Behind-the-Scenes Photos of the 'Contentious' Meeting with Sean Hannity, Ben Sasse and Glenn Beck

UPDATED 3/4/16:

Sean Hannity tweeted two clarifications he'd like to make:



As I was getting ready for the debate, I saw that Twitter is blowing up with rumors and half truths about an impromptu meeting at CPAC between me, Sean Hannity and Senator Ben Sasse.

Let me set the record straight.

I had just finished my radio show and was taking pictures with those in the crowd that had been there watching.

Senator Ben Sasse had been on my show along with the wife of Clarence Thomas, Ginni, who is a dear friend.

Ginni told me that just about a month ago she was a Trump supporter. She began to do her homework and had realized that he was not the man she thought he was and, in fact, felt that he would be a dangerous choice.

I asked her if she could vote for him in the general. She had said she didn't want to answer that yet.

I, later, stated that I could not. I feel strongly that he is a massive New York Progressive with authoritarian tendencies.


A few minutes later Ben Sasse was on and explained his very brave choice of not voting for Trump in the primary. All he did was tell it like he sees it, while refusing to put parties and the establishment ahead of his principles.

Well, the internet went wild, saying that we were stumping for Hillary, who we both believe will be a knock out punch for the Republic, corrupt and someone for whom we could never cast a vote...

The problem is, we feel the same about Donald, making the only difference between the GOP and the Democrats is that one is in the Whitehouse and the other is not.

Ben and I both believe that this is 1860, and the GOP is about to go the way of the Whig Party.

I have been warning and predicting this very time for over four years and it has nothing to do with Donald Trump and everything to do with the lies from the Washington elite.

After the show Sean came by, took some pictures with our mutual fans and then asked if we could have a few minutes together. I, of course, said sure.

We sat behind the staging away from the crowd. He began to talk about Trump and my feelings about him. It is no secret that he supports and believes in Trump (he also likes Rubio and Cruz). He also knows that I have endorsed Cruz and feel Trump is liberal, progressive, dishonest, and in it for himself.


As we began a friendly but frank conversation, Ben Sasse came around the corner. He said to Sean in no uncertain terms that what Sean was "doing was Bullcrap."

This came as a surprise to both of us as we didn't see Ben approach. It took Sean off guard and he asked who the man was. He didn't recognize the senator. Ben introduced himself and it was awkward for a couple of minutes. Ben explained that many from his state were telling him that Sean had said that he was voting for Hillary.

Sean responded by saying he never said that, but he did confirm that he said it was half a vote for Hillary. Both Ben and I strongly disagreed and said that we could not vote for another candidate that would cut deals with the establishment.

Sean felt that we were wrong. We felt he was wrong.


Our differences on voting stems from our belief that the party is beyond repair unless Cruz and Rubio come together. If Trump gets the nomination we believe it will be the end of the GOP as it will officially not stand for any constitutional and conservative principles. Sean, I believe, thinks this is 1992 not 1860.

We spoke for about twenty minutes. It was rather intense at times but respectful. I told them both that I was the comic relief in my alcoholic family and "I don't like it when mommy and daddy fight." We all laughed and spoke about our mutual respect.

Where do we go from here? I don't know but none of us changed our minds. Sean spoke to me for a few more minutes trying to convince me that Trump was the guy. We agreed to disagree.

We saw each other again later in the day after his radio show and before my TV show. All good.

Featured Image: Sen. Ben Sasse, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck at CPAC.

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.