a few decades. She certainly hasn't had to pump her own gas. But now she's a populist. Now she's a fighter for the middle class. The richest 1 percent are getting way too much of the benefit. They're terrible. Except for me, I'm awesome. This is the promise she makes you. This is what she tells you.

You know, Bob McDonnell should have just said, 2007 -- remember this is the disgraced, indicted -- they wanted almost a decade in prison for this guy. It was like $150,000 in gifts. I mean, the Clintons, for them, that's like a fancy meal with all their cronies and the people who are buying them off. 150K -- nothing. That's the bar bill for Bill after a few fun nights out there in Davos. It's expensive, man. Those cocktails. The ladies in Davos. They know how to party.

So what Bob McDonnell should have done was that his wife was a world class artist or something. Then all the people who happened to get influence -- wanted to buy influence with Governor McDonnell. If you wanted to be corrupt Clinton style and get away with it. Usually this would be overpayment fraud and you would be investigated. But, I mean, the Clintons would get away with this. Because they've been overpaid for speeches very obviously. Bill Clinton got paid more for speeches the further away from the presidency he got because his wife was Secretary of State. It's very obvious. There's an increase in his speaking fees. That doesn't happen. He's not more relevant the further away from the presidency he gets. And, by the way, this whole notion of cashing in, how much have you seen W. walking around passing the hat? No. You don't have to cash in. The presidency should be the height of your service, of your career, of your life. There shouldn't be some afterwards. Let's make this a giant ATM machine. Let's let it ride. Let's have fun. No, that's not how this is supposed to go. Public service is not supposed to be a springboard to vast riches. But Governor McDonnell, he should have said his wife was a world class artist. Anybody who wanted to get some influence with the governor could have just paid, you know, 100, 200, let's call it a half a mil for whatever parent she throws together in the backyard. What? She's an amazing artist. It's the free market, man. People are allowed to buy her paintings. How is that different of Bill -- do you think the speech is worth a million dollars? Of course, you don't. It's ridiculous.

But this is the problem. The Clintons are so corrupt, that they overwhelm us with how slimy and gross they are. As I said, just like when we're dealing with Slime, we're all standing in the hallway saying, leave us alone. You're so gross.

For the first time in the history of "The Glenn Beck Program," former President Donald Trump joined Glenn to give his take on America's direction under President Joe Biden compared to his own administration. He explained why Biden's horrific Afghanistan withdrawal was "not even a little bit" like his plan, and why he thinks it was "the most embarrassing event in the history of our country."

Plus, the former president gave his opinion on China's potential takeover of Bagram Air Base, the Pakistani Prime Minister, and Gen. Mark A. Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Glenn asked President Trump how similar the Biden administration's withdrawal from Afghanistan was to his administration's plan.

"Not even a little bit," Trump answered. "We had a great plan, but it was a very tenuous plan. It was based on many conditions. For instance, you can't kill American soldiers. ... You have to understand, I did want to get out. But I wanted to get out with dignity, and I wanted to take our equipment out. And I didn't want soldiers killed. ... What [Biden] did was just indefensible. He took the military out first and he left all the people. And then we became beggars to get the people out. I had a plan to get them out very quickly. But first, the Americans would go out."

Trump told Glenn that his plan included maintaining Bagram Air Base and explained why he would not have left "a single nail" behind in Afghanistan for the Taliban to seize.

"We were going to keep Bagram open," he explained. "We were never going to close that because, frankly, Bagram is more about China than it is about Afghanistan. It was practically on the other border of China. And now we've lost that. And you know who is taking it over? China is taking it over. We spend $10 billion to build that base. It's got the longest, most powerful runways in the world. And China has now got its representatives there and it looks like they'll take it over. Glenn, it's not believable what's happened. You know, they have Apache helicopters. These are really expensive weapons, and they have 28 of them. And they're brand-new. The latest model."

Glenn mentioned recent reports that Gen. Milley, America's top military officer, made "secret phone calls" to his counterpart in China while President Trump was in office.

"I learned early on that he was a dope," Trump said of Gen. Milley. "He made a statement to me — and I guarantee that's what happened to Biden — because I said, 'We're getting out of Afghanistan. We have to do it.' And I said, 'I want every nail. I want every screw. I want every bolt. I want every plane. I want every tank. I want it all out, down to the nails, screws, bolts ... I want every single thing. And he said, 'Sir, it's cheaper to leave it than it is to bring it.'

"The airplane might have cost $40 million, $50 million ... millions and millions of dollars. So, you think it's cheaper to leave it than to have 200 pilots fly over and fly all the equipment out? ... I said, you've got to be nuts. I mean, give me a tank of gas and a pilot and I just picked up a $40 million-dollar airplane. It was amazing. So, I learned early that this guy is a dope. But what he did, is he hurt our country ... and he shouldn't have been allowed to do it. And bad things should happen to him."

Watch the video clip below to catch more of the conversation or find the full interview on 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.

In a shocking but underreported conversation ahead of the G7 Speakers' meeting in London last week, Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi admitted that the administration knows China is committing "genocide" against the Uyghurs in the Xinjiang region, but thinks working with the regime on climate change is more important.

On the radio program, an outraged Glenn Beck dissected Pelosi's speech and broke down how — along with the Biden administration's abandonment of Americans in Afghanistan, and the Democrat decision to follow measures of medical "equity" — the far left is revealing how little they really care about human life.

