RADIODecember 13, 2023

Is THIS why Harvard PROTECTED President Gay from plagiarism scandal?

The Harvard board has promised to let Harvard president Claudine Gay keep her job, despite multiple scandals. On one hand, she has been criticized for failing to say that calls for Jewish genocide violate Harvard's policies. And then, there's her plagiarism scandal. But is this just a random attack dug up by conservatives trying to take her down? Washington Free Beacon staff writer Aaron Sibarium joins Glenn to explain why this is not the case at all. Harvard has known about President Gay's plagiarism scandal for months — and even hired "the best defamation law firm in the country" to try and shut the media's reporting efforts down. But why go through all this trouble to protect her? Aaron explains his theory and also breaks down why these alleged instances of plagiarism are so serious.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: There's a couple of things going on with -- with a woman that runs Harv

And one of them is, hey. I have to have a room with -- with color crayons. And comic books, so you can read a comic book, and then, you know, color a happy tree. Because you feel like you're being, you know -- you have microaggressions all around you.

Stopping free speech everywhere, unless you're calling for, you know, the death of Jews.

Then, I guess, hey.

You know, free speech.

It's crazy!

But there's something else that has now been brought up, that I think people knew about in the Harvard world.

But didn't say anything.

And that is the fact that its president Claudine Gay, broke Harvard's own code of conduct on plagiarism.

And it's a pretty significant amount of plagiarism.

Including her doctoral dissertation.

Parts of it were wholly plagiarized.

And she never credited anybody.

Now, here's why this matters: You plagiarize something. I don't really care.

You plagiarize something in a book. And claim it's yours.

Okay. I care. Because that's stealing from somebody else. You plagiarize in a university. Well, you're setting the standards, and trying to hold those standards of academic excellence and honesty. And if the person who is at the top is known to have plagiarized. How do you tell the students, we're going to kick you out?

This has nothing to do with her testimony, but it has everything to do with how corrupt our -- our universities are. How morally corrupt they are.

We have Aaron Sibarium on with us now.

He wrote a great piece for the Washington free beacon. And we wanted to talk to him about this.

You went to Yale. And you were the editor of the Yale Daily News. So you know something about Ivy League, and plagiarism.

Not really celebrated, is it?

AARON: No, Glenn. It is not. It is not celebrated. And, in fact, I would say that generally, at you all of these standards to get a lecture thing, it doesn't matter how small. It doesn't matter if it's unintentional. Even if you do it with the best intentions, it's still a serious problem. You should double-check your work to make sure absolutely nothing is plagiarized. That is what Harvard tells the students in a very long document that outlines its policy very clearly. It's no fewer than five times indicates that intent is irrelevant. Any language or even just ideas or content from someone else, and don't cite them, it's plagiarism. And according to the letter of the Harvard plagiarism policies, A, they clearly violated them.

GLENN: Yeah, and like significant.

I mean, you in your article go threw it. We don't have to go threw it here. But it's significant. Why does this matter?

AARON: Well, look, people do make mistakes.

And if this were -- if this was what we found out of a corpus of, say, a hundred or 200 peer-reviewed papers, one of which had won a noble prize. He might say, okay. A few paragraphs here or a there. It's the overall content. It's not such a big deal.

I think it's worth emphasizing that she had published in total, 11 peer-reviewed articles. Eleven in the past two decades. That is a really, really small number for any academic I think at a prestigious university. But especially for the academic that the university chooses to elevate to its position.

So you're not talking about a few instances of maybe perilous citations or plagiarism. How to have 100 papers. You're talking about it out of 11 papers. Right?

So we found -- so there have been, you know, 11 peer-reviewed articles. Two of them. We found examples of plagiarism.

Then a dissertation. Then another thing that she wrote. That is in another peer-reviewed journal.

So this starts to amount to a pretty substantial percentage of her academic output. That contained at least some plagiarized material.

So as a percentage thing, I think it's not actually the best way to look at it.

It's not just a couple mistakes here or there. It seems to be a pattern. And a pattern that is fairly consistent throughout two decades of relatively meager scholarly output. Meager scholarly output.

GLENN: So this is not anything new. It's my understanding it's kind of been known and kicked around for a while, but just kept quiet and didn't matter. Is that true?

AARON: Well, yeah, it appears to be true. Because just last night, the New York Post reported that they had many of these examples, confronted Harvard with them. All the way back in October. And Harvard claimed, oh, we addressed this promptly. As soon as it was brought to our attention, we initiated the review. And Dr. Gay requested corrections.

Well, what the Harvard corporation didn't mention is that apparently, they intimidated and maybe even threatened to sue the New York Post for defamation after the New York Post reached out for comment.

