Did Teixeira act ALONE? Here are the TOP 2 theories behind the leaked Pentagon documents EXPLAINED.

Digital Vision | Getty Images

Last week, 21-year-old Jack Teixeira was arrested at his mother’s home in North Dighton, Massachusetts after he leaked dozens of "top secret" intelligence documents through a Discord channel with 20 to 30 members. The documents contained sensitive intelligence pertaining the war in Ukraine, the U.S.'s involvement in training Ukrainian troops, and other intelligence about U.S. allies, such as Israel, South Korea, and others.

Since Teixeira's arrest, Glenn has been asking the glaring question that the media refuses to address: did Teixeira act alone? Glenn brought multiple defense experts on his show this week to get to the bottom of how a 21-year-old National Guardsman could have possibly accessed these documents with his clearance.

Glenn's guests included former head of intelligence Kash Patel, Glenn's head researcher and former defense intelligence analyst Jason Buttrill, and The Intercept founder Glenn Greenwald. Each of Glenn's three guests demonstrated that the current media narrative has glaring holes and many more questions not only need to be answered, they need to be asked by our media in the first place.

With all of the news circulating around this story, it is often difficult to discern the core points you need to know to analyze the story for yourself. Below you will find the top theories behind the leaked Pentagon documents explained so YOU can come to your own conclusion. But first, some background.

Was Teixeira's security clearance sufficient to get him access to the documents?

In short, no.

Teixeira did hold "top secret" security clearance. However, this is not unique. In fact, millions of people within the defense and intelligence community possess "top secret" clearance. As Glenn Greenwald pointed out on Glenn's radio show today (4/20/2023), our government abuses its ability to deem relatively anything "top secret." For example, when Greenwald was investigating the Snowden documents, he recounted how even parking tickets and other "banal information" was labeled "classified" or "top secret." Labeling even seemingly insignificant documents "top secret" makes it a felony to publicly share that information, protecting the government from the probing eyes of the press.

Since millions of people within the defense and intelligence communities are given "top secret" clearance to access basic information, the defense created "top secret +" clearance for truly sensitive information. Glenn's head researcher and former defense intelligence analyst, Jason Buttrill, explained that the two types of "top secret +" clearance are "Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI)" clearance and "Special Access Program (SAP)" clearance.

Buttril explained that Teixeira would not only need either SCI or SAP access, but he would also need a "need to know" permission to access that information specifically. Teixeira had none of these clearances, so it is relatively impossible that he would have been able to access these specific documents on his own.

How would someone get access to the leaked documents?

The New York Times simply reported that Teixeira used JWICS to access the classified documents. However, this is a blatantly generalized assessment of what is actually required to access the caliber of documents that were leaked. As Buttrill told Glenn, JWICS is the security network for defense agencies like Verizon, which is a network for millions of cell phone users. Most defense employees have access to JWICS, but as Kash Patel told Glenn, less than 0.5 percent of these people have access to the types of documents Teixeira accessed. In short, we need more information than what the New York Times is currently investigating.

So how would one of these 0.5 percenters get their hands on the leaked classified information? First, Buttrill said, they would need either an SCI or SAP clearance. Second, they would not only need knowledge that these documents actually existed, but they would know where they were located within the JWICS system. Both facts are kept secret except for those who are given a "need to know" clearance to the documents.

Patel told Glenn the following helpful illustration. Imagine if JWICS were a huge mansion with numerous rooms and chambers. Even if millions of people had the front door key, only a select few could access certain rooms. Even fewer would know the location of the family jewels and possess the key to unlock the safe. Teixeira possessed the key to open the front door, but he would not have known the location of the documents within the JWICS system nor have the SCI and SAP clearance to access them. So how did Teixeira access them?

How did Teixeira get the documents? Theory 1

Given the fact that Teixeira did not have the clearance to access the leaked documents, there are two leading theories to explain what happened.

The first theory is the "screw-up" theory. As Buttrill said on Glenn's show, someone with SCI or SAP clearance could have theoretically left his/her computer open with the documents visible, giving Teixeira the opportunity to view and print the documents. However, as Buttrill pointed out, there are several issues with this theory.

The first glaring issue is that there would have been a record of someone printing those particular documents from the person's computer. Buttrill said there is a record for every print job, particularly regarding documents with that level of security. The authorities would have easily been able to locate Teixeira and the owner of the computer. However, this does not seem to be the case: authorities said they located Teixeira from particular details in his posted online images, not through any print record.

Moreover, the second glaring issue is that, if this theory were true, the person who left highly classified documents open on their computer without their supervision is liable for prosecution. The fact that someone else hasn't been arrested either means the "screw up" theory isn't true, or that the true responsible party is being covered up by their respective agency.

