RADIOJuly 15, 2024

“That Doesn’t Add Up”: Top Sniper Exposes the Biggest Holes in the Trump Shooting Narrative

Dallas Alexander was part of the special operations unit that broke the world record for the longest confirmed sniper kill. He has also worked VIP protection at the highest levels. Now, he tells Glenn why he believes Trump's failed assassin didn't act alone: "someone on the 'inside' had to have helped with this." Dallas also explains how difficult this shot would be to make and why he has a hard time believing the rooftop used by the killer wasn’t marked by the Secret Service: “[Even] children who play Call of Duty or go to paintball would know that that roof is the most important position to secure, period.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Welcome to the Glenn Beck Program.

As we say, hello, now to Dallas Alexander. He is a retired Canadian Special Forces sniper. He actually holds the record for the longest kill, and that is at 2.1 miles, which is remarkable. Just the amount of math involved in that, just hurts my head.

Dallas, welcome to the program.

DALLAS: Hey, thanks for having me.

GLENN: You bet. So you have said some pretty controversial things, and I -- I wanted to hear it from the horse's mouth. Because you do have experience in this.

You don't believe that this was just incompetence, on the Secret Service's side?

DALLAS: Yeah. That's right.

GLENN: Can you make the case?

DALLAS: Yeah. I think -- like you said, I have some experience. I -- I did that job for a long time. Close protection, and -- and protecting VIPs and stuff. Up to -- up to and including our Prime Minister in Canada, who is part of our job.

And I think at looking at the situation yesterday or the day before, rather, that the -- any -- any amount of tactical professional. I mean, I've seen videos. And there was I don't know how many on the ground, from police and Secret Service. And there was just -- there were too many people there, to not have the most obvious position covered. Like, I said this before, children who play Call of Duty or go to paintball, would know that that roof is the most important position. And that building is one of the most important buildings to secure, period.

Like, just not picking that up, is impossible.

GLENN: It seems impossible to me. But, you know, sometimes the impossible happens just through sheer incompetence.

So what are you -- in your world where you are -- you're just war gaming this, I think it's important for people to know, there's no evidence of anything yet, except questions and what the question Dallas just brought up, is 100 percent valid and needs to be answered to satisfactory. We have to know why they weren't watching that, if they weren't.

So what do you think would have happened?

DALLAS: Well, I think that -- and this is what I said on a video yesterday.

Is that -- and this isn't me pointing a finger at anyone in particular, or a party or an agency. But someone within like the inside, quote, unquote, had to have helped with this.

Like, you can't walk through layers of security like that, and then climb up a ladder, to the most obvious shooting position, and take a shot at, you know, the former president.

And maybe shoot your president. Like somewhere along that chain. You know, I think there's talk coming up, that he had a van. And there were explosives. Like, details are going to be crazy for a little while.

GLENN: Right.

DALLAS: But just from that, to having the shots happen, there had to have been someone who helped with that.

GLENN: Well, Dallas, they did say that this was not part of the -- not part of the secure location. This was an adjacent property.

So he didn't have to go through security to get the rifle there. But, again, you would have been -- if you're a Secret Service, you would have been at least -- if you're not covering that building, with bodies, and somebody up on there, you would at least be covering it with eyesight, would you not?

DALLAS: Yeah. Absolutely. And especially with a covered approach like that, being the building sloping away from the other sniper team or whatever, that could see it. It would be covered.

I saw that. Just it flashed on the screen. At a restaurant, I was in. And immediately, I'm like, the two most obvious things. That building and then the water tower in the background. And you don't need any special training for that.

And yet there were a bunch of people there with special training, and presumably leading up to days before.

JASON: Hey, Dallas, I'm Jason Buttrill, I'm Glenn's head writer and chief researcher. Can you explain from the sniper's perspective, especially in a situation like this, in close protection details, upon visual acquisition of an enemy sniper, does the countersniper have permission to immediately take action and fire, or do they have to go through like a long process of verifying and then getting permission and all of that?