So Harvard apparently took this seriously enough, that they thought it was worth hiring the best defamation law firm in the country. God knows how much they were paying them, to send a 15-page intimidation letter. To journalists who were coming to them. For examples of plagiarism.

Clearly, they thought it was worth pulling out the big bucks.

Shelling out a lot of money.

To shut this down. And that was all the way back in October.

GLENN: So why would they do this? To protect -- I mean, why?

AARON: I think that Claudine Gay is an emblematic of the -- of the kind of DEI ideology that is -- that is at Harvard.

You know, some people have focused on her race and gender. And I'm sure, they don't want the -- of firing, yeah, of course.

But I actually think it's more than that. It's that she -- she kind of represents the ideology they already subscribe to, and they don't want the ideology discredited.

And also, I think they haven't gotten as much attention.

She was a very shrewd political operator before she became president. She was sort at the center of a lot of cancellations, right? She helped engineer the bureaucratic administration of votes. The Israeli famous (inaudible) at Harvard. And she helped also strip Ronald Sullivan, Harvard law professor from the administrative post, after Sullivan meets the decision to serve on Harvey Weinstein's defense team. He can't defend the unpopular. That's no longer allowed.

So she -- you know, I think had a -- had a pattern of rewarding friends and punishing enemies. And sort of maneuvered the administration and bureaucratic apparatus, Harvard, around her.

Very strictly. That's a part of how she became president.

And I think that that background may be part of why they're so unwilling to let her go.

The whole kind of institution having some sense been mobilized around her. Kind of put all the places in place.

GLENN: Right. Does it play any role, that her first cousin is Roxanne Gay. Who is a feminist author and New York Times writer, who is absolutely -- absolutely a terrible human being.

AARON: Yeah, honestly, I don't know if that really -- I think they would view this with just about anyone in her position, anyone in her position, anyone with her ideology.

GLENN: Position.

AARON: I mean, and I would say, too, right? They've obviously been under pressure from donors. But they're also under pressure from their own faculty and students. And, you know, you mentioned the -- the testimony she gave where she put in forthrightly -- condemned calls for the genocide of Jews. I think part of the issue is that she couldn't really go up there and say, yeah. We support free speech in all cases. And, in fact, yes, even if you want to call for the genocide of other groups, we will protect that. Because we're so principled.

A, because it wouldn't be true. I mean, we all know it's not true.

And, B, if she would have said that, student activists would have come and tried to burn her house down.

GLENN: Right.

AARON: So they really -- to be fair to her, she is kind of in a rock and a hard place. And no matter what she does, or what Harvard does, some constituency is going to throw a fit.

GLENN: Well, I have to tell you, I do not want to see harm come to anybody. But, gee, if you get nailed by your own policies and your life is tough because you shoveled this poison, and now that poison is coming back to haunt you, you know, I have a hard time. Again, with nobody being hurt, I have a really hard time giving any sympathy to her at all.

AARON: Yeah.

GLENN: Thank you so much. One last question, is this an issue outside of her?

Should this be an issue outside of her testimony?

In other words, is this just being brought up, because there's a mob brought up on the other side, that is saying, hey, she should be fired for this.

Is this a real issue, beyond the anti-Semitism stuff?

AARON: Obviously, anti-Semitism stuff increased scrutiny on her. It would be silly to deny that. But I'm thinking what would be an issue, you know, this -- the plagiarism, isn't quite as severe as -- it's not like data fraud.

Right? There's a guy at Stanford, right? Stepped down amid allegations of data fraud. And that was really curious, right? On its own terms.

I think this would be a scandal on its own. The anti-Semitism stuff, obviously amplifies it and makes it worse.

But, again, I think the real context here is them meager, scholarly record. Right?

Again, I really don't think people would care. I wouldn't care all that much if we had found this and it was in the context of like 200 brilliant peer-reviewed papers. That's not the context.

And I think what it underscores, this woman was clearly not chosen for her scholarly manner.

If that was the criterion, they had a lot of other candidates at Harvard, would have been better.

GLENN: Thank you so much. I appreciate it. Appreciate all your work and all your writing. God bless.

AARON: Thank you.

How a Scandalous Political "Reporter" REALLY Got Her Juicy Stories | Olivia Nuzzi Exposed

Washington’s media bubble is imploding after explosive revelations that reporter Olivia Nuzzi carried on an emotional affair with RFK Jr. while covering him during the presidential race. The scandal has spiraled into leaked love letters, a derailed engagement, allegations of multiple political affairs, and a sudden firing that exposes the collapse of journalistic ethics in D.C. As new details surface involving Mark Sanford and Keith Olbermann, the story reveals a deeper truth about how power, access, and media influence really work behind the scenes.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

STU: Okay. Olivia Nuzzi. Do you know who she is?