If this theory is true, then the lesser of two evils would follow: namely, that our intelligence system is broken and is vulnerable to leaks. Patel said he hopes this is the case, but believes the second theory is much more plausible.

How did Teixeira get the documents? Theory 2

The second and more plausible theory is the "co-conspirator" theory, alleging that someone with SCI or SAP clearance aided Teixeira in getting access to the leaked documents. If the "screw-up" theory were true, there would be direct documentation linking Teixeira to the computer via the printer or some record of data exchange. As Patel suggested:

Somebody, either a DoD or someone in the intelligence community, either wanted this information out, or [Teixeira] found someone who wanted the information out, like he did and helped him with that process, and access.

This means that either Teixeira found someone within the DoD to give him the documents, or someone within the DoD wanted the documents leaked and used Teixeira as a scapegoat. If the latter is the case, then Teixeira is a pawn in the DoD's strategic plan.

What was the motive behind the leak?

There are several different theories speculating the motive behind the leak. Patel said:

Somebody either wanted this information out ... or our classification system is so broken and so destroyed that a rookie can walk in and harness our nuclear secrets.

Patel further said the main goal of the leak was to show the information in Ukraine, while the other intelligence leaks were aimed at throwing people "off the tracks" of the true motive. This further corroborates the theory, Patel said someone else with more knowledge about the Ukrainian conflict was involved.

Glenn Greenwald, on the other hand, said the "screw-up" theory is still possible alongside the co-conspirator theory, stating:

You would be surprised with how sloppy the U.S. government is, even with classified information.

However, Greenwald criticized the media's lack of transparency and curiosity over the investigation, accusing "media corporations of serving the U.S. security state above all else." Greenwald, Patel, and Buttrill all agreed there is much more to the story than meets the eye. The media needs to stop doing the bidding of the intelligence community and begin doing their job: investigating the truth.

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

Apparently, we’re supposed to believe that the entire country became excited overnight for Kamala Harris’ presidential bid. Small donations reportedly skyrocketed. ActBlue, the left’s main small-donor fundraiser platform, reported $27.5 million in donations within the first five hours of her announcing her campaign two weeks ago.

Just a few hours later, that number nearly doubled to $46.7 million. ActBlue said the haul was its biggest fundraising day of the entire 2024 election cycle. After 24 hours, ActBlue was reporting over $90 million for Mrs. Yellow School Bus.

Are we supposed to buy that the nation suddenly decided to line the coffers of the least popular Democratic presidential candidate of the 2020 election? Harris was so bad during the 2020 primary that maybe a dozen people voted for her. But now she’s igniting passion and shattering fundraising records over at ActBlue. Call me crazy for saying that sounds a little suspicious.

ActBlue piqued my interest back during the "Summer of Rage.” My research team investigated the fundraising of Black Lives Matter. We noticed this little disclaimer on ActBlue’s website under a section titled “The Fine Print”:

In the event that a campaign or committee (a) fails for 60 days to cash a check from ActBlue which includes your contribution (after ActBlue makes repeated attempts to work with the campaign to ensure all checks are cashed), or (b) affirmatively refuses a contribution earmarked through ActBlue, your contribution will be re-designated as a contribution to ActBlue. Contributions to social welfare organizations which are similarly not cashed or affirmatively refused will be kept by ActBlue and used generally to support its social welfare activities. Contributions to charitable organizations which are not cashed or affirmatively refused will go to ActBlue Charities.

In other words, if a recipient never cashed the check, ActBlue could do whatever it wanted with the money. Doesn’t that sound kind of shady? What’s to stop a coordinated effort to refuse funds in one area then re-channel those funds to their pet projects? If we’re talking dark money here, this has the potential to be as dark as it gets.

The aforementioned text was still on ActBlue’s website at the end of July. The verbiage changed on August 1, amid the “record-breaking” fundraising campaign for Harris. Now why would they do that?

Perhaps because details like the following are starting to come out. According to investigative journalist James O’Keefe, Maryland resident Cindy Nowe “allegedly contributed over 1,000 times to ActBlue in 2022, totaling $18,849.77.” That means she would have needed to donate to ActBlue at least three times a day, every day, for the whole year.

Nowe denied ever making those contributions beyond an initial donation.

It gets even more nefarious. On June 8, a similar person’s name and address were used to donate through ActBlue five times, and all five donations were for the same amount.

The name was used to donate 19 times, and every single donation was for either $5.26 or $5.27. Oddly specific numbers, aren’t they? It almost looks like they changed the number by one cent just to avoid some kind of trigger or something.

