Mike Lee Reacts to Comey Firing: 'It Was a Surprise to All of Us'

May 10, 2017

WRITER

Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) talked with Glenn Wednesday on radio following the news that James Comey had been fired as director of the FBI.

"We thought, let's see, who doesn't switch sides all the time? Who is not doing the calculus in their head of, "Okay, wait a minute. How am I supposed to answer this week?" Glenn asked sarcastically.

The name that immediately popped into mind was Senator Lee.

"A guy who just plays it straight the whole time," Glenn said.

Senator Lee shared his thoughts on the crazy world of politics and why, in his opinion, James Comey got in his own way.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: When we were looking at all the people we could have on the air today to talk about this -- and, you know, everybody -- all the talking heads are out. All the politicians are out on both sides. We thought, let's see, who doesn't switch sides all the time? Who is not doing the calculus in their head of, "Okay. Wait a minute. How am I supposed to answer this week?" The name, of course, Mike Lee comes to mind immediately. A guy who just plays it straight the whole time. Mike, welcome to the program. How are you?

MIKE: Doing great, thank you very much, Glenn.

GLENN: Senator from Utah.

So tell me, Mike, what the hell is going -- what happened?

MIKE: You know, it was a surprise to all of us. It was certainly a surprise to me. I learned about it through the news yesterday afternoon. No prior warning.

In short, I think part of what happened at least was that Jim Comey had become the issue. And even he, I think, would acknowledge that that isn't good, for the FBI director himself to become the issue. And so I think that's what happened. I don't know of the timing for the announcement. I don't know whether that was right.

And I don't know where this goes from here. But I think, once he was the issue, I think it became much more likely that they would end up making a change at the Department of Justice.

GLENN: Okay. So I agree with that, that we can't have a celebrity -- we can't have somebody who is polarizing in that position. We just want a no-name just to make the calls, like an umpire. You know, just -- I just want somebody in that position, who is wearing the black-and-white stripes, and not because they're in prison. But because they're an ump.

MIKE: Yeah.

GLENN: And there's no celebrities in Ump Town.

MIKE: Yes.

GLENN: Here's the thing that the Democrats are using -- and I'd like to get your view on this. They are in the middle of apparently some investigation of the people in his administration. Is -- did that play a role? Was this appropriate for him to fire him? I mean, he made it very clear, Trump did, in the firing letter. You told me three times that I -- you know, I'm -- I'm a good guy. And I'm not part of an investigation. He made that very clear that this had nothing to do with that investigation.

But does it -- I mean, do you know what's happening with the investigation and the grand jury possibly being called?

MIKE: I don't. I have absolutely no idea. From my standing point, that has not only unknown, but unknowable at this point. It's one of the reasons why this has gotten a lot of attention though is that people see an investigation going on as to Russia's involvement with last year's election, and people see the possibility where the suspicion that this might have been connected with that. Now, the publicly stated reason indicated that it was not that. That it had to do with management reasons.

GLENN: Is there any reason, Senator Mike Lee, that this came up out of the blue yesterday and had to be -- he had to be fired in the middle of giving a speech? I mean, why -- why the sudden, we got to get him out of here? Any idea?

MIKE: I do not know. Some have speculated that, you know, we have a new deputy attorney general, Rod Rosenstein. And he's very well respected. And he's been in place for only a couple of weeks, just barely having been confirmed by the US Senate, overwhelmingly. He did make a recommendation on this. And that recommendation involves Mr. Comey's dismissal. And the fact that he's been in office only a short period of time perhaps explain some of the timing. I really don't know.

But, again, this wasn't run by us in advance. We had no advance notice. Nor do I have any inside information as to what they had in mind. There are -- there are rumors circulating suggesting that there was a lack of trust, generally between the White House and Mr. Comey. One can understand that a lack of trust generally -- lack of trust as to his willingness to be impartial, as to his ability to treat things with confidentiality, during the pendency of an investigation would be of concern. But I have no idea whether any of those things --

GLENN: Well, I think that would have been the same if Hillary Clinton were in office. There would have been a lack of trust.

Can you tell me anything about McCarthy? Andrew McCarthy, the guy that's coming in, isn't he an Obama guy?