GLENN: She's a reporter, right?
STU: Okay. Yes. Reporter. Very famous, inside DC, New York circles famous reporter.

GLENN: Lover, intellectual lover of RFK, if I'm not mistaken. Intellectual lover.

STU: Okay. Exactly. Yeah. So you remember the story.

GLENN: Not a lover lover.

STU: The story you don't know -- if you don't remember this, Glenn is referring to, is she was engaged to another reporter, Ryan Lizza, and it was revealed during this most recent presidential campaign that she was having an emotional affair of sorts with RFK Jr. Who as we -- you know, certainly has meant much to him during his life, but he is also married.

So he is -- so, I mean, he's a Kennedy. What do you expect here?

GLENN: He's a Kennedy. Yeah. Yes.

STU: He apparently, they were going back and forth, they had some sort of emotional affair going on.

And this is after she had written a profile about him.

So obviously, journalistically, there are ethical problems. As if they cared about ethical problems in journalism anymore.

This one rose to the level where she was fired. She's canned from her job.

She had this stratospheric rise in the media. She was -- remembering the time line right. She was hired. She wrote -- she was working for a campaign at one point.

She then wrote kind of an exposé of that campaign, that she worked for. And it got published in the New York Daily News.

Based off of just that, she was elevated to the main, like, political reporter at the Daily Beast, which shows you their particular standards.

She was 22, at the time, Glenn. Like, super young. This does not happen.

She wrote for a while there. People kind of like her writing. She also has the sort of throwback style. Very pretty. Kind of -- she has that mystique about her. And it was to the extent that they brought her to, I think, it was New York magazine. She wound up getting the lead political reporter job at that -- or, lead political columnist. A job they created for her. A position that did not exist previously.

And she's like 24 years old.

How has this happened?

GLENN: I think RFK has probably came up with other positions for 24-year-olds that didn't exist as well.

STU: Certainly, factually, accurate. Whether you want to say it or not, is another story, I suppose.

So, anyway, she goes through, and she breaks a lot of big stories. She's always getting odd amount of access to politicians, that you don't understand. You know, all across the spectrum.

She breaks big stories. She always has these big details about it. She writes very colorfully about all these interactions with these politicians. Anyway, this whole scandal blows up with RFK Jr.

Her -- her engagement breaks off. She kind of goes into hiding. For a year.

In that year, she's apparently writing a book. And the book comes out today.

Now, all of this could be just already an amazing salacious story. However, on the day before her book release, her ex-fiancé, also a reporter, releases a story about how he found out about all of -- all of the nonsense. Okay?

GLENN: Oh, good.

STU: And he writes that she comes back from a trip. And he uncovers some napkins from a hotel with a bunch of writing on it. Which turn out to be a love letter to the politician.

Which, again, in her book.

GLENN: Written by her.

STU: Written by her. In her book, she never says RFK Jr's name. She describes his relationship in detail. Never says the name. Just calls him "the politician."

Because I assume, because he might sue or whatever. Who knows?

You know, she doesn't want to be -- she doesn't -- she doesn't want to call him out by name. Every detail is quite clear in the book. It's quite clear it's about him.

GLENN: Yeah. She might find him in the bottom of a river.
(laughter)

GLENN: I'm just -- I'm just saying. I don't know what else could happen.

STU: The thing I love about this particular segment is that I would love to give you this story at any time.

The fact that you're deep on back medication right now is the perfect time for you to --

GLENN: I'm not on medication. I'm actually not on medication.

I'm just in so much pain, I just don't care.

STU: Whatever is making you delirious, I love it.

GLENN: Right. Got it.

STU: So the Ryna Lizza piece comes out. It's called How I Found Out. He goes through the whole details. He finds the napkins, finds the love letter, written on the napkins.

Okay. And in the love letter, it says, if I swallowed every drop of water from the tower above your house, I would still thirst for you.

Now -- I just love it.

Now, they live in DC, Glenn.

As you may know, not a lot of water towers in their home in DC. She realized, this is not a love letter to me, but someone else.

Finally, she starts going in and realizing, this is about a famous politician.

We go through the same -- goes through the whole story and finds out, there's a lot of detail about everything.

This is going to blow up their life. He realizes, it's going to be a problem. He calls his publicist, of course. This is what you do when you're one of these DC insider reporters, you call your publicist. And he says, we have a big problem.

Olivia is sleeping with Mark Sanford, a totally different politician.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

STU: This is a totally different affair.

GLENN: Mark Sanford. Wasn't he -- he was in Virginia, wasn't he?

STU: No, South Carolina.

GLENN: South Carolina, that's right. That's right. Who went for a walk one day, and just never showed up.

STU: Yes! And remember, he was like, oh, he's out on the Appalachian Trail, and then they found out he was actually.

GLENN: That's right.

