RADIO

Ignoring the Buffalo criminal’s OWN WORDS does grave damage

The man who grotesquely took the lives of ten others in Buffalo, NY last weekend has been painted by the mainstream media to be a Fox News-obsessed and Tucker Carlson-watching conservative. Rolling Stone even described him as a ‘mainstream Republican.’ But that analysis couldn’t be further from the proof. Glenn reads the criminal's OWN WORDS, which prove he was FAR from a freedom-loving Constitutionalist. And if those in the press continue to blatantly ignore his own words, then they’ll not only cause grave damage, but they will make the problem even worse…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Anyway there's a story from the Washington Examiner that is really important today. The New York man, who shot up a Buffalo supermarket on Sunday kept no secrets about how and why he planned to murder as many blacks as possible. Of course, we know from the mainstream media, that reason is: He's a white supremacist Republican.

However, that doesn't seem to be true.

PAT: Hmm.

GLENN: The corporate media has -- from -- from the very get-go, tried to associate him with the Republicans. Say that he's a conservative. Say that he got all of his training with Tucker Carlson. But, you know, it's weird. It's weird. In the 180-page document, authored by the shooter, he doesn't mention Tucker Carlson, not even once. Not at all. Not at all.

There is one mention of Fox News. And it's an infographic, showing the top Fox News hosts such as Maria Bartiromo, and Greg Gutfeld, as being Jewish. He then also says, Rupert Murdoch is a Christian Zionist, who may have Jewish ancestry. Although, it's never been publicly admitted.

So -- oh. Another thing. Ben Shapiro is mentioned multiple times, including as an example as the rat of the Jewish people.

PAT: Oh.

GLENN: So gosh, that doesn't sound conservative to me. Doesn't sound Republican. Doesn't sound like he's learned anything from anybody that is on the right.

Moreover. He has described himself as an ethnonationalist, and eco fascist, national socialist.

He loathes Libertarianism. And conservatism, in particular. Ask yourself, I'm quoting from him, truly. What has the modern conservative managed to conserve.

Not a thing has been conserved other than corporate profits and the ever increasing wealth of the 1 percent that exploit the people for their own benefit.

Does that sound at all like a Republican.

PAT: He sounds like a president of a Republican Party, doesn't he?

GLENN: He does. Conservatism is dead, thank God. Now let's bury it and move on to something of worth. The shooter admits, he's a socialist, depending on the definition.

Now, listen to this. He wrote, worker ownership of the means of production, well, it depends on those -- who those workers are. Their intentions. Who currently owns the mean of production. Their intentions. And who currently owns the state and their intentions. So, in other words, if the workers are black, no. They shouldn't own that. If the government is black, no. They shouldn't be into owning all of the means of production. But if it's a white nationalist government, I'm all in. Does that sound like somebody, that likes the Constitution?

The diatribe implies those workers better be white Gentiles who worship mother earth. Now, here is where he really starts to bring in his environmentalism, which is so incredibly conservative.

Green nationalism is the only true nationalism, he writes. There is no conservatism, without nature. There is no nationalism, without environmentalism.

The natural environment of our land shaped us, just as we shaped it. We are born from our lands and our own culture was molded by those same lands.

The protection and preservation of these lands, is the same important as the protection and preservation of our own ideals and beliefs.

For too long, we have allowed the left, to co-opt the environmentalist movement and serve their own needs. By the way, you're now starting to get to who he really is.

And it is something that I think this will be the only large conservative audience that has even heard about what I'm about to show you. The left has controlled all discussion regarding environmental preservation, while simultaneously presiding over the continued destruction of the natural environment itself through mass immigration and uncontrolled urbanization.

While offering no true solution to either issue. There is no green future, with never-ending population growth. Malthusian. The ideal green world cannot exist in the world of 100 billion, 50 billion, or even 10 billion people. Continued immigration, into Europe, is environmental warfare. And ultimately destructive to nature itself. So the guy is Malthusian. The guy is one of these old-style conservations that say the only way too conserve is to kill people.

Europe, of the future, is not one of concrete and steel. Smog and wires. But a place of forest, lakes, mountains, and meadows. You've got to depopulate. Not a place where English is the de facto language. But a place where every single language, belief, and tradition, is valued. Let me say this again. Does anybody recognize this yet?

