Susan Rice Scandal: Proof the Media Is in on the Game

Susan Rice, former National Security Advisor under the Obama administration who denied leaking the names of Trump officials, proved one thing on her recent media tour: The media is utterly biased and void of intellectual integrity.

Rice's statements on the unmasking scandal made it clear that in the normal process of the national security business, she asked the National Security Association for the names of certain Americans involved with President Trump's team. However, her claim that she didn't "leak" names was merely a game of semantics --- and the media knew it.

"Her claim is she didn't leak those names. Well, you don't have to when you unmask them. It goes out to the mass. Everybody who is on the list, everyone in government who got that gets the update with the unmasked names," Glenn said Wednesday on radio.

RELATED: A Chalkboard Lesson in Grammar: ‘I Leaked Nothing to Nobody’

Rice also said she didn't seek the names for "political purposes." Again, a game of semantics the media let slide.

"Media, you wonder why Donald Trump became president of the United States? This is your example," Glenn said. "You're doing it again. For anybody who thought possibly that you would have a backbone, that you have learned something, that you have become enlightened, you're doing it again! You are taking a story and you are picking the winner. You are picking the one you choose to believe."

Rice's previous lies to the American public should have left her with zero credibility, and yet the media gave her a platform to lie more without being challenged.

"It's your job to dissect this story and to show where the truth is and how it's all being lumped together to make it appear as though she's telling the truth," Glenn said. "This is the problem."

He continued.

"With so much dishonesty in the government, the credibility of those we've elected to serve us is completely shot. And so what do we do? We elect somebody like Donald Trump --- not because of the credibility of the people in the government, but because he told us the truth. And this is the truth: You can't believe the media. They are in on the game, and this Susan Rice story is proof positive," Glenn said.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: Hello, America. Welcome to The Glenn Beck Program. I want to start with Susan Rice. Here's what Susan said.

SUSAN: I leaked nothing to nobody.

(laughter)

GLENN: Now, aside from the double negative, former Obama national security adviser Susan Rice employs they're leaking nothing to nobody. Obviously, that means that you leaked something to everybody.

(chuckling)

But I digress.

Susan Rice who once claimed that the deserter Bowe Bergdahl served with honor and distinction is now vehemently denying any wrongdoing in the scandal of unmasking and leaking the names of Trump officials, which we will get back to here in a second. There is the unmasking, and then there is the, quote, what the media is calling leaking the names. It is a red herring because the media is lazy again.

Respected columnist Eli Lake citing anonymous US officials familiar with the matter, end quote, reported Monday that the national security adviser requested the identities of US persons in the raw intelligence reports on dozens of occasions that connect to the Donald Trump transition and campaign.

Now, she went on a media tour yesterday, to where she could be surrounded by friends who would let her go on the record without pushing her on any tough questions. Here she is with Andrea Mitchell.

SUSAN: First of all, Andrea, to talk about the contents of a classified report, to talk about the individuals on the foreign side who were the targets of the -- the report itself or any Americans who may have been collected upon incidentally, is to disclose classified information. I'm not going to do that. And those people who are putting these stories out are doing just that.

GLENN: Okay. So let's boil this down. It's pretty clear the implication from her various statements on this scandal that she has given is that in the normal process of the national security business, she indeed did ask the NSA for the names of certain Americans that were involved with President Trump.

But her claim is, she didn't leak those names. Well, you don't have to, when you unmask them.

It goes out to the mass. Everybody who is on the list -- everyone in government who got that gets the update with the unmasked names. She also says she didn't seek them for political purposes. Listen carefully.

VOICE: Within that process and within the context of the Trump campaign, the Trump transition, did you seek the names of people involved in -- to unmask the names of people involved in the Trump transition, the Trump campaign, people surrounding the president-elect, in order to spy on them?

SUSAN: Let me begin -- absolutely --

VOICE: In order to expose them?

SUSAN: Absolutely not for any political purposes, to spy, expose, anything. But let me --

VOICE: Did you leak the name of Mike Flynn?

SUSAN: I leaked nothing to nobody.

GLENN: I leaked nothing to nobody.

Again, we'll come back to that with Grammar Pat.

Now, maybe -- maybe some can be forgiven for doubting the veracity of a woman who looked us in the eye and flatout lied to us as the ambassador to the UN in 2012.

SUSAN: But based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is of the present is, in fact, it began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo, where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy, sparked by this hateful video.

GLENN: Okay. So here's the problem: She knew she was lying then. Obama knew she was lying then. Hillary Clinton knew she was lying then. I contend the president knew she was lying then.