STU: He was actually hooking up --

GLENN: Yeah. Under a water tower.

STU: Right. With a person he called his soul mate. Which I guess that was true for a time. They got together after that old relationship got broken up. Then they got back together.

And he got together with the soul mate. Then that broke up. And then he's rerunning for president if you remember, Glenn, in 2020, against Donald Trump. And making the pitch that, you know, I'm -- I've turned my life around. At that time, apparently, allegedly, sleeping with this reporter who profiled him, same exact thing that happened with RFK Jr. Except that, you know, we don't know. At least, there's no allegations that they actually wound up consummating the RFK Jr relationship.

In the story, however, in addition to all of this, we also get additional details of a relationship that Olivia Nuzzi had when she was 21 years old with Keith Olbermann.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. Oh, my gosh.

STU: I mean, the story is almost too good to tell.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. So she's like -- what was the spy's name, you know, that was sleeping with everybody -- like Whory Harriet or something like that. I mean, is that how she gets the stories? She just sleeps with these people?

STU: I don't know. Seemingly, this does occur on a pretty regular basis in this situation.

GLENN: Wow.

STU: And, you know, we ran out of time. Tomorrow, we should do the Olbermann's part of the saga, which is absolutely fascinating.

GLENN: Oh, we must.

STU: They seem to be accusing him of something in this piece. Which is above and beyond just hooking up. So that's something we should talk about tomorrow as well.

GLENN: Oh, I will -- I'll just write it down now. I'm scheduling -- scheduling the Keith Olbermann segment for tomorrow.

A Secret Cracker Barrel Warehouse Holds the Truth About the Remodel Scandal | Glenn TV | Ep 470

When Cracker Barrel began remodeling select locations and stripped away the nostalgic décor that defined its brand, customers erupted in outrage, asking: Has the poster child of Americana gone woke? The intense public backlash and financial fallout forced executives to pause their modernization plans. For the first time since the backlash, Glenn Beck gained exclusive access to the center of the controversy and Cracker Barrel’s massive warehouse of Americana antiques in Lebanon, Tennessee. There, Joe Stewart — the man tasked with telling America’s story through the chain’s iconic wall decorations — shares his reaction to the controversial remodel. Plus, Glenn unveils an exclusive first look at his no-holds-barred interview with Cracker Barrel CEO Julie Masino in her first on-camera appearance since her "Good Morning America" interview.

Watch the full interview Thursday, November 20, on BlazeTV and Glenn’s YouTube channel.

The HIDDEN reason Democrats URGED the military to DEFY Trump

A group of prominent Democrats recently put out a video urging the military and CIA to defy any "unlawful" orders from President Trump. On the surface, Glenn agrees with their message. But he explains why he believes it was never meant for the military. It was part of a campaign to sow seeds of doubt into the minds of average Americans...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So let's start with Venezuela. The New York Times is now reporting that Trump has been said to authorize CIA plans for covert action in Venezuela.

Now, when I read this story, I thought to myself, didn't I read this story about three or four weeks ago?

I think this is the exact story. Correct me if I'm wrong. Do you remember it?

I think this was the exact story that the New York Times or someone else came out with, about four weeks ago.

We have Jason here, who watches this kind of stuff. Am I right on thinking that, Jason?

JASON: Just heard this. Thirty-four weeks ago or a month ago.

GLENN: Yeah. Right. There's nothing new here.

So what exactly is the New York Times doing?

JASON: Uh-huh. They're parroting what they were slipped from their unnamed source. Imagine that!

GLENN: So what do you mean, they were slipped from an unnamed source? What do you mean by that?

JASON: There's no way this is a leak. Like, oh, we've got to get this out. Because it's like, atrocious that this was happening. This is approved.

GLENN: Yeah, this is something -- this is something that you're seeing the Deep State in action. Somebody wants to make sure that this is -- that this is -- circled around. So everybody is like, oh, my gosh. What are we doing in Venezuela?

What are we doing in Venezuela?

We already told you what we're doing in Venezuela. This is to secure the western hemisphere. To get China out of the western hemisphere.

This has everything to do with that little training island. That we told you about, a year or two ago. Where Hamas and Hezbollah are training people in Venezuela, just off the coast.

That's what this is about. This is to stop the infiltration of the Islamic radicals. In cahoots with Maduro. In Venezuela. That's what this is about.

And the Chinese are an extra added benefit. You know, don't believe the -- well, it's the drugs. If it was the drug thing, we would be going after Mexico.

I mean, not that that doesn't play a role. But it's only part of the story. And we've told you that. And now, you know, Trump authoring plans for the CIA. Yeah. We know that. You said that to us, long ago.

Now, at the same time that is happening, there was a video that was released from the Democrats. Now, these are Democrats that are currently, you know, in power.

