Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Could the Comey Debacle Bring Us a President Pence?

May 11, 2017
Staff

WRITER

The firing of James Comey is turning into a very big nightmare for Donald Trump. Apparently, this decision was not made because of emails from the Justice Department. According to The Washington Post, 30 sources have leaked information about what really caused Trump to fire the director of the FBI --- and it doesn't look good.

"Have you ever seen a White House leak like this?" Glenn asked Thursday on radio.

He then speculated about the possibility of Watergate-style hearings by August or September.

"Is there a chance, in your opinion, do you believe we could be looking at a President Pence by 2020?" Glenn asked.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: They're grilling the acting FBI director now. McCabe. He says that he believes they have adequate resources for the Russian investigation now. He says that the White House has not interfered to his knowledge at all in that investigation. And, remember, this is not a guy who is a Trump guy. He's a guy who, you know, I believe was -- was he Clinton or Obama-appointed? He's not a Republican appointed guy.

STU: It's interesting that -- because, you know, one of the reports was that Comey asked for money a week before -- more resources a week before this investigation. It's been denied by the Department of Justice. There are a couple of places that are reporting it. Who knows if it's true.

But I don't get the sense -- and I could be wrong on this. I don't get the sense that this means Trump has something he's hiding specifically on Russia.

GLENN: No.

STU: Or he's about -- like they were about to get him --

GLENN: I don't think that at all. I think Trump was personally motivated and against this guy.

STU: Personally annoyed. He was personally annoyed that he didn't back him enough. And it looks to I think every person outside the White House, at least your initial instinct is, wait a minute. This guy fired the guy who was in the middle of this information. Like, wait a minute. What's going on here?

And I think that's what the Democrats want you to believe. It may be true. I don't know. But to me, it comes off more as, he was annoyed by this guy, who he may have thought because of the letter he sent, you know, a few days before the election, was kind of on his side. Wasn't always saying things that were on his side. And it annoyed him. And that kind of -- and there is reporting to kind of back that up as well.

GLENN: By only 30 sources. But that's -- but that's all. Have you ever seen a White House leak like this?

STU: Not that I can remember. And a lot of people are trying to say --

GLENN: What is your guess? Where does this end, Stu? How does this end?

STU: Wow, I -- I don't know the answer to that. I really don't. I mean, I can't --

GLENN: If I said to you, we were in impeachment hearings, the -- the Senate was -- not in a trial, but we are in like Watergate-style hearings in August or September, would that surprise you at all?

STU: In August or September? That's really fast, but it's possible.

And let's just take this out -- because if you're thinking, like, "Oh -- you know, Trump is your guy, you're probably annoyed by that. But I think like -- the better way to look at it -- I always look at these things as personal motivations.

And what he's done with a lot of these moves -- when he calls people out publicly. And he says they're not doing a good job -- there are hundreds of people in the FBI that are viscerally loyal to James Comey.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: And those people are now motivated to act against the interests of the president of the United States.

GLENN: So stupid.

STU: And this is through several different parts of the administration and the infrastructure of the federal government.

So that's -- and that doesn't make what the -- I'm not saying they're going to make stuff up. I don't think that's the case. But they're motivated and they are looking to say to themselves, "This guy is screwing us, we need to get back at him." Or just, you know what, I'm -- it's not even that. That's the far reach. Right?

GLENN: If our FBI is like that, we're in trouble.

STU: And it's not just the FBI.

GLENN: Right. I know that. But in particular, here the FBI -- if they're doing an investigation. And they're like, "Pin it on him," that's bad.

STU: No. No.

GLENN: But I think they would be -- I think that you would be more motivated to turn over every single stone.

STU: Partially, because you have a personal loyalty to someone who you think is wronged and partially I think because you think to yourself, "Maybe there is something here where I didn't think there was."

You know, you're going to start seeing things through a different prism. And, you know, while Donald Trump may not have done anything wrong at all --

GLENN: I don't think he did.

STU: -- people like Michael Flynn did. They've been fired for it already.

GLENN: I really don't think Donald Trump -- I mean, you want to make him into this big evil super villain, I just don't think he is. I mean, go to The Economist today where he thought he invented priming the pump. He really thinks he came up with that economic theory, two days ago.

So I just don't think he is -- he's not that deep of a thinker. It doesn't mean he's not smart and everything else. He's just not that deep of a thinker. So I just don't see him with some master plan of coercion or working with the -- with the Russians behind the scenes. I think others around him may have been involved in things that weren't the best. And then they got involved back in with his campaign. And they were like, "I'm just not going to say anything." I think that happened. But I don't think there's collusion between -- I would be surprised if there's collusion. But we have to know. We have to know.