Glenn played a video clip of Pelosi making the following statement:

We've always felt connected to China, but with their military aggression in the South China Sea, with their continuation of genocide with the Uyghurs in Xinjiang province there, with their violation of the cultural, linguistic, religious priority of Tibet, with their suppression of democracy in Hong Kong and other parts of China, as well – they're just getting worse in terms of suppression, and freedom of speech. So, human rights, security, economically [sic].

Having said all of that ... we have to work together on climate. Climate is an overriding issue and China is the leading emitter in the world, the U.S. too and developed world too, but we must work together.

"We have Nancy Pelosi admitting the United States of America knows that they're not only committing [genocide], they're continuing to commit it. Which means, we've known for a while," Glenn noted. "And what does she say? She goes on to say, yes, they're committing genocide against the Uyghurs, but having said that, I'm quoting, 'the overriding issue,' is working together on climate change.

"Would we have worked with Hitler on climate change? Would we have worked with Hitler on developing the bomb? Would we have worked with Hitler on developing the Autobahn? Would we have worked with Hitler on his socialized medicine? Would we have worked with Hitler on any of his national, socialist ideas?" he asked.

"The answer is no. No. When you're committing genocide, no! She said 'we have to work together on climate,' because climate is the 'overriding issue.' The overriding issue? There is no way to describe this mindset. That, yes, they are killing an entire group of people because of their ethnicity or religion. They are systematically rounding them up, using them for slave labor, and killing them, using their organs and selling them on the open market. They are nothing more than cattle. For us to recognize it and do nothing about it is bad enough. But to say, 'we recognize it, but we have bigger things to talk to them about,' is a horror show."

Glenn went on to urge Americans to "stand up together in love, peace, and harmony," or risk watching our nation become the worst plague on human life yet.

Watch the video clip below to hear more from Glenn:


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.

The fall of Lehman Brothers in 2008 marked the largest bankruptcy filing in U.S. history and economic collapse was felt throughout the world. But now China's own version of Lehman Brothers, Evergrande, is teetering closer and closer to that edge, too. On the radio program Thursday, Glenn Beck gave the latest update and predicted how it will affect Asian markets and what it could mean for America's economy.

Glenn explained why he believes a major collapse that is happening now in China will have a cascading effect into a "controlled collapse," a managed decline that will dramatically change America's economy and the way we all live.

"You will not recognize your lifestyle. Hear me," Glenn warned. "And that's not a right-left thing. That's a right-wrong thing. We're on the wrong track. I'm telling you now, there's new information and you are not going to recognize the American lifestyle. ... It could happen tomorrow. It could happen in five years from now, but it will happen. We are headed for a very different country. One where you don't have the rights that you have. And you certainly don't have the economic privileges that Americans are used to."

"The same thing that happened in 2008 is now happening in China," Glenn continued. "This time, it's going to take everything down. When it collapses, it will take everything down."

Watch the video below to hear Glenn break down the details:

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.

Justin Haskins, editorial director of the Heartland Institute, joined Glenn Beck on the radio program to expose a shocking conversation between two Great Reset proponents — Klaus Schwab, chairman of the World Economic Forum, and Christine Lagarde, president of the European Central Bank (Europe's equivalent to the Fed).

The way Schwab and Lagarde discuss the role central banks should play in establishing societal norms, determining your way of life, and defending against potential crisis is proof that the Great Reset is upon us, Justin explained. And the scariest part is that they're not even trying to hide it. The entire, unbelievable conversation has been published on the WEF website, which you can read here.

Glenn read an excerpt from the conversation:

Christine Lagarde: At the ECB, we have now wrapped up and concluded our strategy review, which was the first one in 17 years. And I was blessed to have an entire Governing Council unanimously agree that the fight against climate change should be one of the considerations that we take when we determine monetary policy. So at least the European Central Bank is of the view that climate change is an important component in order to decide on monetary policy. ...

Can we arrive at that trade-off between fighting climate change, preserving biodiversity and yet securing enough growth to respond to legitimate demands of the population? And my first answer, Klaus, to be firm, is that to have a way of life, we need life. And in the medium term, we do have major threats on the horizon that could cause the death of hundreds of thousands of people. So we have to think life, first. We have to think way of life, second. ...

So we have to think life, first. We have to think way of life, second. How can we come together to make sure that we secure the first priority, which is life, and also protect the way of life that people have? And make sure that the cost of it is not so high for some people, that they just cannot tolerate it. I think that the trade-off that we reach will probably require some redistribution, because it is clear that the most exposed people, the less privileged people are those that are going to need some help.

"Do you understand, America, what that means?" Glenn exclaimed. "You have elites, that you never elected, that are having these meetings ... deciding what is a legitimate need for you. And telling you that your needs are going to go away in your lifetime. You may not see a time where you get wants again. Just your needs are going to be addressed. Am I reading this wrong?"

"This is absolutely what is being said here," Justin agreed. "She's very clear that we need to make sure that way of life is second to life. We have to save all these people, hundreds of thousands of people are going to die from this supposedly existential threat of climate change. And their wants, and their desires, and their quality of living, all of that has to come second."

"This is a central bank saying this. This is not an elected official, who is accountable directly to the people. This is a central bank saying, we're going to print money. We're going to use monetary policy, to impose these ideas, to rework society in order to accomplish our goals," Justin added, addressing Lagarde's call for "some redistribution."

Will Great Reset elites — not elected by the U.S. — soon be dictating to the rest of the world? Watch the video clip below to hear Glenn and Justin break it down:

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.