DALLAS: Yes. So that very much depends on the department, what the ROEs are.

And I can't speak to the Secret Service when they're working with the police force. I have no idea. I know, in the jobs that I have done, if there's a sniper position, and I'm a countersniper. Sniper overwatch. Yeah. You're shooting. You're not waiting for someone to give you permission to shoot.

JASON: Can I ask, as a sniper overwatch, do you also -- are you focused on a specific pause, or are you kind of scanning the entire horizon?

DALLAS: Yeah. It sort of depends on the mission and how many other sniper teams there are.

So if you have a bunch of teams, you'll have areas of responsibility. If you are, you know, tasked with watching one specific doorway or something, then that's where you stay. It's mission dependent.

GLENN: Right. So, Dallas, let me ask you. There was a five-mile-an-hour wind.

This is, you know -- it looks like, by the grace of God, Donald Trump turned his head. A, how easy of a shot was this, for a 20-something. And how close did we come to losing a president?

DALLAS: Yeah. That's something, I've been thinking about for the last couple of days. It's crazy.

Because if it would have been just an inch or two the other way, I would -- I just would hate to think about what would happen. You know, in this country and the whole world. It would have been very crazy. But the shot, you know -- I was asking somebody about this yesterday. I haven't gotten confirmation on what the optics on the rifle are, which makes a big difference.

It's not generally a very hard shot. I mean, it's 150 yards roughly. It doesn't take much in training whatsoever, to be able to hit a head-sized target at 150 yards.

Wind definitely would play a factor. I think the caliber is .556. Even that, I'm not 100 percent sure.

It's not a -- it's not a difficult shot. But it's also not unmissable, you know. If he only has an EOTECH sight or something like that. You don't have a lot of gun training. It's not something that you will for sure hit.

Which is why maybe he said, I think it was five or eight rounds.

GLENN: Have you ever -- have you ever shot and had them dead in your sights, and they moved at the very last minute like this? How often does that happen?

DALLAS: Oh, from that range, that's pretty wild, I think. I was very surprised.

I think someone telling me yesterday, that they heard it was an EOTECH sight made a little more sense to me. Because if they had a scoped rifle, you know, with a magnification ten power or whatever, it would have been very -- a different shot. A lot easier to make. So...

GLENN: Dallas, thanks for your -- your weighing in on this.

I really hope that you're wrong. What are the questions that we should be demanding from our Secret Service?

DALLAS: Oh. Jeez. The breakdown, is crazy.

Like, there's so many layers to this. And it would be -- I don't even know who -- who started the planning. How long ago it was. But to miss something that obvious, again, there's just -- I don't think there's an explanation. I think you just need a deep dive investigation. I don't think competence -- and I worked in the government for a long time. So I know incompetence, and there's a ton of it.

I just don't think that -- that is what explains this problem away. I think something happened, and I think there needs to be, you know, a gigantic deep dive investigation. Because it's very, very shady.

GLENN: So you don't think that even incompetence would cover this? Because it's so obvious.

DALLAS: Yeah. I think -- you could take a 10-year-old out there and say, okay. Where do you want to plan security? What should we look at? And it will be a kid who played Call of Duty and tell you, this rooftop, right here is the most dangerous point. It's overlooking where the president is going to be speaking. Where the former president is going to be speaking. It's just it's cliché. It's so obvious.

That and the water tower.

GLENN: But it couldn't just be one person. If that was happening, it would have -- it would have to involve a team, wouldn't it?

Because you -- somebody else on the team would go, Bill, what the hell are you talking about? We've got to cover the roof.

DALLAS: That's what I mean. I'm saying, in all these videos, whether it's Secret Service agents or local police or whatever, is these are all tactical professionals. And even if their level of competence is low, it still doesn't matter.

That's such an obvious, basic thing. You could take a Navy cook or whatever, and he's going to go, oh, yeah, tactically speaking, we have to look at that thing.

