RADIOJuly 23, 2024

Glenn Beck Reacts: Secret Service Director RESIGNS After DISASTROUS Testimony

Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle has finally resigned 10 days after the attempted assassination of former president Donald Trump. But Glenn says, "that should not close this case by any stretch of the imagination." Glenn and Pat discuss Cheatle's resignation and her disastrous testimony to the House Oversight Committee the day before.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: The head of the Secret Service is resigning. Or appears to be resigning. But that should not close this case by any stretch of the imagination.

Pat and I want to go over some of the audio from yesterday. Let's start with Comer, with Cheatle struggling to answer any of his questions. Cut 11.

VOICE: At any point Saturday did the Secret Service have an agent on top of that roof?

KIM: Sir, I'm sure as you can imagine, that we are just nine days out from this incident, and there's still an ongoing investigation. And so I want to make sure that any information that we are providing is factual.

VOICE: Okay. Why did the Secret Service not -- can you answer why the Secret Service didn't place a single agent on the roof?

KIM: We are still looking into the advance process and the decisions that were made.

VOICE: Okay. Okay.

Wasn't that building, within the perimeter that should be secured? Do we agree with that?

KIM: The building was outside of the perimeter on the day of the visit. But, again, that is one of the things that during the investigation, we want to take a look at and determine whether or not other decisions should have been made.

VOICE: One of the things that you said, I believe in an interview, that there wasn't an agent on the roof, because it was a sloped roof. Is that -- is that normal?

And to a fear that that immediately creates an opportunity for future would-be assassins to look for a slanted roof?

I mean, this is a huge question that every American has.

Why wasn't a Secret Service agent on the roof.

And there have been reports that agents were supposed to be on the roof. And it was hot that day. And they didn't want to be on the roof. Can you answer any of those questions, Director?

KIM: Sir, I appreciate you asking me that question, Chairman.

I should have been more clear in my answer, when I spoke about where we placed personnel in that interview.

What I can tell you, is that there was a plan in place to provide overwatch. And we are still looking into responsibilities, and who was going to provide overwatch.

But the Secret Service in general, not speaking specifically to this incident, when we are providing overwatch, whether that be through countersnipers or other technology, prefer to have sterile rooftops.

VOICE: Did the Secret Service use any drones for surveillance that day?

KIM: Sir, I will not get into specifics of that day --

GLENN: Stop. She couldn't answer anything yesterday. Not one thing.

PAT: No.

GLENN: If you were the head of the Secret Service. It's been over a week now, you're the head of the Secret Service, you walk into people's office, the minute that happens and say, I want answers right now.

PAT: Who was in charge of oversight? Right?

It takes two minutes to find that out. Come on. It doesn't take ten days to find that out.

GLENN: Right. We're still looking into that. Are we?

Now, she had a problem with Jim Jordan as well.

Here's cut 20.

VOICE: Take to the president and the First Lady?

KIM: No, I have not.
VOICE: Talk to the White House staff, anyone in White House communications?

KIM: No. I have not.

VOICE: Have you talked to the countersniper that took the shot that took out the bad guy?

KIM: Yes, I have.

VOICE: And can you tell us about that conversation?

KIM: I would not want to reveal conversations that I've had with my employees.

PAT: Oh, jeez.

VOICE: But that's exactly the kind of information the American people want to know. The American people who pay your salary.

KIM: I understand. This is an ongoing investigation --

VOICE: Who is all doing the investigating at the Secret Service?

I know the inspector general, but is there also an internal investigation in addition to the inspector general?

KIM: We are conducting a mission assurance investigation internally, yes.

VOICE: You know what it looks like, director? It looks like you won't answer some pretty basic questions. It looks like you got a 9 percent raise, and you cut corners when it came to protecting one of the most important individuals. The most well-known individuals on the planet.

A former president, likely the guy who is going to be the next president, looks like you guys were cutting corners. That's what it looks like to me.

PAT: Hmm.

GLENN: Let's go to Cut 27. Here's Andy Biggs.

VOICE: Your agency has a no-fail mission. And on Saturday, July 13th, your agency spectacularly failed.

The failure resulted in the death of Corey Comperatore, and serious injury to two other rally attendees, David Dutch and James Copenhaver, besides the injuries to President Trump.

It's unfathomable, that a 20-year-old on the radar of Secret Service and local law enforcement before President Trump went on stage, was able to climb on to the roof of a building with a rifle.