I asked Federal Election Commissioner Allen Dickerson on the radio about this case and others just like it.

“My team conducted its own research, finding donations to ActBlue under names that differ only by a single letter with identical contributions,” he said. “Citizen journalists across the country have found similar trends, and we’re seeing similar cases pop up in more states all over the country.”

What is going on? Money controls this election. It dumped a sitting president and installed a new candidate. Now it’s being shot out all over the place in ways difficult to explain. This isn’t some random conspiracy theory. The data is right there. It even got the attention of Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and an assortment of House Republicans.

Authorities have fined ActBlue at least twice for facilitating illegal contributions. If money controls this election, data from the FEC shows that Harris has only been running for president for a couple of weeks, yet her funding destroys Donald Trump’s! How could she enter the race this late and still out-fundraise a candidate who has been fundraising the entire time?

According to the FEC under “Transfers from Other Authorized Committees,” all the money raised during Biden’s candidacy has already been transferred to Harris.

How is that even remotely fair? How is it legal? Harris now has the money that people gave to Joe Biden. Millions of Democrats voted for Biden in the primary. Then there was a coup, and then the coup money went to Harris. These are the people who claim to be “defenders of democracy.” They are anything but.

6 things that prove Tim Walz is a RADICAL progressive

The Washington Post / Contributor | Getty Images

It's a common practice for a presidential nominee to pick a VP that represents another demographic within their party to balance out the ticket and pull a wider base of support. Apparently, Kamala skipped that day in "Running for President 101," as she doubled down, and picked a VP that is every bit as radical as she is.

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz has made a name for himself as a champion of the progressive movement ever since he won the governor's seat in 2019. This choice sends a clear message to the American people: the Democratic Party is committed to jumping off the deep end and dragging the country even farther left. Glenn recently dug up some illuminating clips from Walz's past that clearly communicate just how radical he is. Here are the top six moments that prove just how progressive Walz is:

1. Defending illegal immigration

While interviewing with CNN, Walz attacked Trump's border wall proposal with the age-old and thoroughly debunked rebuttal: "Just use a ladder." Except Walz takes it a little further, stating that if the wall were 25 feet tall, then he would "invest in a 30-foot ladder factory." We can expect the border situation to continue to degrade should Walz replace Kamala as "border czar."

2. Protecting the "right" for children to get transgender surgery in Minnesota 

Tim Walz made his stance on transgender issues very clear. He is all for the "right" of underage children to receive permanent "gender-affirming" surgeries. He also states that Minnesota, which is already far too tolerant towards experimental transgender treatments on minors, needs to be "much more aggressive about making sure [transgender] folks are protected," which is as ominous as it is unclear.

3. Dropping the ball on COVID

Walz's response to COVID-19 was infamously horrible. He had more nursing home deaths than New York under Cuomo and wasted millions of dollars on dead-end causes and fraudulent schemes. But that wasn't enough for Walz, who instituted a snitching program that encourages neighbors to rat out each other forleaving their houses while the lockdowns were in place. This only had to be instituted because local sheriffs refused to enforce Govoner Walz's draconian edicts.

4. Defending socialism

During the recent comically pathetic fundraiser "White Dudes for Harris,” Walz joined the livestream as a guest speaker. During his speech, he defended and downplayed socialism with the following statement: “One person’s socialism is another person's neighborliness.” Glenn pointed out that historically socialists, such as the USSR or Nazi Germany, were not known for their "neighborliness."

5. Having tampons put in men's restrooms 

By now most people have heard Tim Walz's flattering nickname, "Tampon Tim." Tampon Tim won this nickname with his decision to have public schools provide free tampons to all "mensurating students," including biological males, and tampon dispensers were installed in the men's restrooms in public schools across the state.

6. Defending Biden's age (pre-debate)

During an interview with NBC this January, Walz defended President Biden's mental competency, which has aged incredibly poorly. Walz defended the senile president by citing his elderly mother's ability to drive a tractor as evidence that an elderly person is capable of running the country. It's a mystery how anyone can trust a word that comes out of his mouth now that it's clear Biden has hardly been capable of standing unassisted, let alone being president.

Glenn once again made his mark on the New York Times bestselling list with his newest book—and first novel for young adults— Chasing Embers, ranking No. 8 on the Bestselling Young Adult Hardcover Books list. But is the New York Times once again cooking the books against Glenn?

This isn't the first time the New York Times has been accused of cooking the books against authors who go against their narrative.