Big name Democrats. And listen to what they're telling the troops and Intel officers. Listen to this.

VOICE: I'm Senator Alyssa Socket.

VOICE: Senator Mark Kelly.

VOICE: Representative Chris Deluzio.

VOICE: Congresswoman (inaudible).

VOICE: Representative Chrissy Houlahan.
VOICE: Congressman Jason Kraut. I was a captain in the United States Navy.

VOICE: Former CIA officer.

VOICE: Former Navy.

VOICE: Former paratrooper and Army Ranger.
VOICE: Former intelligence officer and former Air Force.

VOICE: We want to speak directly to members of the military.

VOICE: The intelligence community.
VOICE: Who take risks each day.

VOICE: To keep Americans safe.

VOICE: We know you are under enormous stress and pressure right now.

VOICE: Americans trust their military.

VOICE: But that trust is at risk.

VOICE: This administration is pitting our uniformed military.

VOICE: And intelligence community professionals.

VOICE: Against American citizens.

VOICE: Like us, you all swore an oath.

VOICE: To protect and defend this Constitution.

VOICE: Right now, the threats to our Constitution aren't just coming from abroad, but from right here at home.
VOICE: Our laws are clear: You can refuse illegal orders.

VOICE: You can refuse illegal orders.

VOICE: You must refuse illegal orders.

VOICE: No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution.

VOICE: We know this is hard. And that it's a till time to be a public servant.

VOICE: But whether you're serving in the CIA, the army, the Air Force.

VOICE: Your vigilance is critical.

VOICE: And know that we have your back.

VOICE: Because now, more than ever.
VOICE: The American people need you.

VOICE: We need to you stand up for our laws.

VOICE: Our Constitution. And who we are as Americans.
VOICE: Don't give up.
VOICE: Don't give up.
VOICE: Don't give up.
VOICE: Don't give up the ship.

GLENN: Hmm.

So I'm looking at this, and I'm thinking, I agree 100 percent with everything they just said. 100 percent.

My question is: Why are they saying?

What illegal orders?

And why now? Are you telling me that all of the stuff with USAID, all of the stuff that was going on with the FBI with our intelligence community. With Russia, Russia, Russia. All of that stuff was on the up and up? They had no concern about that?

When -- when Barack Obama was targeting US citizens to be droned.

US citizens to be droned. They had no problem with it?

And now all of a sudden, because of what? Venezuela?

Now, all of a sudden, they have a problem. No. I don't think so.

I think this is a -- this is the beginning of a campaign.

And again, all it does is sew seeds of doubt, not in the mind of the military.

Not in the mind -- well, maybe CIA. But I think CIA is off their own if territory, anyway.

This sows seeds of doubt in the mind of average Americans. They're now sewing seeds saying, Donald Trump is doing something unconstitutional with our military.

What is it?

Speak clearly. Don't say we're under pressure! Speak clearly.

What exactly is he doing that is unconstitutional, that they should -- that they should disobey. I would like to know what it is. Because all this is doing is undermining.

STU: Is it Venezuela?

Like, did they state --

GLENN: No. They didn't say that. No.

STU: Just generalized advice. Whatever you do -- don't -- like, that seems really sketchy. Because we were talking this a little bit off the air. That, like, there's a version of that, that is like treasonous. Right?

You're telling me, the military to not listen to the commander-in-chief. Now, I don't think that was the version of it, that is treasonous.

I think that was worded very carefully. And as you point out. I don't think anyone would disagree, that if there's something blatantly illegal, you shouldn't be doing it.

But I guess their idea is some of -- is that Venezuela.

Are they trying to encourage these people to not drone the ships.

What's the ask here?

GLENN: I don't know. They didn't mention -- I don't know. They're just sending out. That's why this seems so unbelievably calculated to cause chaos.

Because they're not sewing seeds in the doubt of the mind of the military. They are sewing the seeds of doubt in the mind of the US public.

This went out to everybody in the whole world.

And what it's sending is a message to the whole world.

Our president is so bad, that we in Congress, need to tell -- tell the military, do not obey him.

Well, can you be specific?

On what exactly? On what, exactly?

No. They -- they can't be specific. If you could be, I would have no problem.

If you came out with that message, and you said, look, we just want to restate the policy of the United States.

Whether the president is a Republican or a Democrat, you do not have to obey the commander of chief, if he is asking for things that are unconstitutional.

For instance, if he asks you to do X, Y, or Z.

They're not just talking about as well, as the military. What's intriguing to me is they're also including the CIA.

Who in their right mind today, thinks the CIA is under control?

Who in their right mind thinks the CIA is actually living within the Constitutional bounds. Because I don't. To a?

Do you know anybody who thinks that? Left or right?