And fire off multiple rounds before he was neutralized.

Was Mr. Crooks acting alone?

KIM: Again, I would have to refer to the FBI's investigation.

VOICE: Was he just a lone gunman?

KIM: I would have to refer you to the FBI's investigation for motive.

GLENN: That's not motive. That's asking, she revealed something there, on motive.

Don't you think?

Of us he acting alone? You'll have to talk to them about motive. Well, wait. No, that's a different answer.

PAT: That doesn't seem to go to motive. So that's interesting.

GLENN: No. Yeah. AOC.

I mean, the left was tearing her apart as well. Here is AOC cut seven.

VOICE: So the notion of a report coming out in 60 days, when the threat environment is so high in the United States, irrespective of party is not acceptable. And I think it's very important to understand that.

This is not theater. This is not about jockeying. This is about the safety of some of the most highly targeted and valued targets. Internationally and domestically.

In the United States of America.

So the idea that a report will be finalized in 60 days, let alone prior to any actionable decisions that would be made, is simply not acceptable.

It has been ten days since an assassination attempt on a former president of the United States.

Regardless of party. There needs to be answers.

PAT: Wow. Felt a little --

GLENN: That's the best thing I think I've ever heard her say.

PAT: Oh, by far. By far.

Felt a little bipartisan there, yesterday, a little bit. Didn't it.

GLENN: It did. Because as we've been saying on this show forever.

The president of the United States. The current one. If he's not dead already.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: You know, he's in danger.

Kamala Harris is in danger.

RFK is in danger.

We cannot have a -- a slew of assassination attempts.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Can't! God forbid one of them die, it will tear this country apart!

Here's another Democrat. This is Moskowitz from Florida. Democrat to Cheatle.

Cut ten.

VOICE: Director, I just want to give you an honest assessment of how this is going for you today. Did you happen to catch the hearing many months ago, in education, where there were a bunch of university professor, university presidents and Elise Stefanik asked a very easy question and couldn't get an answer?

Did you see that hearing?

KIM: No, I don't think I did.

VOICE: Okay. Well, let me tell you, it didn't go well.

And the short end of that story was, those university professors all resigned. They're gone. That's how this is going for you. This is where this is headed. Okay?

This is -- I don't know who prepared you for this. I don't know how many times you've testified in front of Congress, but a president was almost assassinated live on television, not just for Americans. But for the world, to see.

And this being your first opportunity. I understand there's an ongoing investigation.

I understand there are things that you can not talk about. But the -- the idea that we're getting less than you did, on television, is something that Democrats, independents, and Republicans are going to find unacceptable.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

Now, there was Nancy Mace, who was a little more plainspoken. Cut 12.

VOICE: Was this a colossal failure?

KIM: It was a failure.

VOICE: Yes or no? Was it a colossal failure is the question. Yes or no.

VOICE: I have admitted --

VOICE: This is a yes or no series of questions. Was this a colossal failure? Yes or no?

KIM: Yes.

VOICE: Have you provided a list to the oversight committee? Yes or no?

KIM: I will have to get back to you on that.

VOICE: That is a no. Have you provided all audio and video recordings in your possession to this committee, as we asked on July 15th? Yes or no?

KIM: I would have to get back to you.

VOICE: That is a no! You're full of (bleep) today. You're being completely dishonest.

GLENN: Love that.

And then we have Representative Fallon, who said this to Cheatle, cut 13.

VOICE: You know what else is dangerous? I believe your horrifying ineptitude, and your lack of skilled leadership is a disgrace. Your obfuscating today is shameful.

And you should be fired immediately. Go back to guarding Doritos.
(laughter)

PAT: She used to work security at Pepsi. That's why she was guarding Doritos. That's great.
(laughter)

GLENN: Yeah. I found that amazing. When the assassination first happened. I looked her up.

And I'm like, where did she come from?

And I saw she was head of security from Pepsi. And I'm like, you've got to be kidding me.

You're now the head of the Secret Service?

PAT: Well, how many Doritos, do you know were killed during her watch? None. None.

GLENN: None.

PAT: Not a single Doritos was murdered while she was there.

GLENN: And especially all those Coke lovers out there. That just want to knock off cans of Pepsi. She had her job cut out for her.

PAT: She did. She did.

GLENN: It was very difficult.

