What Really Bothers Glenn About the FBI's Latest Move

It just doesn't make sense. Why would the FBI announce 11 days before an election that additional emails had been discovered --- with no idea about what's in them? What's really going on?

"11 days before the election is suicide . . . I mean, you just don't do that. And let me just say this: Democrats never do that," Glenn said Monday on his radio program.

While Democrats may drop an October surprise on a Republican candidate, it's unheard of to attack one of their own.

RELATED: Hell Hath Frozen Over: Liberals Taking a Stand Against Hillary Clinton

"Comey had to know that . . . because that's wildly reckless," Glenn said.

Read below or listen to the full segment for answers to these incriminating questions:

• What theory does Glenn believe about Comey's actions?

• Who put national archive documents in their underpants?

• Who is Andrew McCabe and why is he the most important name to know?

• Why did it take three weeks to subpoena emails on Weiner's laptop?

• Whose wife received a $500K campaign donation for a local senate race?

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: We're going to get into the Clinton emails. But the thing that has bothered me is this doesn't make any sense to me. Something else is going on.

And here's why: To come out and say, "We have emails, and we have no idea what's in them," 11 days before the election is suicide. And it puts the country -- I mean, you just don't do that.

And let me just say this: And the Democrats never do that. I mean, we've seen -- we've seen similar things with -- with George W. Bush. But we've never seen anything like this. It is unprecedented in American history.

Comey had to know that. How did this happen. I am -- I've the bottom a whole stack of emails -- I don't even have a warrant for them yet. But, hey, I just want to let you know.

How did that happen? Because that's wildly reckless. And I just want to point out -- now, I agree -- I'm going to give you the theory on why I think he did it here in a second. And it makes the case against her even worse -- or, better, whichever you're looking at. But it bothered me, because of this.

Imagine if the FBI would have said, we were going through that Trump case and we found out that Trump University is even worse than we thought it was.

Now, we don't have any evidence. I mean, we can't -- we don't even have a warrant yet to look. But we've heard -- there would be riots in the streets. If this would have happened to us in any other election, we would have gone crazy.

So how are you doing it to the most powerful woman on the planet, one that can get you out of putting national archive documents into your underpants, shredding them, and then hiding underneath a truck across the street and you don't go to jail. How does this happen?

Let me give you a theory: This is from John Podhoretz. He said: The key to Comey's behavior may be contained in Devlin Barrett's Sunday afternoon story in the Wall Street Journal, which he lays out a surprising time line.

According to Barrett, the trouble began in early October when New York-based FBI officials notified Andrew McCabe, the Bureau's second in command, that while investigating Anthony Weiner for possibly sending sexually charged messages to a minor, they had recovered a laptop with 650,000 emails. Many, they say, were from accounts of Ms. Abedin. This is according to people familiar with the matter. Those emails stretch back years, these people said.

Okay. So now, this is all we have. All we have is that there is a laptop that has some Abedin emails. There's 650,000 on this laptop. And they were notified in early October. Three, four weeks ago.

The FBI stumbled on the metadata, the information surrounding an email, the digital version of an envelope with a canceled stamp, looking for child pornography on the laptop of Hillary Clinton's closest aide, Huma Abedin, her ex-husband.

Child porn was all they were allowed by terms of their search warrant to look for. To discover whether any of the emails in the huge cache of Abedin's stuff was pertinent to the question of whether Mrs. Clinton had mishandled classified information, a new warrant would be needed.

Later in the story, Barrett reports that a meeting early last week of senior Justice Department and FBI officials, a member of the department's senior national security staff asked for an update on the Weiner laptop. Officials realized then that no one had acted on obtaining a warrant.

Wait. What?

You have a laptop of Hillary Clinton's aide, chief aide, with 650 emails on it -- 650,000 emails on it, three weeks ago. You bring this up in a meeting. You know that this was a talked about on, okay. Well, let's find out what's in those emails. Three weeks later, no warrant has been obtained.

Listen to this, now recall from three paragraphs ago that the FBI official in New York informed about the email cache was Andrew McCabe. Note that the Justice Department, largely under McCabe's direction, somehow neglected to secure a warrant to look at Abedin's emails for three weeks.

Last week, in a separate story, we learned that Virginia governor and Clinton intimate, Terry McAuliffe had steered an astonishingly amount of money into the campaign coffers of Mr. McCabe's wife in a local race in Virginia late last year.

McCabe was the third person at the Justice Department. He is also now number two.

