Did Hillary use her personal email to send classified information?

Buck Sexton filled in for Glenn on Monday, and kicked off the show with a deep dive into Hillary Clinton’s ongoing email saga. The former Secretary of State claims she never used her personal email account for classified information - but is she telling the truth? Buck delved into his own background in the CIA and why he thinks she isn’t telling the full story. After all, the Clintons have a long history of protecting their own secrets.

Listen to the segment in the opening moments of today's radio show:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it may contain errors:

BUCK: Buck Sexton here. Buck Sexton in for Glenn Beck today on the Glenn Beck Program. Thank you so much for joining. Good to have you with me. 877-727-BECK is the phone number. You can call in. Love to chat with you. Hope you had a good weekend. We have a lot to get to today. Thank you very much for your time. Those of you who may not be familiar with me. I'm the Blaze's National Security Editor, also the host of the Buck Sexton Show on the Blaze. Formerly a CIA analyst and an NYPD Intelligence Division Specialist for counterterrorism. So counterterrorism is what I did before. I was able to join all of you fine folks and do some media.

So Hillary Clinton's email is still a big issue, although not if you listen to the Clinton camp. It was a pretty amazing situation on Friday, where you had the revelation -- and this was apparently a leak of some kind -- that there was a desire to look more closely at Hillary's private email account.

Now, before we even get into the particulars of this, and this holds a real resonance for me, as someone who held the top secret security clearance in the United States government and had to learn all the various protocols and the, including classification origination, all of that stuff, and had to live with the constant reality, the constant possibility of a complete and utter annihilation were I ever to transgress while a CIA officer, even accidentally, by the way. Accidentally does not mean that you would not get into some sort of trouble. It didn't mean there wouldn't be some sort of issue as well. You might not go to jail for a long time, but your career would be ruined. That much is to be sure. For real issues of national security, you can understand why the sanctions are so severe.

You have an understanding of that. You can't lose the nuclear codes while you're out getting a burger. I get that. We all get that. We can all understand that. To give you a sense of just how extreme it was, to give you a sense of what we're talking about here, I saw fellow officers, fellow CIA officers reduced to tears because perhaps a young lady walked out to her car and had something in her pocket that she should not have in terms of sensitive information. And was essentially told that she had almost made the terrorists win because of this. Now, you could say that, of course, you have these strict procedures and protocols. But I'm pretty sure the Russians, I'm sure Bin Laden didn't sneak a peek into her pocket into the 30-second walk outside of the facility. But that just gives you a sense of how strict it is in these government agencies with the protection of classified information. That's what the rest of us all have to live with.

Meanwhile, we have to go back and forth in this sort of lawyerly discussion, lawyerly debate with Hillary Clinton, in which we talk about whether or not it was classified when she sent it. Now, keep in mind, and this is very, very important indeed. Keep in mind that Hillary could have avoided all of this. We wouldn't even have to have this discussion if the woman who now really believes that the presidency is, in fact, something that she is entitled to, if she had just decided that she would do what everybody else would have done in these circumstances, she could have avoided this whole thing. This is entirely of her making. Which is largely why a lot of Democrats are annoyed about this, upset about this. Who recognize that this is probably going to be a real problem. And it didn't have to be a problem at all.

But the Clintonian obsession with secrecy -- and when people talk about the obsession with secrecy, keep in mind that's because the Clintons need to keep secrets. Right? That's a relatively straightforward proposition. The Clintonian obsession with secrecy is something that we have pay pretty close attention to because there are reasons for it.

They are secretive because they should be secretive because they do things that they should not do. And then they look at all of us and suggest that somehow this is a right-wing conspiracy. This is some sort of issue that's been foisted upon their shoulders. It's only because of all the other people. You see. They're the real problem.

On Friday, we're told there was a referral, a referral as to whether there was criminality inherent using her home brew server that she decided to do. To send communications in her role as Secretary of State. Thousands and thousands of times.

If she used classified information in those emails, that is at a minimum, a violation of her duty to protect classified information. That could be criminally charged. You see, the way this works. And this is where the Clintons love. They love the gray areas. The shades of complexity here. They'll say the information wasn't classified when she sent it. Of course, it's not inherently classified. You can write something down in an email and send it to all your buddies, it hasn't been classified at the top of that email. But there's still a recognition that the sensitivity of that information could be national security data. There could be a classification issue there. And if Hillary is using this email address for most of her communications, it is beyond anyone's wildest imagination that she did not somehow use information that is classified.