Oh, my gosh. Now, here's what I'm afraid of. That this is going to stop this investigation.

Because it can't. It cannot stop this investigation.

She has -- she -- we have to know what her device is. What's on her devices.

Why was she using signal when talking to the White House, from her own personal phone?

That's against the law. Did the White House know that that was happening? What were they talking about?

That's really important, to find out.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And I -- I think everybody on that Secret Service detail, should be brought in front of Congress, and have to answer themselves.

You know, it's one thing to be told, shut up. Sit down. Shut up. Don't say anything.

It's another, when you're going to be blamed for it. On national television.

So are you telling me, when you went and you surveyed the site, that didn't occur to you, that that was a big problem?

That you should have somebody secure of that. Is that what you wrote down in your report? Is that --

PAT: But --

GLENN: You should be fired right now.

PAT: They couldn't, Glenn. Because there was a slope. It was hot.

And we were -- this is just breaking. The sun was in their eyes.

GLENN: What kind of pussywillows do we have on the -- I mean, that's what we should call the Secret Service presidential detail, the Pussywillows. We're out here. It's hot. I don't know.

PAT: I don't want to get on a sloped roof. There's a 3 percent grade there. I'm not getting out there!
(laughter)
I mean, come on.

GLENN: It's unbelievable.

PAT: You didn't exactly have to be a mountain goat to navigate that roof. It's almost flat.

GLENN: Unbelievable. No. No. You really didn't. You really didn't.

PAT: Oh, man.

GLENN: I mean, it is -- it is their -- they're just -- I question the manhood of every single person, that was on the Secret Service detail. Or on the local detail, if they were like, it's hot!

It's very hot.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: Who do we have Dylan Mulvaney out?

Dylan, you watch the roof. Okay. But girl power.

I'm not going to walk on that roof. It's hot and sloped.

PAT: And I'm on my heels today. I'm in my heels. I'm not doing it. All right. Okay.

SCANDAL: How Obama BETRAYED Heroic Vets in the Shocking 'Raven 23' Case

Glenn Beck is joined by investigative journalist Gina Keating to expose the shocking story of how the Obama administration weaponized the Deep State against America’s own hero veterans. From show trials to political pressure, veterans who risked everything for their country were sacrificed to appease foreign governments and deflect public scrutiny. Cases like the 'Raven 23' incident reveal how the Pentagon and DOJ allegedly used absurd charges to make it appear they were acting, while thousands of soldiers became pawns in a political game...

Watch Glenn Beck's FULL Interview with Gina Keating HERE

Should Ukraine give up land to Putin to end the war?

As President Trump continues to navigate through his peace efforts between Russia and Ukraine, it's beginning to look like both sides are going to have to give something up in order to bring peace. But is that fair? Glenn gives a history lesson of the only other time in recent history where a country was forced to give up what it had won: Israel in 1967. So, what's the path forward? Peace demands sacrifice. Survival outweighs pride. Both countries claim injustice. The question is: Are you willing to trade more land for more lives? Are you willing to give back, or give up enough to stop the killing?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So I was -- I was thinking about this, and doing some research on, when has any country been asked to give land up, that it won in a war?

And you can say that it was, you know, their fault. And everything else. But you want to make sure that you're very careful on punishment for those -- those transgressions. Remember, the aggressor, really bad aggressor, in World War I was Germany. And the world decided to punish Germany. And Germans didn't like it. And that led right directly to World War II. I think without the Versailles treaty being done the way it was done, we would have -- we wouldn't have World War II.

We may not have ever seen Hitler rise to power.

It would be a good thing. But you would also set a standard and say, hey. Bad guys. You don't win when you do these things.

So this is a really tough balance. But there is only one country in particular, in the history of the world, that has -- that has faced this burden, where the whole world is turning up, and saying, you have to get this back.

Back in 1967, it was Israel.

They were surrounded.

Encircled. And threatened with destruction, by every single neighbor.

Every country in the region, decided together, they were going to attack on multiple fronts.

Now, their intention was to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. But Israel not only survived, it turned the tide. In six days, it gained territory so dramatically, that the map of the Middle East had to be withdrawn, dramatically.

They occupied huge swaths of territory. In Jordan, and in Egypt.

All over the Middle East. All of a sudden, they had all this territory.

And then something extraordinary happened.