The amount that was steered into her coffers was staggering. Nearly $500,000 for a state Senate seat, she apparently had no chance of winning. Since she got the money and then lost, that immediately raised red flags.

Was a senior Justice Department official getting special favors for his wife from a Clinton guy, while Mrs. Clinton, under active investigation by his department, including investigations in which he was materially involved.

The theory is simple: Comey was indeed covering his butt. But in this case, he was doing so because if anything came out of the Weiner investigation, he would fry. When called upon to explain himself, he would have to acknowledge that he knew the Obama Justice Department dragged its feet and did nothing about it, while the husband of someone who owned -- who owed a Clinton intimate a huge debt of gratitude was running things and behaving in a manner that can be best described as astonishingly cavalier.

This, I believe, is why this happened Friday. There may not -- I think there are -- but there may not be anything incriminating on this laptop. But because the Clintons are so incapable of doing things without corruption, this letter that came out from Comey on Friday is Clinton's fault. Because they're clearly doing something with McCabe behind the scenes. And whether it's quid pro quo or just, "Oh, my gosh. Oh, my gosh. I didn't even know you were -- well, I'd be disappointed if you ever tried to take this generous donation and -- and would look at us any different way or help Mrs. Clinton. That would be disappointing because that would be against the law, you know." I doubt there's quid pro quo. They're too shrewd for that. It's just a quiet understanding.

He was number three, now he's number two. His wife gets 500 grand. Half a million dollars for a local election where she's number three, she can't win. Come on.

STU: So basically Comey is doing his investigation, as he should be. He's getting stonewalled by Clinton insiders, and so this comes out as a way to say, "Look, I still have the right to get this information."

GLENN: If I don't act now and get -- I read it two ways: One, I don't want to be accused of not doing my job, because then I'll get fried, then I'll get in trouble, I'll be impeached. So I -- uh-uh. I've been fair. I've been balanced. People on the right didn't think I was. People on the left loved me. But I said I was going to play it straight down the line.

They've had three weeks to get this. Something fishy is going on. I am not going to take the fall for this one, guys. And on top of it, if she wins in 11 days, at the time, if she wins in 11 days, will I ever get a warrant? I want the warrant.

That's why Clinton is saying, "You produce them." But she knows, he can't produce them. They didn't have a warrant. Well, that's ridiculous. Why didn't you get a warrant? Well, I guess we would have to ask you and maybe Mr. McAuliffe, why we couldn't get a warrant. The name that everyone should know is "Andrew McCabe." That's the name that everybody should be looking at. Not Comey. And what can you trust anyway?

You know what kills me is how fast people change. Everybody on Trump's side now is saying, "Comey is the best thing ever." I'm not convinced of that. I'm not convinced he's not involved in something nefarious. I haven't changed my viewpoint from when he closed the Clinton campaign because of intent with.

If I went to a bank and I robbed a bank, but my intent was to only take my money out, would they not prosecute me for bank robbery? Since when does intent or ignorance get away? It doesn't.

But everybody on the left loved him. Everybody on the right hated him. Now things have completely flipped. Everybody now on the right loves Comey and says he's very credible. And did you hear what people on the left were saying? Because the people on the left, all of the big names were throwing him under the bus. But what's so funny this time is, just four weeks ago, they were saying something entirely different.

VOICE: There was an extensive, as you know, Brad, investigation by the FBI, under the direction of a wonderful and tough career public servant, Jim Comey.

VOICE: This is a great man. We are very privileged in our country to have him be the director of the FBI.

VOICE: No one can question the integrity, the competence.

VOICE: And he's somebody with the highest standards of integrity.

OBAMA: I'm going to continue to be scrupulous about not commenting on it, just because I think Director Comey could not have been more exhaustive.

VOICE: Amazingly.

JEFFY: I'm going to comment.

VOICE: Some Republicans who were praising you just days ago --

GLENN: Amazing.

VOICE: -- for your independence, for your integrity --

GLENN: Yes.

Right.

VOICE: Despite your impeccable reputation and integrity --

VOICE: And your honesty instantly turned against you because your recommendation conflicted with the predetermined outcome they wanted.

GLENN: Oh. Oh, my.

VOICE: Republicans have turned on you with a vengeance.

VOICE: If you indict Comey's integrity, then you are making a big mistake.

VOICE: Director Comey, whose reputation for independence and integrity, is unquestioned.

GLENN: Unquestioned. Until now. Until now.