Chasing Embers falls behind other trending teen novels like Darkness Within Us, Shadows Between Us, and Nightbane. Yet, according to the raw sales, Chasing Embers sold twice as much as the number one spot, Reappearance of Rachel Price. While all the other entries are, for the most part, listed sequentially after the number one spot according to raw sales, Chasing Embers sits at the number eight spot with twice the amount of sales than the top five, and three to four times the amount of sales as the bottom five.

Is the New York Times suppressing Glenn's ranking because of his political stances or Chasing Embers' anti-establishment message? If so, it wouldn't be the first time.

Glenn's previous non-fiction book, Dark Future, published in 2023, quickly made it on the New York Times Bestselling Non-Fiction Hardcover list at the No. 13 spot. However, if the list were determined by raw sales alone, Dark Future would have been ranked number seven on the list. While Greg Gutfeld's book, The King of Late Night, had fewer sales than Dark Future, it outranked Dark Future in the No. 5 slot. Moreover, Granger Smith's faith-based nonfiction book, Like a River, was excluded from the list, even though it received nearly twice as many sales as the list's No. 1 spot, Outlive, by Dr. Peter Attia.

Is the New York Times suppressing Glenn's ranking because of his political stances or Chasing Embers' anti-establishment message?

This isn't the first time the New York Times has been accused of cooking the books against authors who go against their narrative. Legendary author James Patterson, who holds the Guinness World Record for the most #1 New York Times bestsellers, criticized the list as "inaccurate," recounting how his book, Walk The Blue Line, which tells the real-life stories of law enforcement officers, wasn't even on the New York Times Bestseller List for the first week after publication, despite its sales outperforming its competitors. Once it was on the list, it continued to rank below books it had significantly outperformed, according to raw sales. The ongoing discrepancy between Patterson's ranking and raw sales raised suspicions that the New York Times was silently publishing Walk The Blue Line''s pro-police message.

Is the New York Times at it again? Perhaps the once-acclaimed source for the top-trending books of the day has lost its credibility. If you want to read the books the New York Times is trying to suppress, like Chasing Embers and Dark Future, click HERE.

The RADICAL track record behind Kamala's VP pick, Tim Walz

JIM WATSONCHRIS KLEPONIS / Contributor | Getty Images

It's just under two weeks until the Democratic National Convention takes place in Chicago, and the assumed Democratic nominee, Kamala Harris, has just announced that Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz will be her running mate in the 2024 election.

Governor Walz has been in politics since 2006 when he was first elected to Congress where he represented Minnesota's first district. He was elected Governor in 2019.

Walz has a spotty track record, which seems par for the course for the current Democratic ticket. As Glenn pointed out on air recently, Governor Walz is every bit as radical as Kamala, which indicates exactlyhow Kamala will govern if she should win the election in November.

Walz has proven to be a radical and incompetent governor, a dangerous compliment to Kamala.

Walz was brought on board to bolster Kamala in the Midwestern states, some of which Biden barely won in 2020, and to win over middle-class Americans, a class of voters the Democrats the taken major losses in recently. While the Governor certainly attempts to come across as a moderate, middle-class Midwesterner, a quick look at his record shows a different story. The first thing Walz did after being elected governor was to institute a statewide diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) program, which he has renewed. Just last week, Walz defended socialism during the “White Dudes for Harris” livestream, a fundraising event for the assumed Democratic nominee.

Walz was also responsible for the state of Minnesota's responseor lack thereofto the BLM riots of 2020. Walz stood by as the BLM riots burned down city after city across his state, resulting in millions of dollars in damage. In Minneapolis alone, the rioters did $55 million in damages while Walz watched from afar.

Walz was one of the many governors who bungled their state's response to the COVID-19 pandemic. He wasted millions of dollars on unused morgues and a fraudulent scheme involving money that was supposed to go towards feeding poor children. Overall, Tim Walz has proven to be a radical and incompetent governor, a dangerous compliment to Kamala.

We can't forget his military experience.

His service in the Army National Guard has been a selling point for Governor Walz during his many political campaigns over the years, but his service wasn't as honorable as he claims it to be. While it is true that Walz served in the Minnesota Army National Guard for approximately 20 years, he resigned as soon as he learned that his unit was going to be sent to Iraq. While Walz claims that his term of obligated service had ended, National Guard records contradict that story, showing that he left early to avoid being deployed. The records also show that Walz snuck out of the National Guard rather quickly and failed to complete the required paperwork with his retirement filing showing “Soldier not available for signature.” Walz, who was a key leader in his battalion, abandoned his fellow soldiers right when he was needed most.

How did Kamala reckon he would be a good pick for VP?