Not a place where English is the de facto language. But a place where every single language, belief, and tradition, is valued.

Each nation and each ethnicity is molded by their own environment. And if they are to be protected, so must their environments.

There is no traditionalism, without environmentalism. This guy is a capital T, traditionalist. Which I have told you comes from Russia. Who has educated this guy?

Most likely, Aleksandr Dugin, or one of his kind. The fascination with fascism and the environment. And white supremacy. And anti-Semitism.

This is Germany. This is Germany. But he takes also the view that people are less important than the planet.

And he said that he was killing blacks. Quote, because Jews ask be dealt with in time. But the high fertility placers will destroy us now. End quote.

This guy is sick, twisted. Clearly a Nazi. Says he's a socialist, and a fascist. That is not a Republican. And you are doing grave damage and you are doing -- you are causing the problem to get worse. By ignoring the true problem, and blaming it on Republicans. He was not radicalized by watching Fox News. He was not listening to Ben Shapiro on his way to work, or anybody like me.

He was most likely a fan of Aleksandr Dugin. And a fan of the Green New Deal.

What do you say we stop trying to be armchair warriors, and -- and armchair coaches, and say, you know what, why don't we actually look at how the game was played, and what the player said he was trying to do.

Let's look at who in guy said he was. Instead of inventing something brand-new. But that's not really possible.

Did you see the article in rolling stone yesterday? The editorial written by Talia Lavin? Now, she's written several articles. But the media is not connecting the dots. Obviously, they are endorsing her.

I don't know how she got an article into rolling stone. The headline yesterday. Buffalo shooter is not a lone wolf.

He's a mainstream Republican. The right-wing extremist who control the modern GOP are gripped by racist delusions. The shooter is just the latest to act on it. Okay.

So how can she go into this? I'm not even going to give you the article.

This is the only article that she's ever written for rolling stone. So who is she?

Well, she's a, quote, unquote, journalist. Okay? Air quotes. Journalist.

And I don't mean journalist, even in the new sense of journalist. You know, where it means activist. Not actually journalist. She's much worse than that.

Listen to her record. She has a book out. The culture warlords, my journey into the dark web of white supremacy.

She was also fired from her job at the New Yorker, as, get this, a fact-checker. Because she called an ICE immigration and customs enforcement, the group, neo-Nazis.

She said, there was one ICE person that had a neo-Nazi tattoo, she says. This is a fact-checker. In the emblem of the Nazis. No, it actually wasn't. It was a tattoo of the guy's platoon. Because he was a Marine and wounded in action. Which she, of course, blamed ICE. She said they targeted her -- you know, just for being, in her words, a fat Jewish feminist, with a Harvard education.

No. Actually, you were fired from your job. Because the New Yorker hired you as a fact-checker. You got all of the facts wrong. She even lost her professor gig at NYU. NYU canceled her class.

She also is a big defender of George Soros. An article in the Washington Post. Conspiracy theories about Soros are false. They are anti-Semitic. She's a huge defender of George Soros.

I wonder -- oh, I actually don't. I just saw on her resume, she worked for Media Matters. Oh, okay.

So here are some of the headlines, that she's written in the past. The far right continues to spread the conspiracy theory, that inspired the sin outgoing shooter. YouTube banned Alex Jones. But it's letting white supremacist content thrive. So YouTube is very, very right-wing, and pro white supremacy. Backlash to professor's anti-Kavanaugh tweet illustrates the content pipeline from 4chan to the Tucker Carlson Show.

How the Russian concept of info noise can help American outlets cover Trump. How YouTube facilitates right-wing radicalization.

In drawing equivalences between white supremacists and Antifa, media outlets obscure ideologies and impacts. She thinks Antifa is -- that they're all heroes.

A list of right-wing amplifiers of QAnon conspiracy theory. The list includes menaces to society, as James Woods, Roseanne Barr, and Curt Schilling.

That's who wrote this article. She cannot hold a job. She's been fired from left-wing massive radical organizations. And rolling stone puts an editorial out. Gee. I wonder why.

And most likely, it will be the last editorial, she writes for -- I mean, if she's going to keep her record going. This will be the last one she writes. And then she'll find some other organization, that will play cover for her, as an actual journalist.

This is what you're up against.

This is why you have to pay attention. Because this poison, is being pushed out into the mainstream, by corporate media. Every single day. You have to know who it is, and how to allergy or tell your friends -- no. This isn't who this person is. Disregard it. Back in a minute.

