What Really Bothers Glenn About the FBI's Latest Move

October 31, 2016

Writer

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.

"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)

Washington Post EXPOSED: How Watergate editors almost published a fake Pulitzer Prize-winning story

Episode 6 of Glenn’s new history podcast series The Beck Story releases this Saturday.

This latest installment explores the history of Left-wing bias in mainstream media. Like every episode of this series, episode 6 is jam-packed with historical detail, but you can’t squeeze in every story, so some inevitably get cut from the final version. Part of this episode involves the late Ben Bradlee, who was the legendary editor of the Washington Post. Bradlee is legendary mostly because of the Watergate investigation that was conducted on his watch by two young reporters named Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. Bradlee, Woodward, and Bernstein became celebrities after the release of the book and movie based on their investigation called All the President’s Men.

But there is another true story about the Washington Post that you probably won’t see any time soon at a theater near you.

In 1980, Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee wanted to expand the Post’s readership in the black community. The paper made an effort to hire more minority journalists, like Janet Cooke, a black female reporter from Ohio. Cooke was an aggressive reporter and a good writer. She was a fast-rising star on a staff already full of stars. The Post had a very competitive environment and Cooke desperately wanted to win a Pulitzer Prize.

Readers were hooked. And outraged.

When Cooke was asked to work on a story about the D.C. area’s growing heroin problem, she saw her chance to win that Pulitzer. As she interviewed people in black neighborhoods that were hardest hit by the heroin epidemic, she was appalled to learn that even some children were heroin addicts. When she learned about an eight-year-old heroin addict named Jimmy, she knew she had her hook. His heartbreaking story would surely be her ticket to a Pulitzer.

Cooke wrote her feature story, titling it, “Jimmy’s World.” It blew away her editors at the Post, including Bob Woodward, who by then was Assistant Managing Editor. “Jimmy’s World” would be a front-page story:

'Jimmy is 8 years old and a third-generation heroin addict,' Cooke’s story began, 'a precocious little boy with sandy hair, velvety brown eyes and needle marks freckling the baby-smooth skin of his thin brown arms. He nestles in a large, beige reclining chair in the living room of his comfortably furnished home in Southeast Washington. There is an almost cherubic expression on his small, round face as he talks about life – clothes, money, the Baltimore Orioles and heroin. He has been an addict since the age of 5.'

Readers were hooked. And outraged. The mayor’s office instructed the police to immediately search for Jimmy and get him medical treatment. But no one was able to locate Jimmy. Cooke wasn’t surprised. She told her editors at the Post that she had only been able to interview Jimmy and his mother by promising them anonymity. She also revealed that the mother’s boyfriend had threatened Cooke’s life if the police discovered Jimmy’s whereabouts.

A few months later, Cooke’s hard work paid off and her dream came true – her story was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for feature writing. Cooke had to submit some autobiographical information to the Prize committee, but there was a slight snag. The committee contacted the Post when they couldn’t verify that Cooke had graduated magna cum laude from Vassar College. Turns out she only attended Vassar her freshman year. She actually graduated from the University of Toledo with a B.A. degree, not with a master’s degree as she told the Pulitzer committee.

Cooke’s editors summoned her for an explanation. Unfortunately for Cooke and the Washington Post, her resume flubs were the least of her lies. After hours of grilling, Cooke finally confessed that “Jimmy’s World” was entirely made up. Jimmy did not exist.

The Pulitzer committee withdrew its prize and Cooke resigned in shame. The Washington Post, the paper that uncovered Watergate – the biggest political scandal in American history – failed to even vet Cooke’s resume. Then it published a front-page, Pulitzer Prize-winning feature story that was 100 percent made up.

Remarkably, neither Ben Bradlee nor Bob Woodward resigned over the incident. It was a different time, but also, the halo of All the President’s Men probably saved them.

Don’t miss the first five episodes of The Beck Story, which are available now. And look for Episode 6 this Saturday, wherever you get your podcasts.

5 Democrats who have endorsed Kamala (and two who haven't)

Zach Gibson / Stringer, Brandon Bell / Staff | Getty Images

With Biden removed from the 2024 election and only a month to find a replacement before the DNC, Democrats continue to fall in line and back Vice President Kamala Harris to headline the party's ticket. Her proximity and familiarity with the Biden campaign along with an endorsement from Biden sets Harris up to step into Biden's shoes and preserve the momentum from his campaign.

Glenn doesn't think Kamala Harris is likely to survive as the assumed Democratic nominee, and once the DNC starts, anything could happen. Plenty of powerful and important Democrats have rallied around Harris over the last few days, but there have been some crucial exemptions. Here are five democrats that have thrown their name behind Harris, and two SHOCKING names that didn't...