So out of all the people on the ground. Out of all the people involved. It doesn't make any sense. That that one position. And the most important position arguably was not being watched.

And like a ladder. Somebody putting a ladder and climbing up. It doesn't make any sense.

GLENN: Well, apparently the ladder was attached to the building. So nobody had to bring a ladder.

Let me -- let me ask you.

The thing that bothers me is that all of the people on the ground were pointing and shouting shooter, shooter, shooter.

Is it possible that nobody heard that? That it didn't get up, to, you know -- to the guys. If you're a police officer or you're in Secret Service, wouldn't you radio that in, immediately?

DALLAS: Yeah. You would hope. This is the part of it, that I think could be -- you could point to incompetence.

I have seen communication breakdown when things get crazy. Radios not work.

Like I'm guessing all the agencies there. Whoever local police. And Secret Service.

They're probably not using the same radio and gear.

Probably someone passing down the message. In chaotic times, I've seen communication be poorly executed, to like a surprising level.

So that -- that part I could almost -- I could almost wrap my head around it being blamed on incompetence.

But I just think everything leading up to there being a guy with a gun on a roof, within essentially zeroing range of a rifle, to the president.

To me, that doesn't add up whatsoever.

GLENN: And they would have reported everything that was said, would they not?

DALLAS: I don't know what the SOPs (phonetic) are, actually, for Secret Service, and police.

The missions I've gone on, unless it's going to like a tactical center or something. Like on the ground, we were not recording our radio conversations.

GLENN: Hmm. Okay. Thank you so much, I appreciate it. No. I know. I know. I know. I know.

Thank you for pointing this out, and having us questions that really need to be answered. Dallas Alexander. Appreciate it. God bless. Stay safe.

DALLAS: Thanks for having me.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

Whitney Webb: How You Can BREAK FREE of the Chains of the Elites

Are you truly free, or is your life quietly controlled by systems most Americans never question? In this eye-opening conversation, Glenn Beck speaks with investigative journalist Whitney Webb about how the Elites, banks, and global systems have created modern forms of enslavement, all while the public remains largely unaware. They discuss the urgent need for local self-reliance, alternative financial systems, and taking personal responsibility to protect yourself and your family. This is a wake-up call for anyone who believes freedom is guaranteed, and it’s time to see the truth and act before it’s too late.

Watch Glenn Beck's FULL Interview with Whitney Webb HERE

SHOCKING: Glenn Beck Interviews 'Detransitioner' Deceived by Doctors

Claire Abernathy was just 14-years-old when doctors told her parents she’d take her own life without hormones and surgery. They promised “gender care” would save her life. Instead, it left Claire with irreversible scars, broken trust, and a lifetime of regret. Her mom was told she was required to comply. No one ever addressed the bullying, or trauma Claire endured before being rushed into medical transition. Now, years later, both Claire and her mother are speaking out and exposing how families are misled, how doctors hide risks, and how children are left to pay the price. With federal investigations now underway, their story is a warning every parent needs to hear.

Deep State NGO CAUGHT trying to restart opium trade in Taliban-run Afghanistan

Was an NGO with deep government ties trying to RESTART the opium trade in Taliban-run Afghanistan while former Taliban members were on its payroll...only to be caught DESTROYING the evidence?! The State Department's Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy Darren Beattie joins Glenn Beck to expose what he found when he was made Acting President of the United States Institute of Peace. Plus, he debunks ProPublica’s claim that DOGE “targeted” an “Afghan scholar who fled the Taliban.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Darren, welcome to the program. How are you? Darren, are you there? Is he there?

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: Okay. Check if he's there. Is he? Dick Cheney. Dick Cheney.

STU: Trying to shut him down. They don't want peace. They don't want peace.

GLENN: They don't. They don't.