MIKE: Yeah, I don't -- I'm not a good witness on that at this point. I wish I could give you information on that, and I just can't.

GLENN: Is there -- is there talk in the hallways today -- we see Schumer out. Is there real talk in the hallways today, like there was last night. "We're in a constitutional crisis. This is Nixon. This is Watergate. We demand hearings." Is there a real push on the Hill for that, and will anything come about from that, Mike?

MIKE: There's definitely a push to try to create the appearance of a crisis. I think that's a mistake. I think it's short-sighted at this point. If people have information demonstrating impropriety that's one thing. But any time you suggest a constitutional crisis, you got to be prepared to back it up with actual arguments, with actual facts that tie into actual constitutional arguments.

GLENN: No, that doesn't --

MIKE: We haven't seen those yet.

STU: Mike, the idea that he had become -- Comey had become the sort of center of attention and maybe a personality in a role where you don't want personality -- and part of that is his own doing, I think -- but outside of that, who is he? Is he a good guy? Did he do a good job? Taking out sort of the way the press has handled this, do you stand by Comey and the job that he did?

MIKE: Look, I personally really like the guy, and I've known him for more than -- I don't know what it's been -- 12 or 13 years. He was our high-ranking Department of Justice official, the deputy attorney general at the time I was a federal prosecutor in Salt Lake City. He came and visited our office. Shook hands with each of us. Got to know each of us. Gave us a pep talk. He was a prosecutor's prosecutor. I mean, he told us these great stories. And he explained to us, you know, if you woke me up in the middle of the night and asked me, "who are you," I would tell you I'm an assistant United States attorney. This guy knew how to motivate federal prosecutors, knew how to relate to us, knew how to explain to us that he had empathy with us, that he understood we had to see things as federal prosecutors that no one should have to see.

He is a very likable human being. So, yeah, personally, I love the guy.

GLENN: Was he -- was he a guy -- do you believe that -- because we've heard from both sides as both sides loved him and hated him, that the FBI -- the agents didn't like him because he was, you know, flying off the handle and there was no trust between him and the system, not above, but below. Is that true, do you think?

MIKE: I have heard of that. I suspect some of it is exaggerated. But, again, we have to remember the culture of the FBI. This is a place that has deliberately, since the days of J. Edgar Hoover, eschewed anything that looks like open, bold, partisan activity. There was a special agent in charge, I believe in Louisiana a few years ago who was fired before lunch after he did an interview one morning in which he acknowledged that some day, he might possibly consider running for public office. They had fired him from Washington, DC, before lunch the day that happened. So that shows the culture within the FBI. They really like to eschew anything that looks political. And so this guy, having waded into the political thicket, whether wittingly or otherwise avoidably or not, definitely ran afoul of some of that culture.

GLENN: Is this -- is there any reason, Mike, to be concerned -- you know, again, people are talking about, you know, a dictatorship. And I have to tell you, if President Obama did this, I would be very concerned. President Trump has done this. I'm very concerned. But most people are picking partisan sides.

Is there anything lasting to this that we should worry about? Is there anything that was done that kind of is sending a message to us that we should be hearing?

MIKE: Well, look, this is another one of those instances where only time will tell. The White House stated plausibly legitimate, valid reasons for making a change. If, in fact, the federal Bureau of Investigation is in disarray, if, in fact, it's not working the way it should and there's been an erosion of trust there among and between agents within the Department of Justice, then -- then that's a problem.

And time will tell -- will prove out those facts if indeed those are the facts. If, in fact, the reason was something different than that, then people will have cause to be concerned. I have no way of knowing what that will be. I normally start when somebody gives a facially valid explanation by assuming that that's true until proven otherwise.

GLENN: So the Senate hearing that was happening -- the subcommittee hearing that was happening on Russia and everything else, Mike, is a giant circus. I mean, there was nothing useful that is coming out of that at all. You know, we're not talking about who actually leaked the information from the federal government and the White House. We think we know who it is. But nobody seems interested in going after that.