They said, and you don't see this in Russia. Listen carefully to this.

You don't see this very often.

They said, we don't want all this territory.

We want to be left alone. And we really just want a few buffer zones.

We don't need all of this land in Jordan.

We don't need all of this land in Egypt. We just want to make sure that this can't happen to us again.

Well, that's what Russia is saying. Now, whether that's true with Vladimir Putin or not. That's true, for you to decide.

What they're saying, they want just a buffer zone, away from NATO.

And what Ukraine is saying, we want to be part of NATO. Because we don't trust Russia. Nor should they.

So we -- we want to have -- we want NATO partnership.

Basically, what they want is, if Russia attacks us, then all of NATO, Europe, and America, need to go in and fight that war. With them.

That's what they really want.

Well, Donald Trump his -- his allies came out, this weekend. And said, they are very close to an Article V kind of agreement.

Article V comes from the NATO charter.

Which means, it was for Europe, against Russia.

Anybody who attacks a NATO country, it's an attack on all of us.

And we all band together.

Now, does that happen?

Well, kind of it did, after 911.

Not everyone was involved.

But it wasn't -- it wasn't, you know, like it was intended to be. But that's fine.

That's what -- that's what Ukraine wants.

What Russia says they want, whether it's true orbit or not, I don't know.

But what they say they want is a buffer zone.

If Russia can give up, and look instead at the Israeli example of voluntary, they gave most of it back. The Sinai. Gaza. And parts of the West Bank.

They -- they wanted to keep as part of a buffer zone.

But they were in there. Because it was a buffer zone, to them. Okay?

But land four times its own size.

Paid for in blood. On an attack that they didn't do. Others did to them.

They gave all of that, back. In pursuit of peace.

And they said, look, we don't -- we're not here for more land. We just want our land. And to be left alone. And to have the right to exist.

Now, you've done this to us, several times.

So we want, just exactly what Russia could say. We've been attacked by the West, over and over again. They come through this door of either Poland, or now they're worried about Ukraine.

So we want a buffer zone.

Well, the world didn't give them that buffer zone. It's the disputed territories.
The occupied territories. But that's why Israel wanted it. And then they gave everything else, back. A nation smaller than New Jersey, carved out, just this little buffer zone, so they have a -- a way to protect themselves, in case this would ever happen again. Now, compare this with Russia and Ukraine.

Crimea was taken in 2014. In -- they invaded Ukraine outright in 2022.

And they hold huge swaths of land, under the occupation. So what's the path forward?

Well, either continued bloodshed. And I just -- I think it's important that we put this into perspective: 20,000 Russians, according to the US, 20,000 Russians died last month!

How long did the Vietnam War go on? That was a total of about 55,000 Americans. In one month, you're almost half of the entire Vietnam War.

There's a lot of bloodshed, and a lot of bloodshed, that is happening on the other side, as well.

How many have the Russians killed, month after month after month?

So to stop this, is there something we can look to from 1967?

You know, a recognition of the reality on the ground. And then some hard choices on both sides. But anchor it all in peace.

Marco Rubio said this weekend, and he's right.

Peace demands sacrifice. And Israel proved that, by returning Sinai to Egypt. In exchange for recognition. And an end to the hostilities.

It wasn't perfect. It didn't solve every agreement. But it worked. And Egypt and Israel, haven't gone to war in half a century.

Again, it's messy.

It's ugly. But we haven't had a war between Egypt and Israel, in half a century. Survival outweighs pride.

And here's the challenge for Russia, and Ukraine. Both claim history, in that.

Deep, deep history in that area.

Both claim injustice. And Ukraine, I think you have a much more solid claim on injustice against the Russians, than they do the other way.

But question is, not whose parchment, who owns this land, who has the oldest deed here. The question is: Are you willing to trade more land for more lives?

Are you willing to give back, or give up enough to stop the killing?

And that's not just on the Ukraine side. That is also on the Russian side. No other country has done what Israel does. Nobody.

No -- there's no example like this.

No other modern country has been attacked by multiple neighbors, survived, expanded, and then voluntarily gave all of that land back. And then, it's still being judged for not getting all of it back!

And the closest comparison is probably from 1971. India took some land from Pakistan. In a war. And then they gave it back.

After World War II, we didn't occupy. We gave the land back.

But neither one of those examples have the double standards that Israel has to live through.