Media, you wonder why Donald Trump became president of the United States, this is your example. You're doing it again. For anybody who thought possibly that you would have a backbone, that you have learned something, that you have become enlightened, you're doing it again! You are taking a story and you are picking the winner. You are picking the one you choose to believe.

She has no credibility. Was she following orders last time? Perhaps. Is she following orders this time? Perhaps.

It's your job to dissect this story and to show where the truth is and how it's all being lumped together to make it appear as though she's telling the truth. This is the problem. With so much dishonesty in the government, the credibility of those we've elected to serve us is completely shot.

And so what do we do? We elect somebody like Donald Trump -- not because of the credibility of the people in the government, but because he told us the truth. And this is the truth: You can't believe the media. They are in on the game. And this Susan Rice story is proof positive.

Now, let's go to -- let's go to Pat, who is going to take us to the chalkboard.

PAT: And diagram this a little bit.

GLENN: Yeah. I leaked nothing to nobody. Just show me how I leaked nothing to nobody works here, Pat.

PAT: All right. Well, first of all, this is obviously a negation, right?

GLENN: Pat at the chalkboard teaching.

PAT: Negation. Although, she used a double negative.

(chuckling)

GLENN: Okay.

PAT: Which, of course, leads to a positive statement. As you know, two negative numbers multiplied together makes it a positive. So if you leak nothing to nobody, that does mean that you leaked something to everybody. Now --

STU: You're saying it was a true statement?

PAT: It was a true statement. She obviously leaked something to everybody.

Now, if she was trying to say she didn't leak anything, then you have to use the negative auxillary, I didn't leak anything. The pronoun "anything." Or you could perhaps use the negative article, I have not leaked anything.

(chuckling)

GLENN: To nobody?

PAT: To anyone. To the --

STU: Can you say "I have not leaked nothing to nobody?" If it was a triple negative, she would be okay, right?

GLENN: If you say, I have not leaked anything to anyone, why isn't that a double positive, which would lead it to a double negative?

PAT: Because you've used the negative particle "not," which obviously means you haven't.

STU: And also, if you multiply two positives together, you don't get a negative. You get a positive.

PAT: Right. Correct.

GLENN: How do we know math is right? Have you checked with Common Core lately?

STU: Well, fake math, fake news. It's all real.

GLENN: Thank you, Pat. We appreciate that, for clearing that up.

PAT: Thank you.

JEFFY: Thank you.

PAT: Happy to do that.

GLENN: For anybody who wanted to know exactly -- by the way, anybody who is making fun of Donald Trump in the media and how he speaks --

PAT: Right.

GLENN: -- is anybody going over this? Is anybody saying, "Hey, Susan Rice, I didn't leak nothing to nobody is probably not something at a cabinet level."

STU: I didn't leak nothing to nobody would have been okay because it's a triple negative. However, she said I leaked nothing to nobody, making it a double negative and making it incorrect.

GLENN: You're right. You're right. I'm sorry --

STU: Or actually correct. Because she actually did leak it.

GLENN: Yes. Yes. But she didn't leak it. And here's how they're getting away with it: May I erase your work on the chalkboard here?

PAT: Yes, you may.

GLENN: Okay. So can anybody tell me what FISA means?

STU: Foreign Intelligence Security Act?

GLENN: Foreign Intelligence Security -- it's not act, is it? Is it act?

STU: Yes.

GLENN: And so what does it do?

STU: Yeah, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance. Sorry. Surveillance.

GLENN: Surveillance. Anybody know what it does?

STU: Well, there's foreign intelligence that has surveilled with this act.

GLENN: That's all you need to know. That's all you need to know. They are surveilling foreign intelligence.

Now, why are names masked in FISA? So everything we're talking about here goes to a FISA court.

PAT: They're masked because if Americans are caught up in it, they don't want to suck Americans into something that they're --

GLENN: Great.

PAT: -- not guilty of.

GLENN: So let's go back a bit.

How does the FISA court work? What is the FISA court? How is it supposed to work?

FISA court was developed because we found out in the '70s that the CIA was starting to spy on things. And we wanted to make sure that the CIA and the FBI and everybody was in their proper roles.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: But we -- we saw that the CIA was starting to use surveillance in foreign countries. And we were afraid we were going to use them here in America.

And so they put this wall up. And this is the point of the FISA court. We built a wall so no one -- no CIA, no NSA could ever cross back into the United States.

And so what the CIA said --

PAT: And it's illegal for the CIA to spy on Americans.