And, quite honestly, it doesn't seem like anybody was really interested in going after -- I mean, a foreign government tried to influence the elections. And I don't care who it is. If it was -- if it was Hillary Clinton, if it was Barack Obama, if it was Ted Cruz, if it was Jesus, I'd want to know what exactly happened. And I don't get the impression that anybody in Washington is really that interested in finding out either one of those questions.

Am I reading it wrong?

MIKE: I don't think -- yeah, I think so. In this instance, I think you are. You're right most of the time, Glenn. In this instance, I think you're wrong. There are a lot of people who care very passionately about that, including me. But by no means limited to me. People of both parties are concerned about that. Some of those investigations -- some of the details behind those investigations are still classified, and so they can't be discussed. That might be one of the reasons why you're not hearing as much on that. But, look, this is a big deal.

GLENN: Have you been read into those classified?

MIKE: Some of them, yes.

GLENN: Okay.

MIKE: I'm not on the intelligence committee. And so I don't have the highest level of access some of my colleagues have. But this is disturbing on many levels, not just because what may have happened by virtue of the actions of other governments, namely that of Russia on our own, but also what happened within our own government. And it's also concerning, given what we see with Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, is potentially very distressing. The fact that they can record conversations of US citizens, and as long as they talk to someone who is himself or herself a target of a foreign intelligence investigation, they can record that call, store it in a database, and search that database with the US citizen being the target, without a warrant. That's distressing.

GLENN: You -- you -- I know you testified -- Comey did, in front of your committee last week, and was saying, we need to have a statutory rule that says we can go into anybody's browser and search it at any time without a warrant. That's terrifying stuff.

MIKE: It's very terrifying, the fact that he was saying that, the fact that we've got a whole lot of members of the US Senate, and a whole lot of members of the House of Representatives who think that's just fine. I mean, they're pushing this thing -- this proposal to give the federal government warrantless access to your browsing history. To your electronic transaction records. Your search records. What you've read on the internet. That's the functional equivalent to allowing the government warrantless access to your entire library, to the books you've read, that you have on your shelf at home.

GLENN: But that's going to happen, Mike. There was a new survey that just came out for millennials. And like 54 percent, I think it was, of millennials -- of conservative millennials say, "Yes, the freedom -- freedom of speech and the First Amendment is absolutely vital, but the government needs to outline what speech is okay and what's not okay." I mean, it's -- it's an upside down world.

MIKE: Well, it is. And that's why we've got to turn it back right-side up. We've got to right people of the fact that governments are necessary. Governments can protect us. But they have to be managed. They have to be constrained. Because people who are interested (breaking up) -- those who have power, inevitably want more. We've got to protect ourselves. And to protect ourselves, we have to understand our rights, and we have to understand the risks and the dangers associated with government.

GLENN: Mike, I appreciate your time. I've got a book that's on my desk right in front of me because I just had this guy on, Yuval Harari. He wrote a book called Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow.

You're -- you're an intellectual enough to really get your arms around this. I'm going to send this book to you. You have to read it. It is what all the elites around the world is reading. And it is the future of tomorrow. And we have to start having deeper conversations that, you know, the kind of conversations that most people are having. Because the world is fundamentally about to change, and so are the world's governments. And this kind of goes into that.

Mike, thank you so much. Appreciate it.

MIKE: Hey, thank you, Glenn.

Woke ideology trumps medicine in America's top 5 medical schools

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Progressive ideology has infected our most prestigious medical schools and is seeping into our medical system.

As Glenn covered in his latest TV special, "diversity, equity and inclusion" (DEI), and leftist rhetoric have overtaken science and medicine as the focus of medical schools across the nation. The next generation of doctors and nurses is being force-fed DEI and "anti-racist" nonsense at the expense of slipping standards. This has led to a decline in people's trust in the medical industry and for good reason. Woke ideology has already been the driving force behind at least one medical malpractice case, and more are undoubtedly on the way.

All of this is being spearheaded by universities, which have integrated DEI practices into the fabric of their programs. Our top medical schools now require students and staff to participate in mandatory DEI and "anti-racist" classes and training and are adjusting the standards to reflect this new shift in focus. Here are 5 statements from the top American medical schools that show that medicine is no longer their primary focus:

Harvard Medical School

Boston Globe / Contributor | Getty Images

Taken from the Harvard University "Unconscious bias" resource page:

“As members of HMS, we each have a responsibility to create an inclusive community that values all individuals. Barriers to inclusion may include assumptions we make about others that guide our interactions. Recognizing our Unconscious Bias is a critical step in developing a culture of equity and inclusion within HMS and in our partnerships with other communities.”