And it's amazing to me, it's not -- it's not the right-wing sources, that are saying, hey, we should fire her. It's the left.

TV

The Globalist Elites' Dystopian Plan for YOUR Future | Glenn Beck Chalkboard Breakdown

There are competing visions for the future of America which are currently in totally different directions. If the globalist elites have their way, the United States will slide into a mass surveillance technocracy where freedoms are eroded and control is fully centralized. Glenn Beck heads to the chalkboard to break down exactly what their goal is and why we need to hold the line against these ominous forces.

Watch the FULL Episode HERE: Dark Future: Uncovering the Great Reset’s TERRIFYING Next Phase

RADIO

Barack & Michelle tried to END divorce rumors. It DIDN'T go well

Former president Barack Obama recently joined his wife Michelle Obama and her brother on their podcast to finally put the divorce rumors to rest … but it didn’t exactly work. Glenn Beck and Pat Gray review the awkward footage, including a kiss that could compete for “most awkward TV kiss in history.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Now, let me -- let me take you to some place. I think kind of entertaining.

Michelle Obama has a podcast. Who knew?

She does it with her brother. Who knew? It's -- you know, I mean, it's so -- it's a podcast with two brothers. Right?

And -- and it -- they wanted to address the rumors, that they're getting a divorce. And this thing seems so staged.

I want you to -- listen to this awkward exchange on the podcast.

Cut one please.

VOICE: Wait, you guys like each other.

MICHELLE: Oh, yeah. The rumor mill. It's my husband, y'all! Now, don't start.

OBAMA: It's good to be back. It was touch-and-go for a while.

VOICE: It's so nice to have you both in the same room today.

OBAMA: I know. I know.

MICHELLE: I know, because when we aren't, folks things we're divorced. There hasn't been one moment in our marriage, where I thought about quitting my man.

And we've had some really hard times. We've had a lot of fun times. A lot of adventures. And I have become a better person because of the man I'm married to.

VOICE: Okay. Don't make me cry.

PAT: Aw.

GLENN: I believed her. Now, this is just so hokey.

VOICE: And welcome to IMO.

MICHELLE: Get you all teared up. See, but this is why I can't -- see, you can take the hard stuff, but when I start talking about the sweet stuff, you're like, stop. No, I can't do it.

VOICE: I love it. I'm enjoying it.

MICHELLE: But thank you, honey, for being on our show. Thank you for making the time. We had a great --

VOICE: Of course, I've been listening.

PAT: What? No!

GLENN: They're not doing good. They're not doing good.

Okay. And then there was this at the beginning. And some people say, this was very awkward. Some people say, no. It was very nice.

When he walks in the room, he gives her a hug and a kiss. Watch.

Gives her a little peck on the cheek.

PAT: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

GLENN: Does that --

PAT: Does that look like they're totally into each other?

GLENN: Well, I give my wife a peck on the cheek, if she walks into a room.

PAT: Do you? If you haven't seen her in months and it seems like they haven't, would you kiss her on the cheek? Probably not.

GLENN: No, that's a little different. That would be a little different. But I wouldn't make our first seeing of each other on television.

PAT: Yeah, right, that's true. That's true.

GLENN: But, you know, in listening to the staff talk about this. And they were like, it was a really uncomfortable -- okay.

Well, maybe.

PAT: I think it was a little uncomfortable.

GLENN: It was a little uncomfortable.

It's still, maybe. Maybe.

But I don't think that rivals -- and I can't decide which is the worst, most uncomfortable kiss.

Let me roll you back into the time machine, to Michael Jackson and Lisa Marie Presley. Do you remember this kiss?
(applauding)

GLENN: He turns away, immediately away from the camera. Because he's like.

PAT: He was about to vomit. Yeah.

GLENN: It was so awkward. When that happened, all of us went, oh, my gosh. He has only kissed little boys. What are we doing? What is happening?

He doesn't like women, what is happening?

And then there's the other one that sticks out in my mind of -- and I'm not sure which is worse. The Lisa Marie or the Tipper in Al Gore.

VOICE: The kiss. The famous exchange during the 2000 democratic convention was to some lovely, to others icky.
(laughter)

GLENN: That's an ABC reporter. To some lovely, others icky.