GLENN: Correct. This all comes from the Nixon era, and all this stuff was -- and you were starting to spy on Americans. So the FISA court was designed. And the FISA court, you as the CIA, you have to come to a FISA court and say, "Hey, we have a foreign intelligence that needs to be surveilled. We need to listen to their phone calls." Great. Listen to their phone calls.

And we're listening to their phone calls, as they're coming into the United States. They are here in the United States. And we need to listen to them.

Well, wait a minute. If they're here in the United States, they're going to be talking to Americans.

Yes, but what we'll do is when we issue the report, we will black out their name, and we will put US citizen number one.

And so when the FISA -- when the FISA report came to Susan Rice's desk, it said, "Here's the -- you know, the Russian operative Igor Mullowski (phonetic) -- whatever his name is, spoke to US citizen number one." Now, how do you unmask that?

PAT: You go to the NSA or the CIA and you say, "I need -- can I know -- I need to know who this US citizen is."

GLENN: So how do you know who to go to? CIA, NSA, how do you know who to go to?

PAT: I don't know.

STU: Are you teaching us or asking us?

GLENN: I'm asking -- I'm teaching you too. Do you know?

PAT: No. Whoever filed the report I would --

GLENN: So you go to whoever issued this report.

STU: Okay.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: The only people that have the key to unmask are the people that issued the report. So you go to the -- let's say the NSA. And you say, "Guys, I see US citizen number one. I think I know who this is, and there is something else going on that you're not privy to." Because everything is compartmentalized. I need to see US number one. And unmask US citizen number one so I know their name. Because I think they're connected in this other thing that we have going on over here. We have to make sure it's the same person.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Now, when they unmask it, who gets the unmasked report?

PAT: Person who asked for it.

GLENN: That's what I would think. Nope.

So when they're saying, did you leak anything? She didn't have to. Those reports go out to all of -- like 20 people. Those reports go out every day. And they have unmask.

If they are -- if they are unmasked -- they go out masked. Then if somebody asks for them to be unmasked, they're reissued, and they go out to everyone with the unmasking. So she didn't to have leak it. She gave it to 20, to 100 different people.

STU: And someone there leaked it.

GLENN: Someone there leaked it.

STU: She started the process.

GLENN: Right. So the questions they should be asking --

PAT: She puts the blame though, on the NSA, because they're the ones who decide whether they'll unmask or not.

GLENN: Right. Right. So let's play this out, Pat. She's exactly right. They do. You play Susan Rice, I play the NSA. Hello, NSA.

PAT: I'd like to know who citizen number one is.

STU: Why is your voice so low?

PAT: She's got a cold.

STU: Oh, okay.

GLENN: Wow, I hope you feel better, Susan. You sound really bad. You sound like that guy on the radio. What's his name? Oh, man.

PAT: Yeah, I don't feel good right now. So -- nobody knows. Nobody knows his name. It hasn't been unmasked yet.

GLENN: So, Susan, I can't just give you the name of the person.

PAT: No, I've got another investigation going on.

GLENN: You have another investigation going on? Can you tell me a little bit about -- I don't need to know about the investigation, but can you give me a reason why you think this name is important?

PAT: Well, it involves a Trump campaign.

GLENN: And are you doing something on the Trump campaign and the Russians?

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Okay. So you have something else going on?

PAT: Yes.

GLENN: Okay. So you do need it?

PAT: I do it need.

GLENN: Good. You don't just call them and say, "Hey, I need a name unmasked." Those are masked as a wall. It is incumbent upon the -- the agency that issued the report --

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: -- to then say, "Why do you need it?"

Now, as national security adviser, as the head of the president's national security, she has more clout than anyone else. But it is her case. She cannot blame anyone else for saying, "Well, they just released it." No.

They released it to you because you are the president's national security adviser. You are the top of the pyramid.

PAT: And you made the case.

GLENN: If you say, I have another case that you're not aware of, they will unmask it. Because you're the top of the pyramid. The only one higher is the president.

PAT: And based on her interviews, she -- she kind of walks this line --

JEFFY: Yes, she does.

GLENN: Yes, she does.

PAT: -- that, yeah, I did unmask something, but it wasn't for political purposes and I wasn't going after the Trump campaign.

GLENN: So the question should be, then what were you working on to ask for it to be unmasked?

PAT: Which she would say national security. Classified.

JEFFY: Classified.

GLENN: Correct. Correct, she will.

So then the next question is: So was that name the name connected with something else? National security. Well, you have an American -- you have an American's life at stake here.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Their whole --

PAT: Yeah, it's bad.

GLENN: The reason for the FISA wall, you've just destroyed their life. I think you have a responsibility to repair it and speak frankly.