The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine

Rob Carr / Staff | Getty Images

Pulled from the JHM Office of Diversity, Inclusion and Health Equity blog:

“One-hour live, virtual unconscious bias training ... [w]ill be required at all Johns Hopkins Health System (JHHS) entities for managers and above; hospital nurse leaders; credentialed providers (such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners); and for school of medicine faculty and trainees (including residents, fellows, medical and graduate students, and research postdocs), as well as those at a manager level or above.”

Stanford University School of Medicine

Philip Pacheco / Stringer | Getty Images

Found on the Stanford Medicine Commission on Justice and Equity page:

“The Commission on Justice and Equity—composed of external and internal leaders, experts, and advocates—represents an institution-wide, collaborative effort to dismantle systemic racism and discrimination within our own community and beyond.”

Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania

Education Images / Contributor | Getty Images

Taken from the Penn Medicine Commitment to Inclusion, Equity, and Antiracism site:

“We openly acknowledge the role of structural forces of oppression as primary drivers of the disparate health outcomes. We believe that working to reverse the underrepresentation of historically excluded groups is critical in achieving equitable health outcomes. While this is an ongoing journey for our program, here are some of the tangible steps we have taken to achieve an inclusive culture”

Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons

Jeenah Moon / Stringer | Getty Images

Pulled from the Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons Diversity, Equity, Inclusivity, Justice, and Anti-Racism page:

"Courses are being revised to be more inclusive and informed by the key principle of race as a social construct and a social determinant of health. We are training faculty that Anti-Racism is not an add-on to a course. Anti-Racism is a pedagogy - a manner of teaching, designing courses, and measuring learning outcomes. We make sure that the classroom environment is inclusive by holding space for respectful conversation and ensuring that we address any “classroom ruptures”– a disorienting dilemma or situation when a bias or microaggression that may occur, providing real time opportunities for professional development, learning, and growth. Racist actions and remarks are never tolerated at Columbia University and will be dealt with following established protocols."

Critical theory destroys truth and justice

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

Critical theory once stood out as the absurd progressive notion that it is. Now, its maxims are becoming an integral part of ordinary political discourse. The more you repeat a lie, the more you will believe it, and this is the very dangerous place in which we find ourselves today.

Take this critical theory maxim as an example: If we desire justice, we must sometimes champion what may appear superficially as injustice. It's a necessary evil, if you will, the necessity of “controlled injustice.”

By using truth through fabrication and controlled injustice for justice, we’ll save the republic. We’ll be acting in a noble way.

This definition of justice is defined by the “oppressed,” not the “oppressor.” It is the greatest happiness for the greatest number. To achieve this justice, however, we need to endorse acts on occasion that, while seemingly unjust, serve a higher purpose. It will ensure the stability and the unity of our republic, and this may manifest in ways that seem contradictory to our values. But these are the necessary shadows to cast light on “true justice.”

And isn’t that what we are all after, anyway?

Here’s another critical theory maxim: Sometimes we find the truth through fabrication. Our pursuit of truth sometimes requires a strategic use of falsehoods. The truth is a construct that has been shaped and tailored to promote the well-being of the collective.

We sometimes need to accept and propagate lies designed by "the system” — not the old system, but the system that we’re now using to replace the old to get more justice through injustice and more truth through fabrication.

We’re engaging in a higher form of honesty. When we fabricate, it’s for the right reason. We are reaching up to the heavens fighting for a higher sort of honesty. To fortify the truth, we occasionally must weave a tapestry of lies. Each thread, essential for the greater picture, will ultimately define our understanding and ensure our unity under this infallible wisdom.

The election is coming up. Does this maxim sound familiar? Many think it is imperative that we secure our republic through election control to maintain our republic. Sometimes, we might need to take actions that by traditional standards might be questionable.