Does anybody within the sound of my vice, thinks that the CIA is actually contained and living in its own little space, constitutionally, where it should be?

Does anyone actually believe that they answer to Congress?

Because I don't. Do you, Stu? Do you, Jason?

JASON: I -- I think the establishment of the CIA is actually anti-constitutional. To be perfectly honest, I don't think an organization like the CIA can operate within the bounds of disclosure, with, you know, letting Congress know everything that they're doing. It can't operate that way. So I think all too many times, they understand that. And they just do whatever the heck they want to do.

GLENN: Yeah. It's all black ops. It's all black ops stuff. And, you know, look at what -- where was this message when we found out from -- what was the guy who blew the whistle and went to Russia? What was his name?

STU: Snowden?

JASON: Snowden.

GLENN: Snowden. Where was this message with Snowden?

When that came out. Hey, if you're in the NSA, you're in the CIA, you can't be doing this stuff. So blow the whistle.

Where was that?

Where has this message been with any of the whistle-blowers have come out. Where was this with the whistle-blowers that were coming out today, about what the CIA has been doing. What the intelligence community has been involved in.

Where was this message?

This is not an honest message.

That's the problem with this. This is not an honest message. This is part of Colour Revolution. This is just, sew the seeds of doubt.

Make sure you are positioning the president as somebody who is so radical, and so unconstitutional. That they have to tell the military, not to obey his orders. Without any specifics, whatsoever.

That's pretty remarkable!

Because, again, I don't have a problem with saying that. We're one of the only countries. You do not answer to the president of the United States. You do not answer to your general.

You answer to the Constitution of the United States.

That's absolutely true!

So I have no problem with this message being taught. It should be taught by every single president. President!

But it's not. They have seen so many abuses under their rule, and now, all of a sudden, you get this?

Where -- where was this message when the president used the military as a prop? Behind him in the speech where it was blood red, and Biden was saying, these are enemies of the state!

You can't do that with the military. Where was this message, from anyone?

Hey. You cannot be used as a prop behind the president. You cannot do that.

I didn't hear anybody saying that. Because they don't have a problem with it.

If it's their side, they don't have a problem with it. I have a problem with it, on both sides. I want the military -- I want the military. Let me separate these.

I want the military to know. We have your back. If the president. Any president is ordering you to do things that are unconstitutional. Do not do them.

Do not do them. Blow the whistle and the American people should have your back. I know I will have your back.

To the -- to intelligence community, you better stop doing what you're doing.

Because I know the American people. And I don't know if you can be stopped. But I know the American people know that you're doing things that you should not be doing. And you're doing them under every president for God only knows how long.

Stop doing it. Because if we ever get into the position where we can stop you, we will.

And the American people will demand a trial for every single one of you that was breaking the Constitution.

Don't care who ordered you to do it.

It's your responsibility to say no.

And you haven't. You haven't.

Start saying no, to any president, any boss, anybody who is telling you to violate the US Constitution.

Don't do it. Don't do it!

But, but I don't think that's the reason why they're saying it.

JASON: No, and they know this. Because all of them are -- are -- are veterans of the military or the intelligence community. They know, and I've gone through these before. This is stating the obvious.

This is already taught within -- from the lowest enlistment ranks, all the way up to the top, you know, within officer school within the military. There are procedures, if you ever have an unlawful order, how to, you know -- you know, work through it. And report it.

GLENN: Stu, what do you think this is really about? What are they doing?

STU: It feels like it's about politics. Right? I mean, it feels like they are trying to build a case that the president is continually engaging in things that are illegal and unconstitutional. And like, you bring up Colour Revolution.

I think it's -- I think it's -- I think there's a political element to that. And I think they may very well be related. But if you think about -- it might be about Venezuela. But I don't think the American people really care about that story.

I don't know that that's necessarily healthy that we don't care about it. I think there are real questions about the process here. And how this all went down. I almost feel like it's more related to something like immigration enforcement.

Right? In the United States. And that's not. Because we've talked about the -- the military being involved in cracking down on cities. And -- and things of that nature. Where like, you know, we've talked about the questions around them. There are legitimate questions about how much can be done in that realm.

I wonder if they're trying to kind of set that precedent. This sort of tone, that the president is engaging in these things.

And slowly, over time, you can build to not only a political answer. Maybe the Colour Revolution angle. And also the chaos in the streets angle.

At some point, if you believe your president is doing unconstitutional things and forcing the military of the United States to engage in actions that are unconstitutional against the American people. Man, you're going to get a lot of people out on the streets for that one, if this thing were to be successful.

So I think that might be the path. Do you buy that?

GLENN: Yeah, I do. I just think that the main goal here is just to undermine credibility.

Undermine. Tear us apart even more. Undermine credibility, sow the sees of chaos once again.