And it really was. And it was -- I believe his global warming stuff more than that kiss.
(laughter)
And you know where I stand on global warming.

That was the most awkward kiss I think ever on television!

PAT: Yeah. It was pretty bad. Pretty bad.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

So when people who are, you know -- these youngsters.

These days. They look at Barack and Michelle. They're like, that was an awkward kiss.

Don't even start with me.

We knew when we were kids, what awkward kisses were like.

PAT: The other awkward thing about that.

She claims, there was not been one moment in their marriage.

Where she's considered reeving him.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: She just said a while ago. A month or a year ago, she hated his guts for ten years. She hated it.

GLENN: Yeah. But that doesn't mean you'll give up.

PAT: I guess not. I guess not. Maybe you enjoy being miserable.

I don't know.

GLENN: No. I have to tell you the truth.

My grandmother when I got a divorce, just busted me up forever. I call her up, and I said, on my first marriage.

Grandma, we're getting a divorce.

And my sweet little 80-year-old grandmother, who never said a bad thing in her life said, excuse me?

And I said, what?

We're getting a divorce.

And she said, how dare you.

I said, what's happening. And she said, I really thought you would be the one that would understand. Out of everybody in this family, I thought you would understand.

And I said, what?

And she said, this just -- this just crushed me when she said it.

Do you think your grandfather and I liked each other all these years? I was like, well, yeah.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: Kind of. And she said, we loved each other. But we didn't always like each other. And there were times that we were so mad at each other.

PAT: Yeah. Yeah. Uh-huh.

STU: But we knew one thing: Marriage lasts until death!

PAT: Did she know your first wife?

GLENN: Okay. All right. That's just not necessary.

RADIO

No, Trump’s tariffs ARE NOT causing inflation

The media is insisting that President Trump's tariffs caused a rise in inflation for June. But Our Republic president Justin Haskins joins Glenn to debunk this theory and present another for where inflation is really coming from.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Justin Haskins is here. He is the president of Our Republic. And the editor-in-chief of stoppingsocialism.com.

He is also the coauthor with me at the Great Reset, Dark Future, and Propaganda War.

So, in other words, I'm saying, he doesn't have a lot of credibility. But he is here to report -- I don't even think you're -- you're -- you were wrong on this, too, with the tariffs. Right?

JUSTIN: Well, at some point, I was wrong about everything.

GLENN: Yeah, right. We are all on the road to being right.

But this is coming as a shock. You called yesterday, and you said, Glenn, I think the tariff thing -- I think the president might be right.

And this is something I told him, if I'm wrong. I will admit that I'm wrong.

But I don't think I'm wrong.

Because this goes against everything the economists have said, forever.

That tariffs don't work.

They increase inflation.

It's going to cost us more.

All of these things. You have been study this now for a while, to come up with the right answer, no matter where it fell.

Tell me what's going on.

JUSTIN: Okay. So the most recent inflation data that came out from the government, shows that in June, prices went up 2.7 percent. In May, they went up 2.4 percent. That's compared to a year prior. And most people are saying, well, this is proof that the tariffs are causing inflation.

GLENN: Wait. That inflation is -- the target is -- the target is two -- I'm sorry.

We're not. I mean, when I was saying, it was going to cause inflation. I thought we could be up to 5 percent.

But, anyway, go ahead.

JUSTIN: So the really incredible thing though. The more you look at the numbers. The more obvious it is, that this does not prove inflation at all.

For starters, these numbers are lower, than what the numbers were in December and January.

Before Trump was president. And before we had any talk of tariffs at all.

So that is a big red flag right at the very beginning. When you dive even deeper into the numbers, what you see is there's all kinds of parts of the Consumer Price Index that tracks specific industries, or kinds of goods and services. That should be showing inflation, if inflation is being caused by tariffs, but isn't.

So, for example, clothing and apparel. Ninety-seven percent, basically.

About 97 percent according to one report, of clothing and apparel comes overseas, imported into the United States.

GLENN: Correct.

JUSTIN: So prices for apparel and clothing should be going up. And they're not going up, according to the data, they're actually going down, compared to what they were a year ago. Same thing is true with new vehicles.

Obviously, there were huge tariffs put on foreign vehicles, not on domestic vehicles. So it's a little bit more mixed.