He is -- he is a big-time anti-globalist. I've got to tell you, what we're doing with the State Department. I absolutely love. The State Department has been a big problem for this country for a very long time. It's what's gotten us into these global wars. These endless wars, and everything he is.

And, I mean, I don't know what happened to Marco rube, but he is tremendous.

And the way president Trump is appointing different people like Darren, it's fantastic. Darren, are you there? Darren.

STU: Something must be wrong with the lines. Because we are talking to him offline on the phone here. And it does seem to be working, but not coming through our broadcast board here for whatever reason.

GLENN: Well, let's see if we can get that fixed, and maybe let me just talk here for five, six minutes on something else. Then we'll take a break and come back and see if we can get him.

There's something else that I really want to talk about. And that is this flag-burning thing. Now, it's not an amendment.

This is something that the president is putting up in an executive order and has very little teeth to it.

But I -- I -- look, I understand. As a guy putting an enormous flagpole up at my house today.

I mean, an enormous flagpole.

I love the flag. I love it!

And there are a few things that make me more angry than see somebody you set our flag on fire.

For a lot of people, that's a punch in the gut, especially our military people. And it has been planted on distant battlefields. It's raced after victory. Saluted in the morning, or should be in our schools and folded and given to the hands of grieving families. It feels like spitting on every sacrifice, that ever made this nation possible. And the argument against flag burning is really simple: It dishonors the idea of all of that. Okay?

And it defends millions of people, including me. It disrespects, I think the veterans that bled. The families who mourned. The dream that binds us together.

However, here's the hard truth: Symbols only mean something, in a land where freedom is alive.

If you outlaw the burning of a flag, the you have placed the cloth above the Constitution that it represents. You have made the flag an idol.

We don't worship idols. If you can only praise the flag and never protest it, it just stops being a symbol of freedom. And starts being an idol of obedience.

Now, that's the argument for allowing it. At least to me.

Because the real strength of a free nation is -- is to -- it's -- it's how we protect, not the speech we love, but how we endure the speech we hate!

And the Supreme Court has already ruled on this. And, you know, they -- the line they drew wasn't an easy one. Freedom of speech, stops where it directly -- directly insights violence. And that's it same thing, kind of, in this executive order.

You can burn the flag. But if I'm not mistaken, but if it incites violence, then you're in trouble.

And that's true. But the bar of inciting violence is so incredibly high. And it's -- it doesn't have anything to do with speech that offends. It's not speech that stirs anger. Not speech that wants you to punch the speaker in the mouth. It's speech only, that provokes imminent and specific violence.

And unless it's that be with the government doesn't have any right to -- to get into the business of silencing speech. Ever. Ever. Ever.

It is a hard line. And that standard is really hard. It's painfully hard.

Because what our citizenship requires, this is civics. What our citizenships require, is that we defend -- oh, I hate this.

We defend the right of your opponent to mock everything that we hold sacred.

Now, I want you to think of this. You can burn a Bible. You can burn the Word of God. But some want to make it illegal to burn a flag. Where are our priorities? You can burn the Constitution. The words that actually are the ones that stir us into action. But you can't burn a flag.

You can't burn a Koran. Can't burn them. Can't. Can't.

You will -- you will quickly come to a quick end, not legally. But you will come to a quick end. I don't ever want to be like that. Ever!

You burn a Bible. I think you're a monster. What is wrong with you? What is wrong with you?

But you have a right to do it. Why are we drawing a line around the flag? It -- the reason is -- is because we feel things so passionately. And that is really a good thing, to feel love of country so passionately. But then we have to temper that. My father used to tell me, that I think this country needs to hear over and over again, every day. My father -- we would talk to somebody. And we would walk away. And he would go, I so disagree with everything that man just said. But, Glenn, son, he would say. I will fight to the death for his right to say it. He used to say that to me all the time. Which now lees me to believe, I know where I've got my strong opinions from. Because dad apparently would disagree with a lot of people all the time.

