What Won't End up in Hillary Clinton's 'Burn Bag'?

July 05, 2016

Editor

Filling in while Glenn was on vacation, Doc Thompson and Skip Lacombe reflected on how Hillary Clinton has gotten away with scandal after scandal on The Glenn Beck Program Tuesday.

Inexplicably, some of Clinton's schedules were included among the various documents she caused to be destroyed. Why, the co-hosts wondered, would the schedule of the Secretary of State ever need to be private (save a couple of extreme examples)?

Listen to the segment or read the transcript below.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors.

DOC: What does Hillary Clinton have to do to actually get fired? For the people to say, we've had enough of your nonsense. To get arrested. What does she have to do?

I mean, you know all the scandals, the alleged scandal, the conspiracy theories regarding the Clintons. There's plenty of things there that you'd go, okay, that could be something that you could potentially go to jail for.

But forget those. Skip, think about the obvious things that they have done.

What does she have to do to get arrested?

SKIP: I don't at this point. For some reason, it seems like the Clintons in particular seem to have this pass in terms of being able to do whatever they want. And their big key, just wait it out. Don't even talk about it. Don't mention it. Any questions about it, just wait it out. Deflect and it'll eventually just pass. People forget. People have such a short attention span and memory these days, as long as you can get through those first couple of days, weeks, months of the scandal, you're fine.

DOC: What does Hillary have to do to get arrested now? Seriously. She meets with the FBI for three hours over the weekend, and they talked to her about the email scandal. Right? I mean, that's how this rolls out. And then you have people like Sherrod Brown the dirtbag senator from Ohio and Cory Booker the dirtbag Senator from New Jersey saying she's not going to be arrested. Nothing to see here. There's no problem here. In all first of all, how do they know? Is there just them trying to influence the public and public opinion and the FBI?

SKIP: Yeah.

DOC: Or do they know something or saying, nope, not going to be arrested.

SKIP: At this point I think they're trying to influence public opinion. At the end of the day, regardless of where you stand on this scandal, yes she should be arrested or no, she shouldn't, the FBI is actually -- and the Department of Justice is investigating. So there is a there, there, no matter how you want to look at the scandal or how little you want to put towards the scandal, there is a there, there. Otherwise they wouldn't be investigating. This is Obama's Justice Department, the FBI, there has to be something there for them to at least pick up a finger and start.

DOC: So Huma apparently was deposed in connection with the Freedom of Information Act request about Hillary's emails and whatever, but it wasn't the FBI. It was because of a Freedom of Information Act request. And in this, she said that Hillary destroyed at least some of her schedules. She put them in the burn bag. Now, the burn bag is the official area or box or bag that they collect things that have to be destroyed. Sensitive information that would be destroyed.

And she said she was directed on numerous occasions to put Hillary's schedule in the burn bag.

I don't want anyone to know where she was at that time and on that day! And that's what Hillary is saying. I don't want anybody to know what I was doing. Why would your schedule, save a couple of extreme examples, ever be private as Secretary of State?

I get ahead of time if you're going on flying into a dangerous area, and I can't tell people that I'm going to be there because it could be -- you know, they could plan some sort of threat against me.

SKIP: If you that's more about like schedules in the future as opposed to historic documents of what had happened.

DOC: Right.

SKIP: It's not a security issue to find out that she was in Somalia or whatever.

DOC: Not that I agree with it, but when the President had his people negotiating with Iran for the Iran deal, remember, that was going on for a couple of years and we didn't know about it, which I think is wrong, because in order for you and I to be good citizens and be active in our government, we have to have this information.

But having said that, you could even make an argument that said, well, I don't want people to know that I was meeting with Iran yet. Because we're still working on the deal. So I'll delay that schedule for six months, then you can see what I was up to.

That's not what happened.

Hillary Clinton said, I direct you to burn my schedule, to destroy any records of where I was and what I was doing at certain times.

Why, I ask you, would you ever have to do that?

I can come up with only one reason: Because you don't want people to know what you were doing because you were doing something improper.

Is there any other reason? Folks, come on! Democrat, Republican, progressive, conservative, Libertarian, is there any other reason? And I challenge you, Democrats today, to stand up and start calling her out on this.

This is wrong. And if you do not, you are part of the problem. Not because you vote for Democrats, not because you are progressive but because you're not holding accountable people that are running this government. If you don't do it, you are a bigger problem that know Hillary Clinton. What does she have to do to get fired?

Here's what Huma said. This is the official testimony she gave.

If there was a schedule that was created that was her, Secretary of State daily schedule, and a copy of that was put in the burn bag, that, that -- I'm sorry.

She said it was put in the burn bag. That's how the whole thing lays out.

She said, that it was put in the bag that certainly happened on -- on more than one occasion.

SKIP: Again, if you're really trying to even be a devil's advocate here and explain some sort of a reason why this would be, I can't think of a legitimate reason why you would do that.

Even specific too, the concept of a burn bag, I stupidly didn't even realize that there are documents that are on a regular basis burned.

DOC: Destroyed.

SKIP: I understand shredding and whatnot. But there is a barrel standing out back with a fire?

DOC: I don't know how they destroyed it nowadays but at one point they burned it. It's referred to historically as the burn bag, the area we collect stuff that's going to be destroyed. Maybe. Maybe so. Why would her schedule be a part of it? Let me put another way for you. Hillary Clinton, do you remember her excuse for having the -- the security on the server? Her own server?

SKIP: It was easier for her, more simple.

DOC: Easier, whatever. With no regard to the law, history, or national security. Because that was an unsecure server. It was not done from the government. Right? Hillary put it up herself. It was unsecure. Right?

SKIP: Yeah.

DOC: Okay. So she's saying what? That her information, her schedule, is of such a national security issue that she has to destroy it, yet she had her own server which was unsecure.

How do you have both of those? They don't add up. It's not consistent.

The only reasonable explanation for both of those things, to say I want my own private server which is not secure, I'm not concerned with security, and to say I want my schedule burned, can be only one thing. She was hiding something improper, illegal, immoral, some sort of troubling behavior.

SKIP: Something she didn't want someone else to know.

DOC: Right. That's the only reason you have those two things. See, those things are inconsistent with each other. If you're going to cling to national security as a reason you have your schedule destroyed, then why did you have your own private server?

If your own private server is so -- if you're so cavalier about it, you're not worried about, you know, secure information on it or whatever, and we know now secure information was, you know, in those emails and via her private server, then why would you destroy your schedule after the fact for national security?

The only thing you can cling to about having your schedule destroyed is for national security. And even that is pretty low. But that goes all out the wind when you have your own private server. These things do not add up.

So I ask, what does it take for Hillary Clinton to be arrested? What does it take for the American people to stand up and say, I've had enough, you are fired, we are done here? What does it take?

If Hillary Clinton is able to navigate this latest scandal and not be arrested, navigate and actually become President of the United States, that is the indicator we have completely lost control. That it's done. And then it's just a matter of ride it out until the end until the whole thing collapses around us. You cannot have that level of corruption go for several years and this is just the latest. This doesn't account for everybody else that she's been involved in over the years.

We've lost it at that point.

Featured Image: Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton addresses the 95th Representative Assembly of the National Education Association July 5, 2016 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Silent genocide exposed: Are christians being wiped out in 2025?

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?

Should Starbase become its own city?

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.

Glenn's Show Prep