But if Russia and Ukraine are serious about ending the war, they might want to look to Sinai.

They might want to look back. Because that's the model. Not endless battles. Not shifting borders by force.

But the humility, to give back what you can. And the wisdom to keep only that in which you have to have for your own security.

And then Russia has to do that. And Ukraine has to be willing to swallow that they have lost some of these things.

But it's in trade for their security. And if Donald Trump can get Russia to accept an Article V-like security agreement, that in and of itself is miraculous.

And we could actually all go home and say, well, avoid a nuclear war on that.

Because remember where we were. Remember. In 2022, Joe Biden was saying, this is nuclear war.

If these things happen, this will be nuclear war!

Remember how freaked out we all were. Likes, wait a minute. Wait a minute.

Nobody has been talking about nuclear war in 50 years.

What do you mean nuclear war? We could avoid that.

I don't know who you voted for, nor too I care.

Is I -- I would hope that we are all praying for cooler heads to prevail.

Because this one now comes down to, how many more innocent lives, that are not involved in this, who are being drafted, on both sides.

Being forced to fight this war. On both sides! How many more people are we going to kill, or allow being killed. Because of -- because of what?
Because of pride.

I don't want to see Putin rewarded for anything that he did.

Nothing!

But war is war.

You know, you don't -- you know, if you're willing to continue to fight.

But Ukraine will not be able to win this war against Ukraine.

I mean, against Russia.

Would you agree with that, Jason. Jason Buttrill is with us.

Would you agree? Unless we all get involved and it's world war.

JASON: That's the thing. Depending on how many people get pushed into this.

There's some crazy developments in this war.

Technologically advancements.

Ukraine. Drone warfare has escalated you out their roof on this.

GLENN: Crazy.

JASON: Some of the videos coming from.

The crazy thing, Ukraine is actually leading, I think in just ingenuity.

As far as drone warfare.

You can watch volunteers on X right now.

That shows some of these first person drones, chasing down Russian soldiers, across the battlefield.

And it's going back and forth.

STU: It's terrifying.

JASON: To answer your question more specifically, no, it's basically a war of attrition in numbers. The Russians have war. And the only way that Ukraine can effectively over time win, is if we get involved. Other NATO countries get involved. That's where things spin out of control.

GLENN: And here's another thing: While we're talking about new technology, let me go back to the B-2 bomber flying over Donald Trump and Putin.

And everybody in the media was like, he's on the red carpet. And he saluted him with a flyover.

No. No. No. That was intimidation. That was clearly intimidation.

What was the message?

Why -- why did he say, fly the B-2 bomber?

Back in 1940, Jack Northrop dreams up the flying wing. And it's -- it's radical. It has no tail.

It was the YB-49. It was really futuristic. Now, the Germans were working on the flying wing as well.

But nobody could get it to stabilize. And, you know, the testing, they killed it by 1950. Because they just couldn't get it stabilized. Now, fast forward to the 1980s. Under Ronald Reagan, doing the same thing, remember. This bomber came back in the 1980s. What else was happening in the 1980s?

It was Ronald Reagan meeting with the leader of -- of Russia. And Gorbachev.

And Ronald Reagan was playing the heavy. It's an evil empire. We're going to end it.

And everybody is like, he will get us into nuclear war. He's like, would you calm down? I have a strategy here. Back in the 1980s, when that was going on, all of a sudden, Northrop Grumman, the aerospace company, they came up with the B-2.

Now, it was first flown for people to see in 1989, but we have it before then.

Okay. Those things were always out before -- it's a UFO, it's like this flying wing, flying. Well, why was this such a big deal?

No one has been able to make a flying wing, except us.

Okay? It's precision. It can drop those bombs in Iran. And it can hit a bomb. 50,000 feet, it can drop a bomb, and it will drop a bomb, and hit the top of a Pepsi can.

That's remarkable precision. Okay?

And it's unseen, with radar. It's untouchable.

But here's the thing.

It was a message to Putin. We freedom it up in the '40s. We perfected it in the '80s, and still, in 2025, nothing comes close.

This is -- this is who we are.

Putin's radars didn't even blink. But I can tell you, he felt the shadow of that wing.

This is why that flyover was such a big deal. It was absolute proof, America is in the leadership role again.

We don't just lead. We dominate, from the vision, to the victory!

Sleep tight, world.
The B-2 is watching. And America is leading again!