Sen. Dick Durbin: ENDORSED

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

High-ranking Senate Democrat Dick Durbin officially put in his support for Harris in a statement that came out the day after Biden stepped down: “I’m proud to endorse my former Senate colleague and good friend, Vice President Kamala Harris . . . our nation needs to continue moving forward with unity and not MAGA chaos. Vice President Harris was a critical partner in building the Biden record over the past four years . . . Count me in with Kamala Harris for President.”

Michigan Gov. Whitmer: ENDORSED

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

The Monday after Biden stepped down from the presidential VP hopeful, Gretchen Whitmer released the following statement on X: “Today, I am fired up to endorse Kamala Harris for president of the United States [...] In Vice President Harris, Michigan voters have a presidential candidate they can count on to focus on lowering their costs, restoring their freedoms, bringing jobs and supply chains back home from overseas, and building an economy that works for working people.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: ENDORSED

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

Mere hours after Joe Biden made his announcement, AOC hopped on X and made the following post showing her support: "Kamala Harris will be the next President of the United States. I pledge my full support to ensure her victory in November. Now more than ever, it is crucial that our party and country swiftly unite to defeat Donald Trump and the threat to American democracy. Let’s get to work."

Rep. Nancy Pelosi: ENDORSED

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is arguably one of the most influential democrats, backed Harris's campaign with the following statement given the day after Biden's decision: “I have full confidence she will lead us to victory in November . . . My enthusiastic support for Kamala Harris for President is official, personal, and political.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren: ENDORSED

Drew Angerer / Stringer | Getty Images

Massasschesets Senator Elizabeth Warren was quick to endorse Kamala, releasing the following statement shortly after Harris placed her presidential bid: "I endorse Kamala Harris for President. She is a proven fighter who has been a national leader in safeguarding consumers and protecting access to abortion. As a former prosecutor, she can press a forceful case against allowing Donald Trump to regain the White House. We have many talented people in our party, but Vice President Harris is the person who was chosen by the voters to succeed Joe Biden if needed. She can unite our party, take on Donald Trump, and win in November."

Former President Barack Obama: DID NOT ENDORSE

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Former President Barack Obama wasted no time releasing the following statement which glaringly omits any support for Harris or any other candidate. Instead, he suggests someone will be chosen at the DNC in August: "We will be navigating uncharted waters in the days ahead. But I have extraordinary confidence that the leaders of our party will be able to create a process from which an outstanding nominee emerges. I believe that Joe Biden's vision of a generous, prosperous, and united America that provides opportunity for everyone will be on full display at the Democratic Convention in August. And I expect that every single one of us are prepared to carry that message of hope and progress forward into November and beyond."

Prominent Democratic Donor John Morgan: DID NOT ENDORSE

AP Photo/John Raoux

Prominent and wealthy Florida lawyer and democrat donor John Morgan was clearly very pessimistic about Kamala's odds aginst Trump when he gave the following statement: “You have to be enthusiastic or hoping for a political appointment to be asking friends for money. I am neither. It’s others turn now . . . The donors holding the 90 million can release those funds in the morning. It’s all yours. You can keep my million. And good luck . . . [Harris] would not be my first choice, but it’s a done deal.”

How did Trump's would-be assassin get past Secret Service?

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Former President Donald Trump on Saturday was targeted in an assassination attempt during a campaign rally in Pennsylvania. It occurred just after 6:10 p.m. while Trump was delivering his speech.

Here are the details of the “official” story. The shooter was Thomas Matthew Crooks. He was 20 years old from Bethel Park, Pennsylvania. He used an AR-15 rifle and managed to reach the rooftop of a nearby building unnoticed. The Secret Service's counter-response team responded swiftly, according to "the facts," killing Crooks and preventing further harm.

Did it though? That’s what the official story says, so far, but calling this a mere lapse in security by Secret Service doesn't add up. There are some glaring questions that need to be answered.

If Trump had been killed on Saturday, we would be in a civil war today. We would have seen for the first time the president's brains splattered on live television, and because of the details of this, I have a hard time thinking it wouldn't have been viewed as JFK 2.0.

How does someone sneak a rifle onto the rally grounds? How does someone even know that that building is there? How is it that Thomas Matthew Crooks was acting so weird and pacing in front of the metal detectors, and no one seemed to notice? People tried to follow him, but, oops, he got away.

How could the kid possibly even think that the highest ground at the venue wouldn't be watched? If I were Crooks, my first guess would be, "That’s the one place I shouldn't crawl up to with a rifle because there's most definitely going to be Secret Service there." Why wasn't anyone there? Why wasn't anyone watching it? Nobody except the shooter decided that the highest ground with the best view of the rally would be the greatest vulnerability to Trump’s safety.

