RADIONovember 07, 2022

Why was THIS report on Paul Pelosi's attack REMOVED by NBC?

On Friday, NBC News released new, interesting details about the attack on Nancy Pelosi's husband, Paul Pelosi. But VERY soon after the Today Show report was posted online, it disappeared. Thankfully, Glenn’s team caught the video before it was erased forever. In this clip, Glenn plays that now-deleted report, which claims Paul Pelosi opened the door for police but then retreated back into the house. Plus, Glenn explains why he has a MAJOR problem with the New York Times accusing conservatives of spreading misinformation about the ordeal when THEY are the ones seemingly hiding the details…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: NBC News pulled a report on Friday. That claimed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's husband, didn't let on, that he was in danger, when cops showed up at his home, just prior to the hammer attack on him.

Now, here is a long time NBC reporter, you won't find anywhere. It has been erased.

I thought the internet was forever. Luckily, our servers are forever. Here's the report.

VOICE: Craig and Morty, when officers arrived here at the Pelosi home, exactly a week ago today, they initially didn't have any idea exactly what was going on. They knew they had a high priority call on their hand. What was unclear. What was happening inside the property, just behind me.

VOICE: This morning, Paul Pelosi is home. Back at the house that became a crime scene, a week ago today. NBC News learning, new details about the moments police arrived. Sources familiar with what unfolded in the Pelosi residence, now revealing when officers responded to the high priority call, they were seemingly unaware, they had been called to the speaker of the House. After a knock and announce, the front terror was opened by Mr. Pelosi. The 82-year-old did not immediately declare an emergency or try to leave his home. But instead, walking several feet back into the foyer, told the assailant. And away from police. It's unclear if the 82-year-old was already injured. Or what his mental state was, say sources. According to the court documents, when the officer asked what was going on, defendant smiled and said, everything was good. But instantaneously, a struggle ensued, as police clearly saw David DePape, strike Paul Pelosi in the head with a hammer, after tackling the suspect.

GLENN: Stop. Why was that pulled? NBC just said, because it didn't live up to their high standards of reporting.

Really? What was wrong with it?

Well, he just got that whole part of the story wrong.

STU: They didn't even say that. They didn't even say.

GLENN: No, no, no. But that's what they're alluding to.

STU: I don't even know if that's it. I think what they're saying maybe is the source they got, they don't deem reliable.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: They don't know if the information is correct. But they're not saying it's wrong. They're not saying that.

GLENN: So -- I -- I think this is just another Hunter Biden laptop thing. This is screwing with the election, again. First of all, we don't know, but we do know officers said in the affidavit, someone opened up the door for them.

Okay? So we know that. And I have said to you, last week, who is the someone that opened the door? Was there a third party there?

That's how it was first reported that there's somebody else that opened the door. And that didn't make sense.

And then, wait a minute. Who opened the door then?

Well, we find out from this report, that Paul Pelosi opened the door. Now, if you're in trouble, you stay with the police. Or you say, this man has entered my home. Instead, he opened the door, and then went back to the guy. And he was holding a hammer. And that's when Paul Pelosi grabbed the hammer and there was a struggle for it.

Now, this doesn't make any sense at all. Something else that doesn't make any sense. Now, this could just be the San Francisco police are so bad, but they had no idea that that house was for the Speaker of the House. That is absolutely impossible, unless the -- the people you know at dispatch, didn't tell them. But I'll bet you, it goes up on their screen. There's no way, that house, you type in that address, at the police. And it doesn't come up with some sort of red font, that says, speaker of the House.

There's no way. No way.

STU: They even kind of tried to do the work of coming up with an excuse of some of this in the report. They said, well, you know we don't know what his mental state was at the time. We don't know if he was already injured.

If he got knocked on the head, by a hammer, a few times. Who knows how he's acting. They're trying to come up with an excuse in the report. Even that, wasn't enough for NBC News.

GLENN: So here's another part of the story.

The man accused of breaking into House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's house and attacking her husband with a hammer, could be deported from the US after he is released from custody. US immigration and customs enforcement, ICE, lodged an immigration detainer on the 42-year-old Canadian national, the DHS told NBC in a statement.

Now, hang on just a second. Wait a minute. Wait a minute.

He's being deported. And is it after he serves time, or after he is released from custody.

Now, those might mean the same thing. But are the police going to release him, like they're releasing everyone else. Well, you just come on back. Just come on back. Just call us. And we'll tell you when to be in court.

Is that -- is that what is happening this time?

And how come he's being deported without murdering somebody, and it doesn't seem like you can get anyone else, to get up on ICE's radar?

Now, there's a story from the New York Times. How Republicans fed misinformation loop, about the Pelosi attack. The New York Times.