Did the FBI scrub Thomas Crooks' DISTURBING past to keep us in the dark?

New reports have dropped linking failed Trump assassin Thomas Matthew Crooks to a multitude of online accounts, including some that were deep into the “furry” community. Glenn Beck asks, how did the FBI miss all of this when they insisted the Butler, PA, shooter didn’t have much online presence or a clear motive?! Or did they purposefully scrub this information from their reports to keep us in the dark?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So there's a couple of things that are in the news. That Thomas Matthew Crooks thing.

You know, this is crazy. Went by they/them. Furry. I don't even -- I've been thinking about this a lot in the last 24 hours. You know, the kid that tried to take out Donald Trump back in July in the Butler rally.

It's a year later, okay? November 17, 2025. These new reports are dropping bombshells. It is the 17th, isn't it? 18th. Sorry. The 18th. These -- these new reports are dropping over and over and over and over and over again.

And there are things that nobody mentioned in the official investigations.

Independent researchers now are using the same kind of digital forensic tools that the Feds have. And they're piecing together a bunch of old online accounts, tied directly to Crooks' email. His real email and his name.

And one of the biggest ones was on Deviant Art. Okay. That sounds great. User names like Epic Microwave and The Epic Microwave.

Okay. This site -- apparently, a huge hub for artists. But also, ground zero for the furry community.

Now, we're going to get into this a little later. Because Stu is a big furry. And he will go right into it.

Where he likes to --

STU: Furries are not that large actually. More moderate sized.

Okay. All right. Well, this is where people get into the anthropomorphic animal thing. And they turn animals into half humans. And it turns sexual. And I don't even know.

So, anyway, this kid was not casually browsing. He was deep in that subculture, we find out now.

So that's two high-profile attempted assassination cases, or one attempted and one actual assassination case. And they're both tied to the same thing.

And nobody seems to be worried about that.

Nobody is talking about that. Imagine if we had two. One attempted and one actual assassination. And it was Charlie Kirk and president Biden.

Okay.

Anybody. And they both were deep into the GlennBeck.com subculture. Do you think the media would be like, what's going on there? But this thing, nobody cares. Okay? And when I say nobody cares, it seems like our FBI doesn't care either. Our DOJ doesn't care. The Trump case specifically blows a hole into the mysterious lone wolf with no known motive. Wait. What?

Now, this wasn't -- this wasn't Patel pushing this. This was the -- the Biden FBI that was pushing this. Christopher Wray went to Congress. And shrugged. And said, you know, we can't find any ideology. Or any online trail that explains this. What!

It's right here! What are you talking about? It's right here!

Crooks had at least 17 accounts across discord, YouTube, Gab, Deviant Art, all of it. Easily tracked to him!

And as we told you last week, he started cheering for Trump. And then went a die hard, you know, 180-degree turn around in 2020.

And then he started echoing anti-Semitic, anti-immigration rants, calling for political assassinations, repeating Maoist lines like, "Power grows at the barrel of a gun," and even chatting with sketchy European extremists, Nazis, who are linked to a designated terrorist group. He posted violent threats under his real name for years. Now, listen to this. He also got flagged by other users, who literally tagged law enforcement in their reply! And nothing happened. Nothing happened. They didn't know who this guy was. They didn't search for him. They didn't question him. Nothing happened until he climbed on to the roof and started shooting at Donald Trump. Excuse me?

Do you believe that? Stu, do you believe that?

They have people online, tipping the FBI off, and they didn't even who know this guy was.

They had no idea who he was.

STU: I mean, it seems impossible to believe.

You have one stray comment, that is taken the wrong way online. And, you know, Secret Service is calling you up. I mean, we've -- I don't want to bring up.

GLENN: We've personally gone through this.

STU: Exactly. This same thing.

GLENN: We said. I said -- I said it on one show.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Something about Donald Trump.

STU: No. No. No. No. I'm not going to let you get away with that.

No. I want to make sure that it's clear what occurred on the show was you essentially threatening my life!

And I want people to know. Where no. I was going to say. Right. I was saying something about Donald Trump.

And then Stu got in, and I said --

STU: I said --

GLENN: I will choke you to death. Or something. Yeah. I just need to choke you to death.

And people in the audience said, I was threatening Donald Trump.

No, I was clearly threatening, and nobody called about poor Stu. I was clearly threatening Stu's life.

STU: Yeah, think about that when you're driving in your car right now. You didn't call! You heard it. And you let my life be threatened. And you didn't care at all.

GLENN: That's right.

STU: None of you cared. But apparently people care --

GLENN: That's why I love this audience.

That's right. So, anyway, so, anyway, the -- the -- secret service was with us two hours later. Okay?

STU: Rightfully so.