STU: Right.

And, look, the bottom line is, Republicans are generally speaking going to stand behind him, if his polls stay in the high 30s. There's a Quinnipiac poll today, I think it was 36 percent approval rating. That thing starts hitting the 20s, you're going to start seeing a lot of these people who have no spines and don't believe either side of this, they're going to start fleeing from him. And as that goes, it gets much more difficult for him to hold on to what he is holding on to.

So I think if --

GLENN: Is there a chance, in your opinion, do you believe we could be looking at a President Pence by 2020? Not elected, President Pence?

STU: I mean, it's funny you say that. Because you can put your money where your mouth is on that. And the odds are not -- like the odds are not crazy. Like you -- because you can go to these betting sites. PredictWise, I think has one on this.

GLENN: For the first time I think there is a chance that we're looking at an unelected President Pence by 2020.

STU: I think it's possible.

GLENN: I do.

STU: I generally think those things are unlikely.

GLENN: I do too. But I didn't think it was even possible. I didn't say probable. I said possible.

JEFFY: Possible.

STU: When will Trump leave office?

Okay. Right now. This is from -- this is a betting market summary.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: 2020 or later. So that means he fills the first term. It's 51 percent.

JEFFY: Wow.

STU: So just over half. They're saying there's a chance -- again, these are the betting markets. People are putting money on this.

GLENN: 49 percent say he's not going to make it through his first term.

STU: He's not going to make it through his first term.

GLENN: And I think there's a chance that he doesn't even make it to impeachment. I think there's a chance that he gets so surrounded by Indians. And they're like, "Don, it ain't going to work out well." And he's like, "Fine. Screw it." And he resigns to go back to do his -- whatever it is.

JEFFY: I had a much happier life.

GLENN: Yeah, I had a much happier life. I'm just not -- I just don't want to do it.

Whatever. I just don't want to do it. Whatever. I don't know what he would say.

STU: Right. He finds a way, I did my job. I got all this stuff done.

You know, he comes up with some justification and says bye.

GLENN: Right.

STU: It's not impossible. Again, there's no reason -- we're not there obviously. But it's an interesting thing that people are talking about it so openly.

Trump's Zelenskyy deal falls apart: What happened and what's next?

SAUL LOEB / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump offered Zelenskyy a deal he couldn’t refuse—but Zelenskyy rejected it outright.

Last Friday, President Donald Trump welcomed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to Washington to sign a historic agreement aimed at ending the brutal war ravaging Ukraine. Joined by Vice President J.D. Vance, Trump met with Zelenskyy and the press before the leaders were set to retreat behind closed doors to finalize the deal. Acting as a gracious host, Trump opened the meeting by praising Zelenskyy and the bravery of Ukrainian soldiers. He expressed enthusiasm for the proposed agreement, emphasizing its benefits—such as access to Ukraine’s rare earth minerals for the U.S.—and publicly pledged continued American aid in exchange.

Zelenskyy, however, didn’t share Trump’s optimism. Throughout the meeting, he interrupted repeatedly and openly criticized both Trump and Vance in front of reporters. Tensions escalated until Vance, visibly frustrated, fired back. The exchange turned the meeting hostile, and by its conclusion, Trump withdrew his offer. Rather than staying in Washington to resolve the conflict, Zelenskyy promptly left for Europe to seek support from the European Union.

As Glenn pointed out, Trump had carefully crafted this deal to benefit all parties, including Russia. Zelenskyy’s rejection was a major misstep.

Trump's generous offer to Zelenskyy

Glenn took to his whiteboard—swapping out his usual chalkboard—to break down Trump’s remarkable deal for Zelenskyy. He explained how it aligned with several of Trump’s goals: cutting spending, advancing technology and AI, and restoring America’s position as the dominant world power without military action. The deal would have also benefited the EU by preventing another war, revitalizing their economy, and restoring Europe’s global relevance. Ukraine and Russia would have gained as well, with the war—already claiming over 250,000 lives—finally coming to an end.

The media has portrayed last week’s fiasco as an ambush orchestrated by Trump to humiliate Zelenskyy, but that’s far from the truth. Zelenskyy was only in Washington because he had already rejected the deal twice—first refusing Vice President Vance and then Secretary of State Marco Rubio. It was Zelenskyy who insisted on traveling to America to sign the deal at the White House. If anyone set an ambush, it was him.

The EU can't help Ukraine

JUSTIN TALLIS / Contributor | Getty Images

After clashing with Trump and Vance, Zelenskyy wasted no time leaving D.C. The Ukrainian president should have stayed, apologized to Trump, and signed the deal. Given Trump’s enthusiasm and a later comment on Truth Social—where he wrote, “Zelenskyy can come back when he is ready for peace”—the deal could likely have been revived.