The act of securing elections requires cheating. It's not mere deception. It is a noble act of safeguarding our way of life. We're on the verge of losing this democracy, and without deception, we will lose it.

To ensure it doesn't fall into the hands of those we know will destroy it, we may have to make a few fabrications. We're fabricating stories to be able to control or secure the republic through our elections. By using truth through fabrication and controlled injustice for justice, we'll save the republic. Therefore, we'll be acting in a noble way. Stealing an election from those who wish to harm our society is truly an act of valor and an essential measure to protect our values and ensure the continuation of our just society.

If we desire justice, we must sometimes champion what may appear superficially as injustice.

I know it's a paradox of honor through dishonor. But in this context, by embracing the dishonor, we achieve the highest form of honor, ensuring the stability and the continuation of our great republic.

Let this be heard, far and wide, as a great call to patriotic action. As we advance, let each of us, citizens of this great and honorable republic, consider these principles. Not as abstract or paradoxical but as practical guides to daily life. Embrace the necessity of controlled injustice, the utility of lies, the duty to secure our electoral process, and the honor and apparent dishonor. These are not merely strategies for survival. They are prerequisites for our prosperity.

We all have to remember that justice is what our leaders define, that truth is what our party tells us. Our republic stands strong on the values of injustice for justice, honor through dishonor, and the fabrication of truths. To deviate from this path is to jeopardize the very fabric of our society. Strength through unity; unity through strength.

We've heard this nonsense for so long. But now, this nonsense is becoming an instituted reality, and we are entering perilous times. Don't be fooled by the narratives you will hear during the march to November. Never let someone convince you that the ends justify the means, that a little bit of injustice is needed to achieve a broader, collective vision of justice, that truth sometimes requires fabricated lies and narratives. If we do, justice will cease to be justice, truth will cease to be truth, and our republic will be lost.

Top 5 MOST EVIL taxes the government extorts from you

David McNew / Staff | Getty Images

"In this world nothing is certain but death and taxes." -Ben Franklin

The injustice of taxation has been a core issue for Americans since the very beginning of our country, and it's a problem we have yet to resolve. This belief was recently reignited in many Americans earlier this month on tax day when the numbers were crunched and it was discovered that the government was somehow owed even more hard-earned money. As Glenn recently discussed on his show, it's getting to be impossible for most Americans to afford to live comfortably, inflation is rising, and our politicians keep getting richer.

The taxpayer's burden is heavier than ever.

The government is not above some real low blows either. While taxes are a necessary evil, some taxes stretch the definition of "necessary" and emphasize the "evil." Here are the top five most despicable taxes that are designed to line the IRS coffers at your expense:

Income Tax

Joe Raedle / Staff | Getty Images

"It would be a hard government that should tax its people one-tenth part of their income." -Ben Franklin

On February 24th, 2024 we hit a very unfortunate milestone, the 101st anniversary of the 16th Amendment, which authorized federal income tax. Where does the government get the right to steal directly out of your paycheck?

Death Taxes

Dan Mullan / Staff | Getty Images

"Now my advice for those who die, Declare the pennies on your eyes" -George Harrison

Not even in death can you escape the cold pursuit of the tax collector. It's not good enough that you have to pay taxes on everything you buy and every penny you make your entire life. Now the feds want a nice slice, based on the entire value of your estate, that can be as much as 40 percent. Then the state government gets to stick their slimy fingers all over whatever remains before your family is left with the crumbs. It's practically grave-robbery.

Payroll

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

"The power to tax is the power to destroy." -John Marshall

What's that? The nice chunk of your paycheck the government nabs before you can even get it to the bank wasn't enough? What if the government taxed your employer just for paying you? In essence, you make less than what your agreed pay rate is and it costs your employer more! Absolutely abominable.

Social Security

VALERIE MACON / Contributor | Getty Images

"We don't have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven't taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much." -Ronald Reagan

Everyone knows the collapse of Social Security is imminent. It has limped along for years, only sustained by a torrent of tax dollars and the desperate actions of politicians. For decades, people have unwillingly forked over money into the system they will never see again.