As the nation soaks in the victory of the recent passing of the historic First Step Act, there are Congressmen who haven't stopped working to solve additional problems with the criminal justice system. Because while the Act was impactful, leading to the well-deserved early release of many incarcerated individuals, it didn't go far enough. That's why four Congressmen have joined forces to reintroduce the Justice Safety Valve Act—legislation that would grant judges judicial discretion when determining appropriate sentencing.

There's a real need for this legislation since it's no secret that lawmakers don't always get it right. They may pass laws with good intentions, but unintended consequences often prevail. For example, there was a time when the nation believed the best way to penalize lawbreakers was to be tough on crime, leading to sweeping mandatory minimum sentencing laws implemented both nationally and statewide.

RELATED: If Trump can support criminal justice reform, so can everyone else

Only in recent years have governments learned that these sentences aren't good policy for the defendant or even the public. Mandatory minimum sentences are often overly harsh, don't act as a public deterrent for crime, and are extremely costly to taxpayers. These laws tie judges' hands, preventing them from using their knowledge and understanding of the law to make case relevant decisions.

Because legislation surrounding criminal law is often very touchy and difficult to change (especially on the federal level, where bills can take multiple years to pass) mandatory minimum sentences are far from being done away with—despite the data-driven discoveries of their downfalls. But in order to solve the problems inherent within all of the different laws imposing sentencing lengths, Congress needs to pass the Justice Safety Valve Act now. Ensuring its passing would allow judges to use discretion while sentencing, rather than forcing them to continue issuing indiscriminate sentences no matter the unique facts of the case.

Rather than take years to go back and try to fix every single mandatory minimum law that has been federally passed, moving this single piece of legislation forward is the best way to ensure judges can apply their judgment in every appropriate case.

When someone is facing numerous charges from a single incident, mandatory minimum sentencing laws stack atop one another, resulting in an extremely lengthy sentence that may not be just. Such high sentences may even be violations of an individual's eighth amendment rights, what with the imposition of cruel and unusual punishment. It's exactly what happened with Weldon Angelos.

In Salt Lake City in 2002, Weldon sold half a pound of marijuana to federal agents on two separate occasions. Unbeknownst to Weldon, the police had targeted him because they suspected he was a part of a gang and trafficking operation. They were oh-so-wrong. Weldon had never sold marijuana before and only did this time because he was pressured by the agents to find marijuana for them. He figured a couple lowkey sales could help out his family's financial situation. But Weldon was caught and sentenced to a mandatory 55 years in prison. This massive sentence is clearly unjust for a first time, non-violent crime, and even the Judge, Paul Cassell, agreed. Judge Cassell did everything he could to reduce the sentence, but, due to federal law, it wasn't much.

The nation is facing an over-criminalization problem that costs taxpayers millions and amounts to the foolish eradication of individual liberties.

In cases like Weldon's, a safety valve for discretionary power is much needed. Judges need the ability to issue sentences below the mandatory minimums, depending on mitigating factors such as mental health, provocation, or physical illness. That's what this new bill would allow for. Critics may argue that this gives judges too much power, but under the bill, judges must first make a finding on why it's necessary to sentence below the mandatory minimum. Then, they must write a clear statement explaining their decision.

Judges are unlikely to risk their careers to allow dangerous criminals an early release. If something happens after an offender is released early, the political pressure is back on the judge who issued the shorter sentence—and no one wants that kind of negative attention. In order to avoid risky situations like this, they'd use their discretion very cautiously, upholding the oath they took to promote justice in every case.

The nation is facing an overcriminalization problem that costs taxpayers millions and amounts to the foolish eradication of individual liberties. Mandatory minimums have exacerbated this problem, and it's time for that to stop. Congresswomen and men have the opportunity to help solve this looming problem by passing the Justice Safety Valve Act to untie the hands of judges and restore justice in individual sentences.

Molly Davis is a policy analyst at Libertas Institute, a free market think tank in Utah. She's a writer for Young Voices, and her work has previously appeared in The Hill, TownHall.com, and The Washington Examiner.

New gadget for couples in 'the mood' lets a button do the talking

Photo by Matt Nelson on Unsplash

Just in time for Valentine's Day, there's a new romantic gadget for couples that is sure to make sparks fly. For those with their minds in the gutter, I'm not talking about those kinds of gadgets. I'm talking about a brilliant new device for the home called "LoveSync."

This is real — it's a simple pair of buttons for busy, modern couples who have plenty of time for social media and Netflix, but can't quite squeeze in time to talk about their... uh... special relationship.