In fact, we find out that, later on, they decided that some of it was classified. So what -- this whole thing hinges on a very straightforward concept. And I want those of you who haven't held a clearance and those of you who haven't worked in national security before, I want you to be very clear on this because this is what the whole issue now turns on. They're going to say that when she sent them, it wasn't classified. What I'm going to tell you is that that's not the standard that other people with clearances are held to. It's not, well, it didn't have a stamped "secret" at the top of it when I sent it, therefore, it's not classified. That's not how it works. It's the information and the sensitivity of that information. This is not just a bureaucratic procedural issue. This is an issue of what is she putting out there on the open internet for others to see. And that she's using a personal home brew email address I think tells you a lot of what's going on here. That she deleted thousands and thousands of emails before there could be any review of them whatsoever. I think tells you a lot.

I think it tells you that the Clintons are lying to you. But that's nothing new, is it? That's nothing surprising. In fact, at this point, as depressing as it is to say, that's really our expectation, isn't it? We expect that the Clintons would lie. We expect that Hillary Clinton is going to obfuscate the truth. Attack those who point out the obfuscation. She's trying to muddy the waters. We expect that they'll have some ridiculous justification for their behavior. And it really is just the best defense is a good offense. That's what the Clinton strategy comes down to.

But on these emails, there's another issue that I want to raise here because it's essential. It's very, very important. It's not just a question of what the Clintons are doing. It's also inside the machinery. It's inside the many headed hydro of the federal bureaucracy in D.C. We initially heard there was a referral from two inspectors general, saying they would want a look into whether there was criminality into this. Into whether or not it may have violated US federal criminal law. Then there was a huge walkback. Oh, no. That's not it. The New York Times broke the story Friday. Then we heard over the weekend, this is all nonsense and garbage. See, the media in reactionary way, knee-jerk fashion, knew they had to do whatever was necessary to protect Hillary's chances to be the next president of the United States, and to enforce this narrative, this narrative that no person could really believe with more than a few moments of thoughts. Of course, she was hiding emails from us. That was the purpose of all of this. You would say, why would anyone be so foolish. That's a huge vulnerability. Didn't she know it would come out? That's what the Clintons deal with. That's how they are, who they are. There's no shock here. It's also shocking and surprising for a normal human being to think they can accept speeches for half a million, three-quarters of a million. Hey, why not make it a cool million? While your wife is the most powerful foreign policy official in the world, and you as her husband are going around giving speeches to organizations, not just that would want to curry favor in a sort of general sense, but in that very specific sense of, I have business. Me, we, this foreign entity, we have business in front of the Secretary of State.

Why not pay her husband a half a million to give a speech. Can't hurt. We have the money. That sort of rampant corruption. And that's what it is, by the way. Is the sort of thing that only a power couple at the top of American politics that believes that they are untouchable would ever engage in.

Unless you understand that mentality, then all of a sudden the logic of this email position becomes very clear indeed. They can get away with taking away huge fees for speeches. Just like they can get away with running their own home email servers. Because Bill could get away with any number of transgressions -- and that's putting it far too kindly, by the way -- in the '90s, including though very notably, lying under oath, which would be a federal felony for normal people. But for Bill Clinton, it's nothing. Not even charged with a crime. This is what we're dealing with. These are the individuals standing before us now and pretending to be absolutely pure and outraged that anyone would question their integrity. The real trick with the Clintons is that they have no integrity to protect. There is nothing they will not do as long as it serves their interest because why not? What are you going to do about it? You're going to rely on prosecutors to go after them? You're going to rely on the enforcement of the law? Let me tell you something, there are a lot of Democrat prosecutors out there.

In fact, just as the infiltration of universities by the Democratic Party has essentially made it a one-party situation on college campuses across the country, you have a preponderance, you have Democrat prosecutors all over the place who are very politicized, who view the tools of the prosecutor's office as both of social justice -- we've seen that time and again. And I'm not just talking about the civil rights division of this Department of Justice, which we know is absolutely politicized, but across the country as well.