FICA

Kevin Dietsch / Staff | Getty Images

"What at first was plunder assumed the softer name of revenue." -Thomas Paine

FICA is the payroll equivalent of Social Security. Your employer has to match however much you pay. It means it costs your employer even more to pay you—again, you'll NEVER see that money. At this point, are you even working for yourself, or are you just here to generate money for the government to frivolously throw away?

5 DISTURBING ways World War III will be different from previous wars

Oleg Nikishin / Stringer | Getty Images

Has World War III begun?

Over the weekend, Iran launched an unprecedented attack against Israel involving over 300 missiles and drones. This marked the first direct attack on Israel originating from Iranian territory. Fortunately, according to an Israel Defense Forces spokesperson Rear Admiral Daniel Hagari, 99 percent of missiles and drones were successfully neutralized by Israeli defense systems. Iran claimed that the operation against Israel had concluded and that no further offensive was planned, although the possibility of another attack is still present.

This has left many people, including Glenn, wondering the same thing: did we just witness the start of World War III?

Glenn recently had a World War II Air Force Veteran as a guest on his TV special, who told stories of the horrors he and his brothers-in-arms faced in the skies over war-torn Europe. This was a timely reminder of the terrors of war and a warning that our future, if it leads to another world war, is a dark one.

But, if Glenn's coverage of the Iranian attack revealed one thing, it's that World War III will look nothing like the world wars of the twentieth century. Long gone are the days of John "Lucky" Luckadoo and his "Bloody Hundredth" bravely flying their B-17s into battle. Over the weekend, we saw hundreds of autonomous drones and missiles clashing with extreme speed and precision over several different fronts (including space) simultaneously. This ain't your grandfather's war.

From EMP strikes to cyber attacks, here are FIVE ways the face of war has changed:

EMP attacks

New York Daily News Archive / Contributor | Getty Images

The entire modern world, on every level, is completely dependent on electricity. From your home refrigerator to international trade, the world would come to a grinding halt without power. And as Glenn has pointed out, it wouldn't even be that hard to pull off. All it would take is 3 strategically placed, high-altitude nuclear detonations and the entire continental U.S. would be without power for months if not years. This would cause mass panic across the country, which would be devastating enough on its own, but the chaos could be a perfect opportunity for a U.S. land invasion.

Nuclear strikes

Galerie Bilderwelt / Contributor | Getty Images

Nuclear war is nothing new. Many of us grew up during the Cold War, built fallout shelters, and learned to duck and cover. But times have changed. The Berlin Wall fell and so did the preparedness of the average American to weather a nuclear attack. As technology has advanced, more of our adversaries than ever have U.S. cities within their crosshairs, and as Glenn has pointed out, these adversaries are not exactly shy about that fact. Unfortunately, the possibility of an atomic apocalypse is as real as ever.

Immigration warfare

Nick Ut / Contributor | Getty Images

The strategy of strangling an opposing nation's economy to gain the upper hand is a wartime tactic as old as time. That's why the Border Crisis is so alarming. What better way to damage an opponent's economy than by overburdening it with millions of undocumented immigrants? As Glenn has covered, these immigrants are not making the trek unaided. There is a wide selection of organizations that facilitate this growing disaster. These organizations are receiving backing from around the globe, such as the WEF, the UN, and U.S. Democrats! Americans are already feeling the effects of the border crisis. Imagine how this tactic could be exploited in war.

Cyber shutdowns

Bill Hinton / Contributor | Getty Images

Cyber attacks will be a major tactic in future wars. We've already experienced relatively minor cyber strikes from Russia, China, and North Korea, and it is a very real possibility that one of our adversaries inflicts a larger attack with devastating consequences on the United States. In fact, the WEF has already predicted a "catastrophic" cyber attack is imminent, and Glenn suggests that it is time to start preparing ourselves. A cyber attack could be every bit as devastating as an EMP, and in a world run by computers, nothing is safe.

Biological assault

WPA Pool / Pool | Getty Images

Don't trust the "experts." That was the takeaway many of us had from the pandemic, but something less talked about is the revelation that China has manufactured viruses that are capable of spreading across the globe. We now know that the lab leak hypothesis is true and that the Wuhan lab manufactured the virus that infected the entire world. That was only ONE virus from ONE lab. Imagine what else the enemies of America might be cooking up.