Here's how it works. Each partner has their own individual LoveSync button. Whenever the mood strikes one partner, all they have to do is press their own button. That sets their button aglow for a certain period of time. If, during that time window, their partner also presses their own button, then both buttons light up in a swirling green pattern to signal that love has "synced"...and it's go time.

According to the makers of LoveSync, this device will "Take the Luck out of Getting Lucky." It brings a whole new meaning to "pushing each other's buttons." It's an ideal gift to tell your significant other "I care," without actually having to care, or talk about icky things like feelings.

If you find your significant other is already on the couch binge-watching The Bachelor, no problem! You can conveniently slink back to your button and hold it in for four seconds to cancel the desire. No harm, no foul! Live to fight another day.

Have fun explaining those buttons to inquiring children.

No word yet on whether LoveSync can also order wine, light candles or play Barry White. Maybe that's in the works for LoveSync 2.0.

Of course, LoveSync does have some pitfalls. Cats and toddlers love a good button. That'll be a fun conversation — "Honey, who keeps canceling my mood submissions?" And have fun explaining those buttons to inquiring children. "Yeah, kids, that button just controls the lawn sprinklers. No big deal."

If you've been dialing it in for years on Valentine's Day with flowers and those crappy boxes of chocolate, now you can literally dial it in. With a button.

Good luck with that.

The social power of 'Reddit' is helping teens of anti-vaxxers get vaccinated

Noam Galai/Getty Images for TechCrunch

Reddit certainly earns its motto as "the front page of the internet," with roughly 540 million visitors monthly, the third most-visited website in the U.S., sixth worldwide. Unlike Twitter and Facebook, Reddit is a largely anonymous platform. People's faces are masked, their names are disguised. Which makes their hidden humanity all the more impactful.

On Reddit, both news and serious information are threaded in among gifs of cats and posts about Call of Duty, but that doesn't make it any less important. For many people, Reddit signifies the town hall where news is passed along or stomped into obscurity.

It gives you a healthy read of our society as a whole.

RELATED: Forget Rabies, 'Woke' Hipsters in Brooklyn Skipping Vaccines to Prevent 'Dogtism'

A recent Pew Poll found that Reddit leans left politically at a rate higher than the general public. Most users are young men, whose extensive internet use gives them a gatekeeping authority over what information should be considered important. From there, it spreads through the rest of the internet and helps shape public opinion.

So, it makes a lot of sense that Reddit has become a sort of makeshift safe place for children who grew up with parents who refused to give them vaccinations. Of course, Reddit also vehemently mocks the anti-vaccination folks, for better or for worse, often the latter, but that's a subject for another day.

The Daily Dot recently published an article on this strange intersection of ideology and nerd culture. "Desperate teens of anti-vaxxers are turning to Reddit for vaccination advice."

The article follows Ethan, whose parents are staunchly against vaccinations:

But Ethan is not his parents. When he turned 18, he decided to take matters into his own hands. He wasn't sure where else to begin, so he turned to Reddit.

Where do I go to get vaccinated? Can I get vaccinated at my age?" Ethan asked his fellow redditors in December. Ethan's post flooded with over 1,000 comments from users offering their encouragement and support, along with practical advice. "Good on you for getting your vaccinations," one user responded. "It's never too late and you're not only protecting yourself but those around you who truly can't get vaccinated.

Ethan told the Daily Dot that some redditors even offered to give him money via GoFundMe or PayPal if insurance didn't cover the shots. "People were really supportive, and that was really cool," he said. "I had the blessing of Reddit. They were supporting me on a decision my mom freaked out about." Ethan is not alone. "More and more teens are turning to places like Reddit to seek out information on where and how to get vaccinated, and if it's too late."

Whatever your opinion on vaccinations, there's a positive message to all of this. A human message. Hopeful. Proof that, in an increasingly caustic world, people can turn to one another in times of need.

Whatever your opinion on vaccinations, there's a positive message to all of this. A human message. Hopeful.

Now more than ever, that is crucial.

Given the social power of Reddit, it is often characterized as a tool for politicians or political movements. Throughout the forum, various political ideologies gather and organize like factions in some ideological war. A political thread on Reddit is like a Facebook comment section at its most hostile, arrogant or confident, but with no identities attached to the attacks, rants or opinions. When you find yourself riled into a debate, it's easy to wonder who's behind the replies, especially the more vicious ones.

People often characterize it as a hive-mind message board full of circlejerk memes and jokes about SpongeBob. This description isn't entirely wrong, but it is shallow and incomplete. At its core, Reddit is humane. Its users, for the most part, are compassionate. If it were an experiment on human nature, the results would be gratifying.