You have a lot of lawyers who are Democrats, of course, though it's a little more split there. But if you start to look at party affiliation of prosecutors, I think you'll find out really quickly that in blue areas of the country, but also outside of them, you have a very -- a sort of stunning disparity of prosecutors who happen to be Democrats, who happen to give money to Democrats. You have a lot of federal prosecutors out there who give money to the Clintons. I'm sure of it, my friends. So when they now tell us, oh, no, it's not a criminal referral. There's nothing to see here. Just remember that the same federal apparatus that can't enforce immigration law, we're now relying on to tell us all about the latest with the Clintons and their violations of law.

Featured Image:CARROLL, IA - JULY 26: Democratic presidential hopeful and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaks to guests gathered for a house party on July 26, 2015 in Carroll, Iowa. Although Clinton leads all other Democratic contenders, a recent poll had her trailing several of the Republican candidates in Iowa. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

5 most HORRIFIC practices condoned by WPATH

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Whatever you know about the "trans movement" is only the tip of the iceberg.

In a recent Glenn TV special, Glenn delved into Michael Schellenberger's "WPATH files," a collection of leaked internal communications from within the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH). Glenn's research team got their hands on the WPATH files and compiled the highlights in Glenn's exclusive PDF guide which can be downloaded here. These documents reveal the appalling "standards" created and upheld by WPATH, which appear to be designed to allow radical progressive surgeons to perform bizarre, experimental, and mutilating surgeries on the dime of insurance companies rather than to protect the health and well-being of their patients. These disturbing procedures are justified in the name of "gender-affirming care" and are defended zealously as "life-saving" by the dogmatic surgeons who perform them.

The communications leaked by Schellenberger reveal one horrific procedure after another committed in the name of and defended by radical gender ideology and WPATH fanatics. Here are five of the most horrifying practices condoned by WPATH members:

1.Trans surgeries on minors as young as 14

One particular conversation was initiated by a doctor asking for advice on performing irreversible male-to-female surgery on a 14-year-old boy's genitals. WPATH doctors chimed in encouraging the surgery. One doctor, Dr. McGinn, confessed that he had performed 20 such surgeries on minors over the last 17 years!

2.Amputation of healthy, normal limbs

BIID, or Body Integrity Identity Disorder, is an “extremely rare phenomenon of persons who desire the amputation of one or more healthy limbs or who desire a paralysis.” As you might suspect, some WPATH members are in favor of enabling this destructive behavior. One WPATH commenter suggested that people suffering from BIID received "hostile" treatment from the medical community, many of whom would recommend psychiatric care over amputation. Apparently, telling people not to chop off perfectly healthy limbs is now considered "violence."

3.Trans surgeries on patients with severe mental illnesses

WPATH claims to operate off of a principle known as "informed consent," which requires doctors to inform patients of the risks associated with a procedure. It also requires patients be in a clear state of mind to comprehend those risks. However, this rule is taken very lightly among many WPATH members. When one of the so-called "gender experts" asked about the ethicality of giving hormones to a patient already diagnosed with several major mental illnesses, they were met with a tidal wave of backlash from their "enlightened" colleges.

4.Non-standard procedures, such as “nullification” and other experimental, abominable surgeries

If you have never heard of "nullification" until now, consider yourself lucky. Nullification is the removal of all genitals, intending to create a sort of genderless person, or a eunuch. But that's just the beginning. Some WPATH doctors admitted in these chatlogs that they weren't afraid to get... creative. They seemed willing to create "custom" genitals for these people that combine elements of the two natural options.

5.Experimental, untested, un-researched, use of carcinogenic drugs 

Finasteride is a drug used to treat BPH, a prostate condition, and is known to increase the risk of high-grade prostate cancer as well as breast cancer. Why is this relevant? When a WPATH doctor asked if anyone had used Finasteride "to prevent bottom growth," which refers to the healthy development of genitals during puberty. The answer from the community was, "That's a neat idea, someone should give it a go."

If your state isn’t on this list, it begs the question... why?

The 2020 election exposed a wide range of questionable practices, much of which Glenn covered in a recent TV special. A particularly sinister practice is the use of private money to fund the election. This money came from a slew of partisan private sources, including Mark Zuckerberg, entailed a host of caveats and conditions and were targeted at big city election offices— predominantly democratic areas. The intention is clear: this private money was being used to target Democrat voters and to facilitate their election process over their Republican counterparts.

