RADIOAugust 19, 2024

Did a Secret Service agent plant the Jan. 6 pipe bomb at the DNC?

Newly released security footage from outside the DNC headquarters on January 6, 2021, has raised even more questions about the day's timeline. The footage shows a man with a bag getting out of a police vehicle and walking off camera in the direction where a pipe bomb was found just minutes later. So, did this man — possibly a Secret Service agent — plant the bomb? Glenn speaks with Blaze Media investigative journalist Steve Baker, who warns against jumping to conclusions too early. But he also explains how we can find out: "The FBI can solve this for us today if they will release the DNC's own security cameras." Steve also discusses why he believes the pipe bombs were planted in the first place.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Okay. We didn't spend a lot of time on it. Because I thought, well, it might have been that. It might have been a lot of things.

You know, I'll wait for Steve Baker to pin this down. Then this weekend, I saw Darren Beattie of Revolver News come out. And he said, it is the police.

Okay. That's kind of a big deal. I mean, that's earth-shattering. Steve Baker joins us now from the Blaze. Steve, is this new information, or the same information that you had?

STEVE: Hey, this is exactly the information that we had, and we released early last week.

But I think that whether it's Darren or any other journalist, stepping out and saying that this is conclusively proved that the police planted that bomb, is getting a little bit ahead of themselves.

And I'll tell you why, we had the video of the -- what we believe to be a Secret Service agent, exiting a metropolitan police vehicle.

He steps out of frame. He's carrying a bag in his hand.

But he steps out of frame.

And then two minutes later, he steps back into the camera frame once again. That is not proof, that he set a bomb down. But it does make us ask questions. And it makes us question the FBI directly, once again, as we did in our article, which was our lead in that article. Was the FBI can solve this for us today, if they will release the DNC's own security cameras. Their own security cameras. Are aimed and focused on exactly that spot.

Where the bomb was placed. But they have never released that to the public.

GLENN: So it is -- I mean, I have to tell you, I mean, if you have to take a leap of faith.

You're force Todd take a leap of faith. And you look at you all of the evidence. It is circumstantial. But it is pretty good, especially when the DNC has that video, and won't release it.

Why wouldn't you release the video?

STEVE: That's the great question about this bomb, and that's what makes as you're saying there, this so -- such a -- it's such an easy thing to come to a conclusion on, when you have a bomb that was allegedly placed, 17 hours earlier, around -- 7:30, 8 o'clock, the night before.

And then it allegedly sat there, undetected, during all that time, with so much foot traffic, that morning. So many officers on that building. From various agencies. Two different bomb teams, facility.

We know that from the OIG report that came out, a couple weeks ago.

There is this mounting evidence, that there -- there just couldn't have been a bomb there for 17 hours.

But somehow, some way, 15 minutes before it was discovered.

We see a guy, getting out of a car. Bag in his hand. He walks over that direction into that -- you know, it's a blind spot in the camera coverage from the CCTV --

GLENN: Because they moved it, right?

STEVE: Well, this particular camera, we went back. We went back, eight days.

That camera had been fixed for eight full days, prior to this event.

And than a camera begins moving five minutes after the alleged discovery of the bomb. By a plane clothes police officer. So then suddenly. So that camera starts moving by remote control.

It focuses in, it zooms in to that location. Between the benches. You can kind of pick up a little bit of a visual of the bomb, when that camera moves.

And then it sweeps away, and then within 30 minutes. Whoever the operator was, turned that camera off of the investigative seen, full 90 degrees away from it, and it never returned the rest of the day.

GLENN: So this takes us into a whole new territory, if this is true. And this is why, as much as I believe this probably is what happened, you don't want to go there. You know. Unless it's absolutely true.

And I don't know how we would ever prove that.

But this, you say. Why do you say this was a Secret Service agent?

STEVE: Mainly because of the way he was dressed. It was a Secret Service detail, and the Secret Service were mainly with metropolitan police officers that day in that detail, which is not uncommon. They do assist -- the local police do assist the Secret Service. And there was, of course, the facts that we learned sometime. Well, a year later, after January 6th, that Kamala Harris was actually inside the building at that time.

GLENN: So what do you think, why was it planted?

STEVE: This is no doubt. Now, I have no problem, going out, and declaring the reason for it, being planted. The reason for that bomb and the one for the RNC. The Capitol Hill club. Was diversionary. They were specifically planted, to divert resources from the Capitol. Bear in mind, that only five minutes, before the first breach of the West front there at the Capitol, on January 6th, that's when the first bomb was found at the RNC.