But that was the essence of freedom. That is the essence of what sets us apart. Standing for universal, eternal rights like free speech. It's not easy. It means you have to take the size of those people that offend you. It means -- it doesn't mean you have to disagree with it. You can fight against it. You can argue back and forth.

But you -- can you tolerate the insults to the things that you love most. That is so hard, and that is why most of the world does not have freedom of speech. It's too hard! But our Founders believed people are better than that. Our citizens can rule themselves!

And the only way you can rule yourself is if you don't have limits on freedom of speech. So the question is, do we want to remain free? Or do we want to just feel good? It really is that simple. It's why no one else has freedom of speech. It's too hard! I think we're up to the task. Okay. Give me 60 seconds. And then we will try again.

The -- there's certain moments in history, that test not just entire nations, but the hearts of those who live in the nations. And right now, the people of Israel are living in one of those moments. Sirens in the night. Families huddled together.

Elderly men and women. Who remember a time when help never came. All of them wonder. Is anybody going to stand with us, this time?

The International Fellowship of Christians and Jews exists to answer that question. They provide food, shelter, security, and hope. Real hope and help in the middle of a crisis! And every act of generosity from people like you sends a clear message. You are not alone. When you support the fellowship, you are joining hands with believers all around the world to lift up God's people, when they need it most. And it is a promise in action. It's a testimony that our faith isn't just words. It's love delivered right on time. And this is your chance to be part of something that really, truly matters. Something that is eternal. To stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel. And say, we're with you. We're not going to fight your wars. Not going to fund your wars. But we're with you. You have a right to live and exist in peace. To learn how you can help. Visit IFCJ.org. IFCJ.org. Go there now. IFCJ.org. Ten seconds. Back to the program.
(music)
All right. Let me -- let me bring Darren in. Darren, are you there now?

DARREN: Yes!
GLENN: Oh, God. Thank goodness.
Thank you for putting up with us. I don't know what happened with the phone system. But, first of all, tell me what the US Institute of Peace is. I've never even heard of it.

DARREN: That is a fantastic question. And I'll try to give the abbreviated answer, because I know we don't have several hours.

GLENN: Good. I know.

DARREN: But US Institute of Peace is one of lesser known, but quite important member of the NGO archipelago, that was created in the '80s. It belongs to the same cohorts as national endowments for democracy.

GLENN: Oh.

DARREN: And some other -- some other better known NGOs that really in the broad context of things. In kind of the sweep of things, was created as a kind of reorganization of the government structure in the aftermath of the church type committee hearings that expose a lot of the dirty dealings of government agencies such as the CIA, and so sort of a broader response to that government lie was to create this NGO layer of governance, with an armed distant plausible deniability, a kind of chameleon character of not exactly being government, not exactly being private, in order to fulfill some of those more sensitive functions that had been exposed in the course of the church hearings.

And so US Institute of Peace is one of those NGOs that had particular focus on conflict regions. But, of course, as I think you -- you suggested earlier, peace requires at the very least, an asterisk. Because there involves a lot of things, that conventional, most American citizens would not think should belong as part of the portfolio of something calling itself an institute of peace.

GLENN: So what was the thing with the -- with this Taliban member that was getting money from us?

DARREN: Right. So this is an interesting case. So there's a whole saga of a takeover of the US institute of peace under -- under DOGE.

And that's really a fascinating story unto itself. Just to give you a sense of what these characters were like. They barricaded themselves in the offices.

They sabotaged the physical infrastructure of the building. There were reports of there being loaded guns within the offices.

GLENN: Wow!

DARREN: There was one, like, hostage situation where they held a security guard under basically kind of a false imprisonment type situation. It was extremely intense.

Far more so than the better known story of USAID. And in the course of all of that, they tried to delete a terabyte of data, of accounting information that would indicate what kind of stuff they were up to.

What kind of people they were paying. And in the course of that, DOGE found that one of the people on their payroll. Was this curious figure, who had a prominent role in the Taliban government. And then seemed to kind of play a bunch of angles across each other.

