Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Is the Alledged Russian Intel on Trump Factual?

January 11, 2017
Staff

WRITER

BuzzFeed on Tuesday published a report that has circulated around the media since August. No other media outlet would publish the unsubstantiated information, which hurls salacious allegations against President-elect Donald Trump and ties him to Russia. However, abandoning all journalistic integrity, BuzzFeed published the report, forcing other news outlets to address the allegations and President-elect Trump to hold a press conference.

The BuzzFeed article states:

A dossier, compiled by a person who has claimed to be a former British intelligence official, alleges Russia has compromising information on Trump. The allegations are unverified, and the report contains errors.

"Anyone who would come into my office [with this], I would say, Get the hell out of my office.

So what's truth and what's not? Is there any factual information --- and does it matter?

Enjoy this complimentary clip from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: Can we start here? Can we start here?

Let's agree on the premise first. Okay? On the premise of what we're doing.

We have to, as citizens, now figure out whether or not we should look at this and discuss this or not.

And here are the two sides: One side will say -- and break it down in classic logic.

The president gets the best intelligence. Right?

PAT: Yes. Although, it's not always accurate.

GLENN: Right. Hang on just a second. The first premise is the president gets the best intelligence. This was given to the president. Therefore, this is the best information. Now, there have been people who are making that -- look, they didn't make this up. This was given to the president. You don't believe the president's briefings? That's the first side. They'll immediately accept it because, this is credible information. It's coming from those four guys.

But that's false. Because of what Pat said. The middle sentence is incorrect or incomplete. "This was given to the president."

The middle sentence should be, "This was given to the president, but a lot of the stuff he's getting lately has been politicized, and sometimes it's incorrect."

PAT: Just ask him about weapons of mass destruction.

GLENN: Exactly right. Okay?

So the other side will tell you, the president gets the best intelligence. Yeah, but it's all politicized now. Therefore, we have to dismiss it.

No. No. Both of those are wrong. Logic will tell us, the president most times, or the president gets the best intelligence available to him. What is given to the president is sometimes wrong. Therefore, we must not dismiss or accept, but instead, investigate.

So this is up to us now. Because it's been dropped into the laps of the American people.

So let's logically, dispassionately look at what we have, and not accept or dismiss anything. Anybody who says, "I'm not listening," you're a fool. Anybody who says, "I'm not listening to you trying to excuse it all," you're a fool. "I'm not listening to you because you're talking about Donald Trump," you're a fool.

Because let's take it from the Trump side: This is Donald Trump's birther problem now. This will forever be the -- the birth certificate of Barack Obama. From here on out, the left will use this information to try to discredit. And they will say in -- in all kinds of fake news, "Well, yes, he's -- he's proved that's wrong. But I've got better sources. And let me show you. I'm going to be making a statement about some better sources that will show you he's lying."

And it will be used against Donald Trump from here on out. So you better build a strong case, based on logic, not on fear, not on anger, not on blind loyalty. Because they -- the other side will build it that way.

PAT: And we're talking about the president of the United States. Both sides, always, to themselves and to the country -- to dig into this and to investigate.

GLENN: We were never birthers. But I will tell you that there were many people around us that were passionate about Barack Obama's birth certificate at the very beginning. Passionate.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And we dispassionately investigated. We did our own homework. We were never birthers. We dismissed it. I'm sorry. At first, we took this approach. Not on the air. But internally, we took this approach: Neither dismiss it, nor accept it. It's out there. Let's do our homework and find out whether or not it's credible or not. We found it to be completely uncredible. So we dismissed it.

Let's do the same thing here because I guarantee you, this is going to be his birth certificate problem.

STU: Yeah, or at least part one of it. Who knows how many things are going to come out like this.

JEFFY: No kidding.

GLENN: There's two things he has going against him: How do you cry foul that you can't believe a source, when you were the one accepting the National Enquirer? When you were the one who said, "I have additional information on his birth certificate," and he never produced it?

STU: Right. I mean, this is --

GLENN: You're not going to gather a lot of sympathy from the people who don't like you.

STU: Right.

GLENN: There's no fairness points coming your way, unless they really are trying to be better people.

STU: And, look, we look at this, and we try to look at it, as you point out, soberly, dispassionately, and look at the information.

GLENN: Fairly.

STU: Right now, what we know, as far as these reports go -- and we haven't really talked about what's in the report.

GLENN: Yes. We'll do that next.

STU: It's almost important to look at it the way it's presented, which is I think fair -- the journalistically correct way is the way that Tapper's team did it.

GLENN: And, by the way, what we clipped from that was, who was on Tapper's team?

STU: Carl Bernstein.

GLENN: It was the cream of the crop of journalists. That doesn't mean anything to a lot of people, but it is the best we have.

STU: Right. But, I mean, if you want to find out how to report a story, a good place to start is to see how Jake Tapper reported it. You're going to be on the right side of that about 99 percent of the time.

GLENN: Yes. Yes. I agree.

PAT: Uh-huh.

