CNN Defuses Clinton's Response After Weekend Terror Attacks

September 19, 2016

Writer

In the wake of this weekend's terror attacks, both major presidential candidates made comments. Naturally, the MSM couldn't wait to compare their responses.

Here's what the candidates said:

Clinton: "I have been briefed about the bombings in New York and New Jersey and the attack in Minnesota. Obviously we need to do everything we can to support our first responders, also to pray for the victims. We have to let this investigation unfold. We have been in touch with various officials, including the mayor's office in New York, to learn what they are discovering as they conduct this investigation. And I will have more to say about it when we have some facts."

Trump: "Just before I got off the plane, a bomb went off in New York and nobody knows exactly what's going on."

While both candidates used a variation of the word "bomb," Trump was lambasted while Hillary was praised for showing reserve. CNN reported that "Trump immediately said a bomb went off while Clinton called for support of first responders and letting the investigation unfold.

CNN went the extra mile by removing from audio the first sentence in Hillary's statement that used the word "bombings."

Enjoy this complimentary clip from The Glenn Beck Program:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

You know, I will tell you that CNN played a really interesting game over the weekend. Donald Trump came out right away and said it was a bombing. You know, the bombing in New York, instead of an explosion.

And the press immediately said, "Oh, what do you mean bombing? Bombing, you can't say bombing."

PAT: Controversy. Uh-huh.

GLENN: Yeah. I know. Stupid controversy. But what happened was Hillary Clinton was asked about Donald Trump's comments. How do you have this? You have the CNN or do you have the raw?

PAT: I have the raw.

GLENN: Okay. So I want you to hear this in its entirety. This is the raw comments Hillary Clinton made on her plane at about a quarter to midnight on Saturday.

HILLARY: I've been briefed about the bombings in New York and New Jersey and the attack in Minnesota.

Obviously, we need to do everything we can to support our first responders. Also, to pray for the victims. We have to let this investigation unfold. We've been in touch with various officials, including the mayor's office in New York to learn what they are discovering as they conduct this investigation. And I'll have more to say about it when we actually know the facts.

VOICE: Secretary Clinton, do you have any reaction to the fact that Donald Trump immediately upon taking the statement tonight called the explosion in New York a "bomb"?

GLENN: Okay. Stop. First question: Do you have any comment that Donald Trump called this a "bomb"?

STU: It's unbelievable.

PAT: By the way, 30 seconds after she called it "bombings."

STU: Bombings.

PAT: She did use the -ing though -- -ings. So...

GLENN: Yes. Okay. So you have that. Now, let me show you what CNN cut out.

PAT: Okay.

GLENN: Stop it when -- go ahead.

PAT: Okay.

HILLARY: I've been briefed about the bombings in New York and New Jersey and the attack in Minnesota.

GLENN: Stop. That's what they edited out.

(laughter)

GLENN: But there's -- what?

PAT: So they took out the fact that she called them "bombings."

GLENN: They took out the fact that she called them "bombings."

PAT: And then she can bash Trump for calling them "bombings."

GLENN: Right.

JEFFY: Huh.

STU: Now, how is that the fascinating part of this story?

GLENN: Well, the other fascinating part of the story is that she also said we have to support our first responders, you know, the woman who is standing with Black Lives Matter.

PAT: Yeah, yeah.

GLENN: Meeting with the heads of Black Lives Matter. That's different than saying, "Hey -- because I know what's coming my way -- hey, let's listen to the people, not the leaders. We know what the leaders want. We disagree with the leaders. But the people who might be caught up in it, let's listen to them."

She's meeting with the leaders of Black Lives Matter. We know what they want. Death to the police.

PAT: The leaders -- and Marxism.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

PAT: Communism. Their whole manifesto is about that.

GLENN: Yes.

JEFFY: Yes.

STU: Yes. I mean, it is straight-out communist.

GLENN: So what is your interesting part of this?

STU: Well, I mean, first of all, it's a terrorist -- ongoing terrorist event. And what does the news do but take it -- I mean, we just addressed this. It's not the most important thing here, the election results. But, again, to try to capture Donald Trump in some misstatement, they'd rather focus on that than focus on the actual attack.

GLENN: They have to. They have to.

STU: No, they don't. I promise they don't.