STU: Right. I mean, these are -- these are amazing. Of course, both sides are doing it right now.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: And maybe the idea is that Comey is actually just doing his job well.

GLENN: Maybe.

STU: Maybe that's it. Who knows?

But the Reid one is particularly interesting in that he's now not only saying --

GLENN: I think he said he should go to jail.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: He's saying he's a criminal. He may have violated the Hatch Act and is involved in criminal activity.

GLENN: And can you find for me, Pat, do you remember Harry Reid came out and said, right towards the end of the campaign, Mitt Romney never paid any taxes. And then if you remember, he did an interview afterwards where he was proud of that, where he said, "Hey, he didn't win, did he?"

Do you remember that?

PAT: Uh-huh, yep.

GLENN: He's doing it again. I mean, bearing false witness, again.

Featured Image: ary Committee September 28, 2016 in Washington, DC. Comey testified on a variety of subjects including the investigation into former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's email server. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

From the moment the 33-year-old Thomas Jefferson arrived at the Continental Congress in Philadelphia in 1776, he was on the radical side. That caused John Adams to like him immediately. Then the Congress stuck Jefferson and Adams together on the five-man committee to write a formal statement justifying a break with Great Britain, and their mutual admiration society began.

Jefferson thought Adams should write the Declaration. But Adams protested, saying, “It can't come from me because I'm obnoxious and disliked." Adams reasoned that Jefferson was not obnoxious or disliked, therefore he should write it. Plus, he flattered Jefferson, by telling him he was a great writer. It was a master class in passing the buck.

So, over the next 17 days, Jefferson holed up in his room, applying his lawyer skills to the ideas of the Enlightenment. He borrowed freely from existing documents like the Virginia Declaration of Rights. He later wrote that “he was not striving for originality of principle or sentiment." Instead, he hoped his words served as “an expression of the American mind."

It's safe to say he achieved his goal.

The five-man committee changed about 25 percent of Jefferson's first draft of the Declaration before submitting it to Congress. Then, Congress altered about one-fifth of that draft. But most of the final Declaration's words are Jefferson's, including the most famous passage — the Preamble — which Congress left intact. The result is nothing less than America's mission statement, the words that ultimately bind the nation together. And words that we desperately need to rediscover because of our boiling partisan rage.

The Declaration is brilliant in structure and purpose. It was designed for multiple audiences: the King of Great Britain, the colonists, and the world. And it was designed for multiple purposes: rallying the troops, gaining foreign allies, and announcing the creation of a new country.

The Declaration is structured in five sections: the Introduction, Preamble, the Body composed of two parts, and the Conclusion. It's basically the most genius breakup letter ever written.

In the Introduction, step 1 is the notificationI think we need to break up. And to be fair, I feel I owe you an explanation...

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…

The Continental Congress felt they were entitled by “the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" to “dissolve the political bands," but they needed to prove the legitimacy of their cause. They were defying the world's most powerful nation and needed to motivate foreign allies to join the effort. So, they set their struggle within the entire “Course of human events." They're saying, this is no petty political spat — this is a major event in world history.

Step 2 is declaring what you believe in, your standardsHere's what I'm looking for in a healthy relationship...

This is the most famous part of the Declaration; the part school children recite — the Preamble:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That's as much as many Americans know of the Declaration. But the Preamble is the DNA of our nation, and it really needs to be taken as a whole:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The Preamble takes us through a logical progression: All men are created equal; God gives all humans certain inherent rights that cannot be denied; these include the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; to protect those rights, we have governments set up; but when a government fails to protect our inherent rights, people have the right to change or replace it.

Government is only there to protect the rights of mankind. They don't have any power unless we give it to them. That was an extraordinarily radical concept then and we're drifting away from it now.

The Preamble is the justification for revolution. But note how they don't mention Great Britain yet. And again, note how they frame it within a universal context. These are fundamental principles, not just squabbling between neighbors. These are the principles that make the Declaration just as relevant today. It's not just a dusty parchment that applied in 1776.

Step 3 is laying out your caseHere's why things didn't work out between us. It's not me, it's you...

This is Part 1 of the Body of the Declaration. It's the section where Jefferson gets to flex his lawyer muscles by listing 27 grievances against the British crown. This is the specific proof of their right to rebellion:

He has obstructed the administration of justice...

For imposing taxes on us without our consent...

For suspending our own legislatures...

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us...

