Is the Alledged Russian Intel on Trump Factual?

January 11, 2017

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.

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.

UPDATED: 5 Democrats who have endorsed Kamala (and one who hasn'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."

UPDATED: Former President Barack Obama: ENDORSED

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."

UPDATED: On Friday, July 26th Barack and Michelle Obama officially threw their support behind Harris over a phone call with the current VP:

“We called to say, Michelle and I couldn’t be prouder to endorse you and do everything we can to get you through this election and into the Oval Office.”

The fact that it took nearly a week for the former president to endorse Kamala, along with his original statement, gives the endorsement a begrudging tone.

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

Is the Alledged Russian Intel on Trump Factual?

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

Readers were hooked. And outraged.

UPDATED: 5 Democrats who have endorsed Kamala (and one who hasn't)

Sen. Dick Durbin: ENDORSED

Michigan Gov. Whitmer: ENDORSED

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: ENDORSED

Rep. Nancy Pelosi: ENDORSED

Sen. Elizabeth Warren: ENDORSED

UPDATED: Former President Barack Obama: ENDORSED

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?