GLENN: No, no. No, no. And I don't mean it that way. I mean, they are playing for a team. So they have to.

STU: Yeah, I guess.

GLENN: You know, if we're -- by the way, anybody who thinks we're for Clinton, we wouldn't be bringing this up if we were playing for a team. We will do the same thing to Donald Trump that we'll do to her. When they're wrong, we'll point it out.

STU: What a crazy new approach to radio.

GLENN: I know.

STU: Wow, we're inventing a whole new format here.

GLENN: I know. They have to do this because they're playing for a team, and terror is going to work to Donald Trump's strange.

STU: You're right. So as a team member, they go and try to say, "Well, this is an example of Donald Trump being erratic. This is him acting without information. What a crazy person this guy is." Instead of talking about the fact that -- I mean, this is -- you know, terrorism in and of itself shouldn't help one or the other candidates. It's about how they react to it. And, you know, the idea that one of the main divisions in this election has been, "Should we let more people into the country from terrorism-ridden areas, like, I don't know, Afghanistan?" And Trump's position the entire time -- well, the entire time, Trump's position has covered people who would be born in areas such as Afghanistan. We all know it's morphed a few times. But the entire time, it would restrict immigration from those areas.

So I mean it's a pretty clear example of something that should work in Trump's favor. And you see the way the media is handling it. It's ridiculous.

GLENN: Oh, it's going to help Trump, the way the media is handling it. Because look, everybody knows -- everybody knows -- left and right, everybody knows, not all Muslims are terrorist. But almost all Muslims are terrorist. Currently, the way -- what we're fighting right now. That doesn't mean that there's not a terrorist from time to time at an abortion clinic that has been a Christian. Although, give me the number of those, Stu.

STU: Off the top of my head, I don't remember. But I think --

PAT: I think the number this year is zero.

STU: This year, it's zero.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: Yeah. But since Roe vs. Wade, it's like six.

PAT: Yeah, literally.

GLENN: Yeah. So -- so occasionally, there are others that are terrorist. But it is wildly rare in comparison to what we're dealing with, coming from the Muslim community. And everybody knows that. Not all Muslims are terrorists. But almost all terrorists are Muslim currently. And to, A -- for the media to continue to deny that things are linked -- ISIS came out with the mall and immediately claimed responsibility for that. This is a soldier for ISIS.

We won't claim that it's even terror-related. Well, they're claiming it. And every time this happens -- and this is why this hurts Hillary Clinton. If they're trying to help, they're hurting her.

You know, fine with me. Do what you want. But the American people are not with the press. The American people both left and right know, "The country is in trouble because we are denying reality."

STU: Right. Because what did de Blasio call it? An intentional incident. Not terrorism, but an intentional incident, which is really a scary way to --

PAT: An intentional incident.

STU: Yes. It was intentional. It was an incident. I will give him both of those things.

GLENN: And I contend that nobody on the left -- very few on the left, except the political players and the media, actually say those kinds of things, believe those kinds of things. They know how bad ISIS is. They know we have terrorists in our own country. They know that not all mosques are bad, but there are bad mosques. Not all Muslims are bad, but there are bad Muslims. They know these things. And to continually deny them is what takes common sense people and pushes them over to somebody who will say, "Ban all Muslims."

PAT: Yeah, yeah.

GLENN: Well, no. No, that's not a good idea either. But if you have to choose between the two, most people will start to go, "You know what -- because they're afraid. And there's nobody that knows better than progressives what fear does.

STU: If there's a book written about that, that would be interesting.

GLENN: Oh, man. One that would show the lies that are based in fear.

STU: Right. Well, focusing on the people who make the lies, like, you know, the Liars.

PAT: Too bad there's nothing like that. Nobody would ever --

GLENN: No, wait. Guys, I wrote one. It's called Liars.

STU: Oh, really?

PAT: Oh, my gosh.

STU: Wow.

PAT: What a happy coincidence.

JEFFY: What, like 100 years ago?

GLENN: It is. It's amazing. It's almost like that was thought out in advance.

Featured Image: Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton arrives to board her plane at Tampa International Airport September 6, 2016 in Tampa, Florida. (Photo Credit: BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Getty Images)

Shocking Christian massacres unveiled

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?

Should Starbase become its own city?

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.

Glenn's Show Prep