And then only two, three minutes before the breach, this particular -- what we think is a Secret Service agent, wearing a trench coat, carrying a bag, just two to three minutes before that barrier -- or, barricade breach at the Capitol, this guy disappeared, towards those benches. And then he's back, and then five minutes later -- or, 15 minutes later, some minutes after the barricade breach, the Capitol Police plainclothes officer found the bomb.

And that diverted resources from the Capitol that were needed.

GLENN: So do you think it was ever supposed to go off?

STEVE: No. The bombs were not viable. They were absolutely props.

And we know that beyond any shadow of a doubt. We have direct testimony from one of the agents, that worked on that bomb scene.

That worked on the investigation of the bomb. And he was told by his superiors, that these devices were not viable.

GLENN: What's your gut tell you on this?

STEVE: My -- my gut tells me, that we're going to learn who this man is.

That's the first thing. And that's one of the reasons why it would be reckless for us, to declare him -- that he had the bomb. That would be, there was probably some legal jeopardy to do that.

But it's suspicious. We will learn who he is.

We will also eventually going to learn after three and a half years, I hope why Kamala Harris was in that building. Why she was not in the Capitol, where she was being basically coronated as then vice president. She was a voting senator at the time. She was the VP Elect at the time.

And the debate for her ascendancy, to Vice Presidency -- certification of the electoral college vote was taking place at the Capitol at the time, when she had been scheduled according to this same OIG report, she had been scheduled according to the Secret Service logs, two days in advance, that she was going to be at the DNC from 11:30 to 3:30 during the scheduled debate and during the scheduled vote. She was not going to be there.

And this is -- I'm telling you, Glenn. That's a bigger mystery to me, than even the bombs. But if we do discover that these bombs were, in fact, planted by one of the agencies. Secret Service. FBI. NPT. Capitol Police. It doesn't heart. We discover that. It literally, no pun intended, blows this thing up.

GLENN: Tell me about what you know about the Secret Service, and the body of the would-be assassin of Donald Trump.

Being cremated before Congress had a chance to examine and investigate. And also, that they -- they cleaned up biological evidence, and that apparently doesn't happen. Is that true?

STEVE: It shouldn't have happened, as soon as it did. That's the first answer.

It is not 100 percent uncommon. That if a case is clearly solved, that they don't clean up. And they don't take the body away.

Or that they don't go ahead and turn the body back to the family for how they wish to take care of the body at that point.

It's not uncommon. But this is not a common case. And that's why this should not have been done so soon.

I think Representative Clay Aiken from Louisiana is absolutely correct in that.

Now, as the law enforcement officer himself, sheriff in Louisiana, he would have seen the disposal of all types, of all types of homicides.

And he would know, based on the significance of this, that it should have been preserved, the body of Thomas Crook should have been preserved to have other investigators, back up autopsies, other examinations from different agencies to confirm, validate findings. Because if you don't do that, all you do is open up the conspiracy theories.

And you let it ride, that there must be a cover up. Now, we -- we're pretty sure there is a cover-up.

We're just don't know if they're covering up their incompetence, or if they're covering up something, well, much more sinister.

GLENN: What's your gut tell you?

STEVE: In this case, I'm in the camp, solidly, Glenn, that this young man was groomed, that he had help.

GLENN: Wow.

STEVE: I do not believe for a second, that there was a second shooter on the scene. Those conspiracy theories are easily disproven.

GLENN: Right.

STEVE: But we have one of our absolute, most trusted sources. Is an individual, who for 30 years, did this very thing for our government, overseas. In Africa. Middle East. Asia. Central America.

He told me, and I'm quoting, he said, what disturbs him the most about this particular case and Thomas Crooks. Is he says, I recognize my own handiwork.

GLENN: Hmm. Are we going to find out who it is?

STEVE: I'll tell you what, you know that I'm looking. You know that Joe Hanneman, who wrote this article -- who I wrote this article with. We will be looking at this thing for a long time.

GLENN: I wish you luck. And I hope that -- thanks for being responsible on this. I'm not saying that the other reporters are not. They may know something that I don't know. Or we don't know.

But I don't want to rush to anything. And get it wrong.

This is way too important.

If that's true, then your Deep State is exposed.

And nobody is safe. Nobody is safe.

Thank you so much, appreciate it.

STEVE: Thank you, Glenn.

GLENN: You bet. Steve Baker from TheBlaze.

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

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.

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.

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.