STU: And so -- you see there -- I think what happened with the Buzzfeed part of this is they all -- all these media organizations have had this information since what -- they believe, since August.

And my initial inclination on the story like this is they would never do -- look at this, they're just trying to take down a Republican president. They would never do this to the other side. They could have released this information before the election. They had it.

GLENN: In fact, Harry Reid was demanding it.

STU: Yes. So they could have done this before the election. The CNN report, I think, breaks every -- but they're not the only people with this information. CNN reports it, and then Buzzfeed says, "Well, we have this. Let's get our piece of this story out there and try to claim as much as the reporting as we can."

GLENN: Correct.

STU: Did they step over the line? Probably. But I understand their motivation there. I understand --

GLENN: I actually -- the Buzzfeed story -- I hate to give this the -- because I didn't know CNN broke this. I thought CNN -- I thought the events were reversed.

PAT: Were reversed.

STU: Right.

GLENN: I thought CNN came out and did that. And I was like, "Okay. Well, that's the credible way of presenting."

STU: Right.

PAT: Is Buzzfeed the only one reporting the most salacious stuff?

STU: They release the actual documents. Inside the documents, it says things about prostitutes. We can get into in a little bit. And also financial connections.

PAT: But CNN didn't even go into that.

STU: They didn't even mention it. And so that --

GLENN: Well, they did say "the most salacious personal parts." They're not even talking about that.

STU: No.

GLENN: I mean, it is the other parts of this that are equally disturbing. I will tell you, that the personal parts are almost irrelevant to me. You know, because you've either made up your mind about who Donald Trump is as a man one way or another.

STU: Right. But this is about whether he's compromised as a president.

GLENN: Correct. Correct. So the sex -- this part of it doesn't matter, except, is he compromised as a president?

But the first part of it is bad enough to be compromised as a president.

STU: And a lot of the debate today is about, oh -- people are saying, "He didn't do that. He's innocent. He didn't have all these prostitutes in Moscow." We'll get into the details into why that's not important. It's not important. I will also say, I don't think there's any reason to even entertain the idea that those things are true. At this point, there is such limited information --

GLENN: Except for this: I want everyone in the audience to make up their mind right now.

PAT: If it is true, does it matter?

GLENN: Does it matter? Does it matter?

PAT: It's the Bill Clinton situation.

GLENN: Yeah. This is going to drag on for months, if not years.

PAT: If it's true, does it matter? Do you care about this guy's character at all?

GLENN: Yeah. Is there anything in this story that matters?

STU: If it were true.

GLENN: If it's true.

STU: I don't think it's true, and I don't think there's any reason to think it is at this point.

PAT: Yeah, I don't --

GLENN: I agree. At this point, there's not.

STU: But there's other reasons why it's important information. And we can get into that.

The Woodrow Wilson Mother's Day loophole

Stock Montage / Contributor, Xinhua News Agency / Contributor | Getty Images

I’ve got a potentially helpful revelation that’s gonna blow the lid off your plans for this Sunday. It’s Mother’s Day.

Yeah, that sacred day where you’re guilt-tripped into buying flowers, braving crowded brunch buffets, and pretending you didn’t forget to mail the card. But what if I told you… you don’t have to do it? That’s right, there’s a loophole, a get-out-of-Mother’s-Day-free card, and it’s stamped with the name of none other than… Woodrow Wilson (I hate that guy).

Back in 1914, ol’ Woody Wilson signed a proclamation that officially made Mother’s Day a national holiday. Second Sunday in May, every year. He said it was a day to “publicly express our love and reverence for the mothers of our country.” Sounds sweet, right? Until you peel back the curtain.

See, Wilson wasn’t some sentimental guy sitting around knitting doilies for his mom. No, no, no. This was a calculated move.

The idea for Mother’s Day had been floating around for decades, pushed by influential voices like Julia Ward Howe. By 1911, states were jumping on the bandwagon, but it took Wilson to make it federal. Why? Because he was a master of optics. This guy loved big, symbolic gestures to distract from the real stuff he was up to, like, oh, I don’t know, reshaping the entire federal government!

So here’s the deal: if you’re looking for an excuse to skip Mother’s Day, just lean into this. Say, “Sorry, Mom, I’m not celebrating a holiday cooked up by Woodrow Wilson!” I mean, think about it – this is the guy who gave us the Federal Reserve, the income tax, and don’t even get me started on his assault on basic liberties during World War I. You wanna trust THAT guy with your Sunday plans? I don’t think so! You tell your mom, “Look, I love you, but I’m not observing a Progressive holiday. I’m keeping my brunch money in protest.”

Now, I know what you might be thinking.

“Glenn, my mom’s gonna kill me if I try this.” Fair point. Moms can be scary. But hear me out: you can spin this. Tell her you’re honoring her EVERY DAY instead of some government-mandated holiday. You don’t need Wilson’s permission to love your mom! You can bake her a cake in June, call her in July, or, here’s a wild idea, visit her WITHOUT a Woodrow Wilson federal proclamation guilting you into it.

Shocking Christian massacres unveiled

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.