Again, Congress presented these “causes which impel them to separation" in universal terms to appeal to an international audience. It's like they were saying, by joining our fight you'll be joining mankind's overall fight against tyranny.

Step 4 is demonstrating the actions you took I really tried to make this relationship work, and here's how...

This is Part 2 of the Body. It explains how the colonists attempted to plead their case directly to the British people, only to have the door slammed in their face:

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury...

They too have been deaf to the voice of justice... We must, therefore... hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

This basically wrapped up America's argument for independence — we haven't been treated justly, we tried to talk to you about it, but since you refuse to listen and things are only getting worse, we're done here.

Step 5 is stating your intent — So, I think it's best if we go our separate ways. And my decision is final...

This is the powerful Conclusion. If people know any part of the Declaration besides the Preamble, this is it:

...that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved...

They left no room for doubt. The relationship was over, and America was going to reboot, on its own, with all the rights of an independent nation.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The message was clear — this was no pitchfork mob. These were serious men who had carefully thought through the issues before taking action. They were putting everything on the line for this cause.

The Declaration of Independence is a landmark in the history of democracy because it was the first formal statement of a people announcing their right to choose their own government. That seems so obvious to us now, but in 1776 it was radical and unprecedented.

In 1825, Jefferson wrote that the purpose of the Declaration was “not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of… but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm… to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take."

You're not going to do better than the Declaration of Independence. Sure, it worked as a means of breaking away from Great Britain, but its genius is that its principles of equality, inherent rights, and self-government work for all time — as long as we actually know and pursue those principles.

On June 7, 1776, the Second Continental Congress met in Philadelphia at the Pennsylvania State House, better known today as Independence Hall. Virginia delegate Richard Henry Lee introduced a motion calling for the colonies' independence. The “Lee Resolution" was short and sweet:

Resolved, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.

Intense debate followed, and the Congress voted 7 to 5 (with New York abstaining) to postpone a vote on Lee's Resolution. They called a recess for three weeks. In the meantime, the delegates felt they needed to explain what they were doing in writing. So, before the recess, they appointed a five-man committee to come up with a formal statement justifying a break with Great Britain. They appointed two men from New England — Roger Sherman and John Adams; two from the middle colonies — Robert Livingston and Benjamin Franklin; and one Southerner — Thomas Jefferson. The responsibility for writing what would become the Declaration of Independence fell to Jefferson.

In the rotunda of the National Archives building in Washington, D.C., there are three original documents on permanent display: the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence. These are the three pillars of the United States, yet America barely seems to know them anymore. We need to get reacquainted — quickly.

In a letter to his friend John Adams in 1816, Jefferson wrote: “I like the dreams of the future, better than the history of the past."

America used to be a forward-looking nation of dreamers. We still are in spots, but the national attitude that we hear broadcast loudest across media is not looking toward the future with optimism and hope. In late 2017, a national poll found 59% of Americans think we are currently at the “lowest point in our nation's history that they can remember."

America spends far too much time looking to the past for blame and excuse. And let's be honest, even the Right is often more concerned with “owning the left" than helping point anyone toward the practical principles of the Declaration of Independence. America has clearly lost touch with who we are as a nation. We have a national identity crisis.

The Declaration of Independence is America's thesis statement, and without it America doesn't exist.

It is urgent that we get reacquainted with the Declaration of Independence because postmodernism would have us believe that we've evolved beyond the America of our founding documents, and thus they're irrelevant to the present and the future. But the Declaration of Independence is America's thesis statement, and without it America doesn't exist.

Today, much of the nation is so addicted to partisan indignation that "day-to-day" indignation isn't enough to feed the addiction. So, we're reaching into America's past to help us get our fix. In 2016, Democrats in the Louisiana state legislature tabled a bill that would have required fourth through sixth graders to recite the opening lines of the Declaration. They didn't table it because they thought it would be too difficult or too patriotic. They tabled it because the requirement would include the phrase “all men are created equal" and the progressives in the Louisiana legislature didn't want the children to have to recite a lie. Representative Barbara Norton said, “One thing that I do know is, all men are not created equal. When I think back in 1776, July the fourth, African Americans were slaves. And for you to bring a bill to request that our children will recite the Declaration, I think it's a little bit unfair to us. To ask our children to recite something that's not the truth. And for you to ask those children to repeat the Declaration stating that all men's are free. I think that's unfair."