But new vehicle price are his staying basically flat. They haven't gone up at all. Even though, there's a 25 percent tariff on imported cars and car parts. And then we just look at the overall import prices. You just -- sort of the index. Which the government tracks.

What we're seeing is that prices are basically staying the same, from what they were a year ago.

There's very, very little movement overall.

GLENN: Okay. So wait. Wait. Wait. Wait.

Wait.

Let me just -- let me just make something career.

Somebody is eating the tariffs. And it appears to be the companies that are making these things. Which is what Donald Trump said. And then, the -- you know, the economist always saying, well, they're just going to pass this on in the price.

Well, they have to. They have to get this money some place.

So where are they?

Is it possible they're just doing this right now, to get past. Because they know if they jack up their price, you know, they won't be able to sell anything. What is happening?

How is this money, being coughed up by the companies, and not passed on to the consumer.

JUSTIN: Yeah, it could be happening. I think the most likely scenario, is that they are passing it along to consumers. They're just not passing it along to American consumers.

In other words, they're raising prices elsewhere. To try to protect the competitiveness with the American market. Because the American market is the most important consumer market in the world.

And they probably don't want to piss off Donald Trump either, in jacking up prices. And then potentially having tariffs go up even more, as a punishment for doing that.

Because that's a real option.

And so I think that's what's happening right now.

Now, it's possible, that we are going to see a huge increase in inflation. In six months!

That's entirely possible.

We don't know what's going to happen. But as of right now, all the data is suggesting that recent inflation is not coming from consumer goods being imported, or anything like that.

That's not where the inflation is coming.

Instead, it's coming from housing.

That's part of the CPI at that time.

Housing is the cause of inflation right now.

GLENN: Wait. Wait. It's not housing, is it?

Because the things to make houses is not going through the roof. Pardon the pun. Right?

It's not building.

JUSTIN: No. No. The way the CPI calculates housing is really stupid. They look basically primarily at rent. That's the primary way, they determine housing prices.

GLENN: Okay.

JUSTIN: That so on they're not talking about housing costs to build a new house.

Or housing prices to buy a new house.

They are talking about rent.

And then they try to use rent data, as a way of calculating how much you would have to pay if you owned a house, but you had to rent the same kind of house.

And that's how they come up with this category.

GLENN: Can I ask you a question: Is everybody in Washington, are they all retarded?
(laughter)
Because I don't. What the hell. Who is coming up with that formula?

JUSTIN: Look. I mean, sort of underlying this whole conversation, as you -- as you and I know, Glenn.

And Pat too. The CPI is a joke to begin with.

GLENN: Right.

JUSTIN: So there's all kinds of problems with this system, to begin with.

I mean, come on!

GLENN: Okay. So because I promised the president, if I was wrong, and I had the data that I was wrong, I would tell him.

Do I have to -- out of all the days to do this.

Do I have to call him today, to do that?

Are we still -- are we still looking at this, going, well, maybe?

JUSTIN: I think there's -- I think there is a really solid argument that you don't need to make the phone call.

GLENN: Oh, thank God. Today is not the day to call Donald Trump. Today is not the day.

Yeah. All right.

JUSTIN: And the reason why is, we need -- we probably do need more data over a longer period of time, to see if corporations are doing something.

In order to try to push these cuts off into the future, for some reason. Maybe in the hopes that the tariffs go down. Or maybe -- you know, it's all sorts of ways, they could play with it, to try to avoid paying those costs today.

It's possible, that's what's going on.

But as of right now, that's not at all, what is happening. As far as I can tell from the data.

GLENN: But isn't the other side of this, because everybody else said, oh. It's not going to pay for anything.

Didn't we last month have the first surplus since, I don't know. Abraham Lincoln.

JUSTIN: Yes. Yes. We did. I don't know how long that surplus will last us.

GLENN: Yeah. But we had one month.

I don't think I've ever heard that before in my lifetime. Hey, United States had a surplus.

JUSTIN: I looked it up.

I think it was like 20 something years ago, was the last time that happened. If I remembered right.

It was 20 something years ago.

So this is incredible, really.

And if it works.

You and I talked about this before.

I actually think there is an argument to be made. That this whole strategy could work, if American manufacturers can dramatically bring down their costs. To produce goods and services.

So that they can be competitive.

And I think that advancements in artificial intelligence. In automation. Is going to open up the door to that being a reality.