The use of private funds poses a major flaw in the integrity of our election, one which many states recognized and corrected after the 2020 election. This begs the question: why haven't all states banned private funding in elections? Why do they need private funding? Why don't they care about the strings attached?

Below is the list of all 28 states that have banned private funding in elections. If you don't see your state on this list, it's time to call your state's election board and demand reform.

Alabama

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Arizona

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Arkansas

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Florida

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Georgia

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Idaho

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Indiana

Photo 12 / Contributor

Iowa

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Kansas

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Kentucky

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Louisiana

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Mississippi

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Missouri

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Montana

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Nebraska

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

North Carolina

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

North Dakota

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Ohio

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Oklahoma

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Pennsylvania

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

South Carolina

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

South Dakota

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Tennessee

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Texas

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Utah

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Virginia

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

West Virginia

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Wisconsin

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

POLL: Was Malaysia Flight 370 taken by a WORMHOLE?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

It's hard to know what's real and what's fake anymore.

With the insanity that seems to grow every day, it is becoming more and more difficult to tell what's true and what's not, what to believe, and what to reject. Anything seems possible.

That's why Glenn had Ashton Forbes on his show, to explore the fringe what most people would consider impossible. Forbes brought Glenn a fascinating but far-out theory that explains the decade-old disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 along with riveting footage that supposedly corroborates his story. Like something out of a sci-fi novel, Forbes made the startling claim that Flight 370 was TELEPORTED via a U.S. military-made wormhole! As crazy as that sounds, the video footage along with Forbes' scientific research made an interesting, if not compelling case.

But what do you think? Do you believe that the U.S. Government can create wormholes? Did they use one to abduct Flight 370? Is the government hiding futuristic tech from the rest of the world? Let us know in the poll below:

Does the military have the capability to create wormholes?

Is the U.S. military somehow responsible for what happened to Malaysia Flight 370?

Is the military in possession of technology beyond what we believe to be possible?

Do you think American military tech is ahead of the other superpowers?

Do you think there would be negative consequences if secret government technology was leaked? 

School today is not like it used to be...

Glenn recently covered how our medical schools have been taken over by gender-affirming, anti-racist, woke garbage, and unfortunately, it doesn't stop there. Education at all levels has been compromised by progressive ideology. From high-level university academics to grade school, American children are constantly being bombarded by the latest backward propaganda from the left. Luckily, in the age of Zoom classes and smartphones, it's harder for teachers to get away their agenda in secret. Here are five videos that show just how corrupt schools really are:

Woke teacher vandalizes pro-life display

Professor Shellyne Rodriguez, an art professor at Hunter College in New York, was caught on camera having a violent argument with a group of pro-life students who were tabling on campus. Rodriguez was later fired from her position after threatening a reporter from the New York Post, who was looking into this incident, with a machete.

Woke professor argues with student after he called police heroes

An unnamed professor from Cypress College was captured having a heated discussion with a student over Zoom. The professor verbally attacked the student, who had given a presentation on "cancel culture" and his support of law enforcement. The university later confirmed that the professor was put on leave after the incident.

Professor goes on Anti-Trump rant 

Professor Olga Perez Stable Cox was filmed by a student going on an anti-Trump rant during her human-sexuality class at Orange Coast College. This rant included Professor Cox describing Trump's election as "an act of terrorism”. The student who filmed this outburst was suspended for an entire semester along with several other punishments, including a three-page apology essay to Professor Cox explaining his actions. Orange Coast College continues to defend Professor Cox, citing the student code of conduct.

Unhinged teacher caught on video going on left-wing political rant

Lehi High School teacher Leah Kinyon was filmed amid a wild, left-wing rant during a chemistry class. Kinyon made several politically charged remarks, which included encouraging students to get vaccinated and calling President Trump a "literal moron." Despite her claims that the school admins "don't give a crap" about her delusional ramblings, a statement from Lehi High School reveals that she "is no longer an employee of Alpine School District."

Far-left Berkeley law professor melts down when a Senator asks her if men can get pregnant

During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Berkeley Law Professor Khiara M. Bridges was asked by Missouri Senator Josh Hawley to clarify earlier statements involving "people with a capacity for pregnancy." The senator's line of questioning is met with a long-winded, frantic rant accusing the senator of being transphobic. When Sen. Hawley tries to clarify further, Professor Bridges makes the outrageous claim that such a line of questioning somehow leads to trans suicides.