I am mentioned in this. Within hours of the brutal attack last month, Paul Pelosi, the husband of the speaker of the House, activist and media outlets on the right, began circulating groundless claims, nearly all of them sinister and many homophobic, casting doubt on what had happened.

Okay.

Wait a minute. I'm in this story. They say that I was casting doubt on this. Really?

Because I was asking logical questions.

Who opened the door?

Who?

Some Republican officials quickly joined in, rushing to suggest the bludgeoning of the speaker's husband by a suspect, obsessed with right-wing conspiracy theories, was something else altogether, dismissing it as an inside job. A lover's quarrel. Or worse. What's worse?

The misinformation came from all levels of Republican politics. US senator said this. A Republican Congressman said this.

Donald Trump said, blah, blah, blah. The flood of falsehoods is showed -- is showed how engrained misinformation has become inside the G.O.P. Where the reflexive response of the rank and file, even a few prominent figures, to anything that might cast a negative light on the right, is to deflect it with more fictional claims, creating a vicious cycle, that muddies facts, shifts blame, and minimizes violence.

First of all, my first response was, if this comes from the left or the right, it must be condemned and they must be punished. So there is no fictional story there. My first response was that, and pray for Paul Pelosi.

So they go on to say, that we have so many falsehoods, and it's engrained in us. May I just ask the New York Times. How many of these stories did you publish?

Did you publish and lead the charge on Russian collusion? Did you publish the neo-Nazis are fine people lies? Did you publish and stand by Jussie Smollett? How about the Bubba Wallace garage pull, or the Covington kids, or the governor Whitmer kidnapping plot, or the Kavanaugh rape, or the Trump pee tape? I remember reading all of these. All of these sometimes for months in your newspaper.

Or the COVID lab leak is just a conspiracy theory, or the border agents that were on horses that were whipping migrants, or Trump saved nuclear secrets at Mar-a-Lago, the Steele dossier? Did you print the Russian bounties on the US soldiers in Afghanistan, or that Trump said drinking bleach would fight covid? Or the Muslim travel ban, or Hunter Biden's laptop was just disinformation from Russia?

Did you print any of these? Liberals, did you believe any of these?

How about Andrew Cuomo was the best at COVID leadership? Or Trump build cages for migrants kids? Or Trump overfed koi fish in Japan? Build Back Better will pay for itself, the Trump tax cuts benefited only the rich, cloth masks prevent COVID, if you get -- if you get vaccinated, you won't catch COVID and you won't spread it to others? How about the SUV-killed parade marchers, not the guy behind the wheel, but the SUV? Trump used tear gas to clear a crowd for a Bible photo, the "don't say gay" was actually in a bill?

How about the Putin price hike? Did you guys print that? Or ivermectin is horse dewormer and not for humans? Or the mostly peaceful protests of BLM? Or I love this one -- Trump overpowered Secret Service for the wheel of the beast? Or Officer Sicknick was murdered by protesters? January 6 was a well-planned insurrection, or BYU students hurled racist insults at Duke volleyball player? And now we have our democracy is under threat.

My gosh. You're right. This disinformation thing is really coming from the right.

STU: It's a really amazing list.

GLENN: It's an amazing list.

STU: When you go through it like that. And this particular case too was really frustrating about this.

Because even when you read the New York Times story that mentioned you, with no evidence that you did any of the things, just a line that said you did them without explaining what you did, or how you did it wrong.

But even in their story, in their telling of it, the things that they're saying is misinformation, like, for example, the guy was seen in his underwear when he was found, comes from a mainstream media source. It was from a Fox affiliate.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

STU: In the area.

And then you had the bigger one, which this NBC News -- the thing that we did from The Today Show. You know they're -- they're saying, well, look at these conspiracies, Republicans are spreading. Well, this information came from mainstream sources. The Today Show thing we played at the beginning of the show, is not a flippant off the top of their head comment. There are graphics for the quotes, for each one of the things he's saying.

GLENN: All of these things had to go through an executive producer. Had to go through edit. Had to go through art. All of it. All of it. So it's not like something that was said off the cuff.

STU: And that's the thing. A local Fox affiliate. Okay. They say something, detract it an hour later. Maybe you can say that just a mistake, bad source or whatever. This was a full-fledged produced, NBC report that aired on the Today Show, that went through the not right-wing source called NBC News. And all of the layers of crap, you have to do to get something on the air, on that channel. This was something they were sure of, until they were told, they shouldn't be sure of it.

GLENN: I -- are you -- are you bringing up a new conspiracy theory.

STU: I guess so.

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

Claire's warning: The dark side of gender care EXPOSED

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.