And if you listen to the Trump administration talk. People like Howard Lutnick, Secretary of Commerce. They have said, this is the plan.

The plan is, go all in on artificial intelligence.

Automation. That's going to make us competitive with manufacturers overseas. China is already doing that.

They're already automating their factories. They lead the world in automation.

GLENN: Yeah, but they can take half their population, put them up in a plane, and then crash it into the side of the mountain.

They don't care.

What happens to the people that now don't have a job here? How do they afford the clothes that are now much, much cheaper?

JUSTIN: Well, I think the answer to that is, there's going to be significantly more wealth. Trillions of dollars that we send overseas, every year, now in the American economy. And that's going to go into other things. It's not as though -- when this technology comes along, it is not as though people lose their jobs, and that's it. People sit on their couch forever.

The real danger here is not that new markets will not arrive in that situation. And jobs with it. The problem is: I think there's a real opportunity here. And I think this is going to be the fight of the next election, potentially. Presidential election. And going forward.

Next, ten, 20 years. This is going to be a huge issue. Democrats are going to have the opportunity, when the AI revolution goes into full force. They will have the opportunity like they've never had before.

To say, you know what, we'll take care of you. Don't worry about it.

We're just going to take all of the corporate money and all of the rich people's money.

And we will print trillions of dollars more. And you can sit on your couch forever. And we will just pay you. Because this whole system is rigged, and it's unfair, and you don't have a job anymore because of AI. And there's nothing you can do. You can't compete with AI. AI is smarter than you.

You have no hope.

I think that's coming, and it is going to be really hard for free market people to fight back against that.

GLENN: Yes.

Well, I tend to agree with you.

Because the -- you know, I thought about this.

I war gamed this, probably in 2006.

I'm thinking, okay.

If -- if the tech is going to grow and grow and grow. And they will start being -- they will be responsible for taking the jobs.

They won't be real on popular.

So they will need some people that will allow them to stay in business, and to protect them.

So they're going to need to be in with the politicians.

And if the politicians are overseeing the -- the decrease of jobs, they're going to need the -- the PR arm of things like social media. And what it can be done.

What can be done now.

I was thinking, at the time. Google can do.

But they need each other.

They must have one another. And unless we have a stronger foundation, and a very clear direction, and I will tell you. The president disagrees with me on this.

I said, he's going to be remembered as the transformational AI president.

And he said, I think you're wrong on that.

And I don't think I am.

This -- this -- this time period is going to be remembered for transformation.

And he is transforming the world. But the one that will make the lasting difference will be power and AI.

Agree with that or disagree?

JUSTIN: 1,000 percent. 1,000 percent. This is by far the most important thing that is happening in his administration in the long run. You're projecting out ten, 20, 30 years ago years.

They will be talking about this moment in history, a thousand years from now. Like, that will -- and they will -- and if America becomes the epicenter of this new technology, they will be talking about it, a thousand years from now, about how Americans were the ones that really developed this.

That they're the ones that promoted it, that they're the ones that does took advantage of it.
That's why this AI race with China is so important that we win it.

It's one of the reasons why. And I do think it's a defining moment for his presidency. Of course, the problem with all of this is AI could kill us all. You have to weigh that in.

GLENN: Yeah. Right. Right.

Well, we hope you're wrong on that one.

And I'm wrong on it as well. Justin, thank you so much.

Thank you for giving me the out, where I don't have to call him today. But I might have to call him soon. Thanks, Justin. I appreciate it.

TV

The ONLY Trump/Epstein Files Theories That Make Sense | Glenn TV | Ep 445

Is the case closed on Jeffrey Epstein and Russiagate? Maybe not. Glenn Beck pulls the thread on the story and its far-reaching implications that could expose a web of scandals and lead to a complete implosion of trust. Glenn lays out five theories that could explain Trump’s frustration over the Epstein files and why Glenn may never talk about the Epstein case again. Plus, Glenn connects the dots between the Russiagate hoax, the Hunter Biden laptop cover-up, and the Steele dossier related to the FBI’s new “grand conspiracy” probe. It all leads to one James Bond-like villain: former CIA Director John Brennan. Then, Bryan Dean Wright, former CIA operations officer, tells Glenn why he believes his former boss Brennan belongs in prison and what must happen to prevent a full-blown trust implosion in American institutions.