Remarkable — an elected representative saying it wouldn't be fair for students to have to recite the Declaration because “all men are not created equal." Another Louisiana Democrat explained that the government born out of the Declaration “was used against races of people." I guess they missed that part in school where they might have learned that the same government later made slavery illegal and amended the Constitution to guarantee all men equal protection under the law. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were an admission of guilt by the nation regarding slavery, and an effort to right the wrongs.

Yet, the progressive logic goes something like this: many of the men who signed the Declaration of Independence, including Thomas Jefferson who wrote it, owned slaves; slavery is evil; therefore, the Declaration of Independence is not valid because it was created by evil slave owners.

It's a sad reality that the left has a very hard time appreciating the universal merits of the Declaration of Independence because they're so hung up on the long-dead issue of slavery. And just to be clear — because people love to take things out of context — of course slavery was horrible. Yes, it is a total stain on our history. But defending the Declaration of Independence is not an effort to excuse any aspect of slavery.

Okay then, people might say, how could the Founders approve the phrase “All men are created equal," when many of them owned slaves? How did they miss that?

They didn't miss it. In fact, Thomas Jefferson included an anti-slavery passage in his first draft of the Declaration. The paragraph blasted King George for condoning slavery and preventing the American Colonies from passing legislation to ban slavery:

He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights to life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere... Determined to keep open a market where men should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce.

We don't say “execrable" that much anymore. It means, utterly detestable, abominable, abhorrent — basically very bad.

Jefferson was upset when Georgia and North Carolina threw up the biggest resistance to that paragraph. Ultimately, those two states twisted Congress' arm to delete the paragraph.

Still, how could a man calling the slave trade “execrable" be a slaveowner himself? No doubt about it, Jefferson was a flawed human being. He even had slaves from his estate in Virginia attending him while he was in Philadelphia, in the very apartment where he was writing the Declaration.

Many of the Southern Founders deeply believed in the principles of the Declaration yet couldn't bring themselves to upend the basis of their livelihood. By 1806, Virginia law made it more difficult for slave owners to free their slaves, especially if the owner had significant debts as Jefferson did.

At the same time, the Founders were not idiots. They understood the ramifications of signing on to the principles described so eloquently in the Declaration. They understood that logically, slavery would eventually have to be abolished in America because it was unjust, and the words they were committing to paper said as much. Remember, John Adams was on the committee of five that worked on the Declaration and he later said that the Revolution would never be complete until the slaves were free.

Also, the same generation that signed the Declaration started the process of abolition by banning the importation of slaves in 1807. Jefferson was President at the time and he urged Congress to pass the law.

America has an obvious road map that, as a nation, we're not consulting often enough.

The Declaration took a major step toward crippling the institution of slavery. It made the argument for the first time about the fundamental rights of all humans which completely undermined slavery. Planting the seeds to end slavery is not nearly commendable enough for leftist critics, but you can't discount the fact that the seeds were planted. It's like they started an expiration clock for slavery by approving the Declaration. Everything that happened almost a century later to end slavery, and then a century after that with the Civil Rights movement, flowed from the principles voiced in the Declaration.

Ironically for a movement that calls itself progressive, it is obsessed with retrying and judging the past over and over. Progressives consider this a better use of time than actually putting past abuses in the rearview and striving not to be defined by ancestral failures.

It can be very constructive to look to the past, but not when it's used to flog each other in the present. Examining history is useful in providing a road map for the future. And America has an obvious road map that, as a nation, we're not consulting often enough. But it's right there, the original, under glass. The ink is fading, but the words won't die — as long as we continue to discuss them.

'Good Morning Texas' gives exclusive preview of Mercury One museum

Screen shot from Good Morning Texas

Mercury One is holding a special exhibition over the 4th of July weekend, using hundreds of artifacts, documents and augmented reality experiences to showcase the history of slavery — including slavery today — and a path forward. Good Morning Texas reporter Paige McCoy Smith went through the exhibit for an exclusive preview with Mercury One's chief operating officer Michael Little on Tuesday.

Watch the video below to see the full preview.

Click here to purchase tickets to the museum (running from July 4 - 7).

Over the weekend, journalist Andy Ngo and several other apparent right-leaning people were brutally beaten by masked-gangs of Antifa protesters in Portland, Oregon. Short for "antifascist," Antifa claims to be fighting for social justice and tolerance — by forcibly and violently silencing anyone with opposing opinions. Ngo, who was kicked, punched, and sprayed with an unknown substance, is currently still in the hospital with a "brain bleed" as a result of the savage attack. Watch the video to get the details from Glenn.