Sort of one of these sixer types in the middle of Afghanistan.

The question is, what the heck is an organization like this, having an individual, who is a former Taliban member on their payroll.

It underscores how incredibly bizarre the whole arrangement is. And to just reinforce that. I think even more bizarre than having this former Taliban guy on the payroll is the kind of schizophrenic posture exhibited by the chief -- one truly bizarre thing is that one of the US Institute of Peace's main kind of policy agendas was basically lamenting the fact that the opium trade had dissipated under Taliban leadership. They had multiple reports coming out, basically saying, this is horrible, that the opium trade is diminished under the Taliban. Meaning, finding some way to restore it. How bizarre is that!

GLENN: What was their thinking?

DARREN: Well, it's -- it's very strange, and it depends on what kind of rabbit holes you want to go down. But the whole story of opium and Afghanistan and its connection to, you know, government entities, is a -- is a very intricate and delicate and fascinating one. But it seems very clear that the US Institute of Peace was involved in that story to some degree because their public reports. They had a full-the time guy of basically lamenting the fact that the opium trade dissipated under the Taliban. And, meanwhile, they're funding this former Taliban guy.

GLENN: Unbelievable. Now, ProPublica got this. And you have released the statement on it. And ProPublica just completely white-washed this -- said this guy was a victim, and his family was taken hostage. Was his family ever taken hostage because he was exposed?

And correct the ProPublica story, would you?

DARREN: Yeah, I mean, the ProPublica thing, as usual and as expected was a total joke.

GLENN: Yes.

DARREN: I mean, this guy, I'm not an expert on this particular person's history. But what's very clear is he was a former Taliban guy, and he was probably one of these people, who was playing all sides, made a lot of enemies. I know that there were several kind of attempts on his life by the Taliban, in the course of various -- various decades.

This has nothing to do with -- with DOGE.

I mean, he's a known quantity in the region.

And somebody who has made a lot of enemies.

And he was not -- he was on the payroll of the US institute of peace.

And nobody is expecting something like that. So then, and, again, there's this sort of hostile takeover situation.

Where the people are barricading he themselves in. Trying to delete all this data.

And sure enough, what's in the data, is stuff like this.

These random former Taliban guy, making his contract with $130,000.

GLENN: You know, this is the -- this is the real Deep State stuff, that I think bothers people so much.

Look, we expect our CIA to do stuff, we don't necessarily want to do it. We expect it.

When it's in the State Department.

When every department is pushing out money to NGOs to overthrow governments and everything else.

It's out of control!

It's just completely out of control.

And who is overseeing all of that.

DARREN: That's a great question.

I think part of the NGO -- UCEF was almost a cutout of a cutout.

A fourth of its money came from USAID.

In many ways, it was a cutout of USAID. Which itself was a cutout.

So there are many layers of distance. Plausible deniability.

And UCEF, I think institutionally really perfected this chameleon structure of being able to plausibly present itself as government. When that was convenient for what they were doing.

And also to present itself as a private organization, when that was convenient.

It's a very intricate setup that they had, that was truly optimized for this chameleon character of plausible denial operations. In conflict zones. Doing God knows what, with American taxpayer money.

And it's just an absolute hornet's nest.

We have recovered that terabyte that they tried to delete. And once we get things settled in the building itself, I intend to do a kind of transparency effort, whereby we release all of this material to the public.

GLENN: Good. Good.

DARREN: Just like I'm doing at the State Department. I'm currently acting as secretary at the State Department. And doing a transparency effort here. After I eliminated the global engagement center, which was sort of the internal censorship office within the State Department, decided, we've got to -- we've got to air this out to the public.

So within the next couple of weeks.

We'll have our next tranche of helps you of thousands of emails, documenting what this were doing.

GLENN: I would love you to go back on, through those emails.

I think you guys in the State Department are doing an amazing job. Thanks for being on.