GLENN: Yeah. Rightfully so. And we have no problem with it. You know, we were talking to them. They were like, Mr. Beck, we know -- we listened to the tape, we know what happened. We just have to dot all the I's, cross all the T's, and just get a statement. And I'm like, no, not a problem.

I was threatening to kill him. And, you know, they laughed and went, yeah, we understand that. And they left!

Okay. That's the way I remember it.

This guy threatens to kill the president and others! People tag him to the FBI and to law enforcement. And they never check into him?

STU: And, Glenn, I think people can say, well, you know, the thing we're talking about did happen on a national radio show. A lot of people heard it.

Maybe some of the comments on, what is it? Deviant Art are not as well picked up. And that's probably true.

Though, we've seen --
GLENN: They've sent it to them. They've sent it to them.

STU: Right. We've seen tons of examples of people making offhanded statements where this has happened.

You know, not just a threat. Which would be serious enough. But constant threats. Dozens of them, it seems.

We're still, I feel learning about all the details about this. A lot of threats from a specific person.

And it doesn't seem like their argument is, it wasn't even on their radar! I mean, that's unbelievable! It's --

GLENN: Here's -- here's bare minimum.
Everyone should be fired. Everyone should be fired!

Not just the top person. Everyone should be fired. I'm sorry. You can reapply, but we're cleaning house.

Because this is inexcusable. Inexcusable. Now, here's the other thing that's inexcusable. None of this stuff about the threats. None of the radicalization. None of the violent posts. None of the furry gender stuff even made it into the big congressional report that dropped December 2024.

None of this!

It was like they scrubbed the kid clean to keep the public in the dark. Let me say that again. It's like they scrubbed the kid clean, to keep the public in the dark.

Hmm. Let me go to the comment about -- from President Trump yesterday. We played it in the news a few minutes ago.

Where he was talking about the Epstein case. Listen to this.

DONALD: We have nothing to do with Epstein the Democrats do. All of his friends were Democrats. You look at this Reid Hoffmann. You look at Larry Summers. Bill Clinton. They went to his island all the time. And many of this, all Democrats.

All I want is I want for people to recognize the great job that I've done on pricing, on affordability, because we brought prices went way lower. On energy. On ending eight wars, and another one coming pretty soon, I believe.

We've done a great job. And I hate to see that deflect from the great job we've done. So I'm all for -- you know, we have given 50,000 pages. You do know that.

Unfortunately, like with the Kennedy situation, with the Martin Luther King situation, not to put Jeffrey Epstein in the same category, but no matter what we give, it's never enough. You know, with Kennedy, we gave everything, and it wasn't enough. With Martin Luther King, we gave everything, and it's never enough.

We've already given, I believe the number is 50,000 pages! 50,000 pages. And it's just a Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia hoax as it pertains to the Republicans.

GLENN: Okay. Stop. So why?

Why is it never enough? Why is it never enough?

Because the government has lied to us, over and over and over and over and over and over again.

Why is it never enough? Because what the hell happened here with this guy? What happened with these two shooters, and you're not telling us about the, you know, role-playing as a buff cartoon fox/wolf hybrid with they/them pronouns. And then being groomed by foreign edge lords, quoting Mao and terrorist manifestos. And then going out and trying to shoot somebody.

You don't mention that!

Yeah. That's why we don't believe the government. And until the government becomes fully clean, immediately, on everything, just, you know what, here it is.

Here it is!

Nobody is going to believe it. Now, what does this say about our kids. We have a whole generation now growing up the blued to these hyper niche, unmoderated corners of the internet, with fantasy and porn and identity confusion and hard-core political extremism. And all of it, just smashed together into one stream.

What do you think is going to happen? Family, school, real interactions with family. Real life friends. They don't touch these spaces.

You know, how's -- I feel weird about my body morph into, I need to commit mass violence against the world.

I mean, this is the five alarm tire. When you have two political assassinations. Two of them!

That trace back to the exact same subculture, you've got a real problem!

It's not like every furry is dangerous. Well, I know. I question every furry.

I mean, I don't even know what -- anyway!

There is some sort of radicalization pipeline that is happening. And we're raising our kids in digital petri dishes. Where mental illness and sexual confusion and violent ideology is all growing together!

And then we act shocked when one of our kids grab a rifle. America, wake up! Stop pretending this stuff is just a harmless little quirk. You know, or live and let live. Or we're just going to keep burying victims one after thorough. Parents and schools and tech companies. Law enforcement. Everybody dropped the ball on crooks.

For years! Red flags were out there, screaming about this guy.

And nobody in the government did anything. Nobody in law enforcement did anything? How many of our kids have to climb roofs, before we admit these dark corners of the internet are producing real monsters.

How many? How many?

And this is only the beginning of it.