Moreover, a handy ladder just happened to be there. Are we supposed to believe that nobody in the Secret Service, none of the drones, none of the things we pay millions of dollars for caught him? How did he get a ladder there? If the ladder was there, was it always there? Why was the ladder there? Secret Service welds manhole covers closed when a president drives down a road. How was there a ladder sitting around, ready to climb up to the highest ground at the venue, and the Secret Service failed to take it away?

There is plenty of video of eyewitnesses yelling that there was a guy with a rifle climbing up on a ladder to the roof for at least 120 seconds before the first shot was fired. Why were the police looking for him while Secret Service wasn't? Why did the sniper have him in his sights for over a minute before he took a shot? Why did a cop climb up the ladder to look around? When Thomas Matthew Cooks pointed a gun at him, he then ducked and came down off the ladder. Did he call anyone to warn that this young man had a rifle within range of the president?

How is it the Secret Service has a female bodyguard who doesn't even reach Trump's nipples? How was she going to guard the president's body with hers? How is it another female Secret Service agent pulled her gun out a good four minutes too late, then looked around, apparently not knowing what to do? She then couldn't even get the pistol back into the holster because she's a Melissa McCarthy body double. I don't think it's a good idea to have Melissa McCarthy guarding the president.

Here’s the critical question now: Who trusts the FBI with the shooter’s computer? Will his hard drive get filed with the Nashville manifesto? How is it that the Secret Service almost didn't have snipers at all but decided to supply them only one day before the rally because all the local resources were going to be put on Jill Biden? I want Jill Biden safe, of course. I want Jill Biden to have what the first lady should have for security, but you can’t hire a few extra guys to make sure our candidates are safe?

How is it that we have a Secret Service director, Kimberly Cheatle, whose experience is literally guarding two liters of Squirt and spicy Doritos? Did you know that's her background? She's in charge of the United States Secret Service, and her last job was as the head of security for Pepsi.

This is a game, and that's what makes this sick. This is a joke. There are people in our country who thought it was OK to post themselves screaming about the shooter’s incompetence: “How do you miss that shot?” Do you realize how close we came to another JFK? If the president hadn't turned his head at the exact moment he did, it would have gone into the center of his head, and we would be a different country today.

Now, Joe Biden is also saying that we shouldn't make assumptions about the motive of the shooter. Well, I think we can assume one thing: He wanted to kill the Republican presidential candidate. Can we agree on that at least? Can we assume that much?

How can the media even think of blaming Trump for the rhetoric when the Democrats and the media constantly call him literally worse than Hitler who must be stopped at all costs?

These questions need to be answered if we want to know the truth behind what could have been one of the most consequential days in U.S. history. Yet, the FBI has its hands clasped on all the sources that could point to the truth. There must be an independent investigation to get to the bottom of these glaring “mistakes.”

POLL: Do you think Trump is going to win the election?

Kevin Dietsch / Staff, Chip Somodevilla / Staff, Kevin Dietsch / Staff | Getty Image

It feels like all of the tension that has been building over the last four years has finally burst to the surface over the past month. Many predicted 2024 was going to be one of the most important and tumultuous elections in our lifetimes, but the last two weeks will go down in the history books. And it's not over yet.

The Democratic National Convention is in August, and while Kamala seems to be the likely candidate to replace Biden, anything could happen in Chicago. And if Biden is too old to campaign, isn't he too old to be president? Glenn doesn't think he'll make it as President through January, but who knows?

There is a lot of uncertainty that surrounds the current political landscape. Trump came out of the attempted assassination, and the RNC is looking stronger than ever, but who knows what tricks the Democrats have up their sleeves? Let us know your predictions in the poll below:

Glenn's Show Prep

What Really Bothers Glenn About the FBI's Latest Move

Washington Post EXPOSED: How Watergate editors almost published a fake Pulitzer Prize-winning story

Readers were hooked. And outraged.

5 Democrats who have endorsed Kamala (and two who haven't)

Sen. Dick Durbin: ENDORSED

Michigan Gov. Whitmer: ENDORSED

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: ENDORSED

Rep. Nancy Pelosi: ENDORSED

Sen. Elizabeth Warren: ENDORSED

Former President Barack Obama: DID NOT ENDORSE

Prominent Democratic Donor John Morgan: DID NOT ENDORSE

How did Trump's would-be assassin get past Secret Service?

POLL: Do you think Trump is going to win the election?

Is Trump going to win the election?

Did the assassination attempt increase Trump's chances at winning in November?

Did Trump's pick of J.D. Vance help his odds?

Did the Trump-Biden debate in June help Trump's chances?

Did Biden's resignation from the election hand Trump a victory in November?

Do the Democrats have any chance of winning this election?