Meanwhile, in London, over a dozen European leaders, joined by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, convened an emergency meeting dubbed the “coalition of the willing” to ensure peace in Ukraine. This coalition emerged as Europe’s response to Trump’s withdrawal from the deal. By the meeting’s end, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced a four-point plan to secure Ukrainian independence.

Zelenskyy, however, appears less than confident in the coalition’s plan. Recently, he has shifted his stance toward the U.S., apologizing to Trump and Vance and expressing gratitude for the generous military support America has already provided. Zelenskyy now says he wants to sign Trump’s deal and work under his leadership.

This is shaping up to be another Trump victory.

Glenn: No more money for the war machine, Senator McConnell

Tom Williams / Contributor | Getty Images

Senator McConnell, your call for more Pentagon spending is as tone-deaf as it is reckless. The United States already spends more on its military than the next nine countries combined — over $877 billion in 2023 alone, dwarfing China ($292 billion), Russia ($86 billion), and the entire EU’s collective defense budgets. And yet here you are, clamoring for more, as if throwing cash at an outdated war machine will somehow secure our future.

The world is changing, Senator, and your priorities are stuck in a bygone era.

Aircraft carriers — those floating behemoths you and the Pentagon so dearly love — are relics of the past. In the next real conflict, they’ll be as useless as horses were in World War I. Speaking of which, Europe entered that war with roughly 25 million horses; by 1918, fewer than 10 million remained, slaughtered by machine guns and artillery they couldn’t outrun.

That’s the fate awaiting your precious carriers against modern threats — sunk by hypersonic missiles or swarms of AI-driven drones before they can even launch a jet. The 1950s called, Senator — they want their war plans back.

The future isn’t in steel and jet fuel; it’s in artificial intelligence and artificial superintelligence. Every dollar spent on yesterday’s hardware is a dollar wasted in three years when AI upends everything we know about warfare. Worse, with the Pentagon’s track record, every dollar spent today could balloon into two or three dollars of inflation tomorrow, thanks to the House and Senate’s obscene spending spree.

We’re drowning in $34 trillion of national debt — 128% of GDP, a level unseen since World War II. Annual deficits hit $1.7 trillion in 2023, and interest payments alone are projected to top $1 trillion by 2026.

This isn’t sustainable; it’s a fiscal time bomb.

And yet you want to shovel more taxpayer money into a Pentagon that hasn’t passed a single audit in its history? Six attempts since 2018, six failures — trillions unaccounted for, waste so rampant that it defies comprehension. It’s irresponsible — bordering on criminal — to suggest more spending when the DOD can’t even count the cash it’s got.

The real threat isn’t just from abroad, though those dangers are profound. It’s from within. The call is coming from inside the house, Senator — and not just the House, but the Senate too. Your refusal to adapt is jeopardizing our security more than any foreign adversary.

Look at China’s drone shows — thousands of synchronized lights painting the sky. Now imagine those aren’t fireworks but weaponized drones, each one cheap, precise, and networked by AI. A single swarm could cripple our planes, ships, tanks, and troops before we fire a shot. Ukraine’s drone wars have already shown this reality: $500 drones taking out $10 million tanks. That’s the future staring us down, and we’re still polishing Cold War relics.

Freeze every bloated project.

Redirect everything — every dime, every mind — toward winning the AI/ASI race. That’s the only battlefield that matters. We’ve got enough stockpiles to handle any foreseeable war in the next three years and a president fighting to end conflicts, not start them. Your plea for more spending isn’t just misguided — it’s a betrayal of the American people sinking under debt and inflation while you chase ghosts of wars past.

Or is it even that senator? Perhaps I have buried the lede, but I am not sure if the following stats will help people understand why this op-ed might have been written by someone in your office.

Your state, Kentucky is:

  • 45th in GDP Per Capita
  • 44th in Employment
  • 42nd in High School Diplomas

And 11th in Defense-related defense contract spending

Who are you actually concerned about, Senator? The safety of the American people or your war machine buddies?

Thanks, but no thanks.

'MAD AS HELL': Here's what happened with the Epstein Files and what's next

Andrew Harnik / Staff, SAUL LOEB / Contributor, Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Jeffery Epstein's despicable low-life clients escape justice yet another day.

If you followed last week's commotion surrounding the release of the Epstein Files closely, you likely came away from the situation feeling frustrated and confused. Many anticipated the full release of Epstein's damning evidence, with names and details that would bring the hammer of justice down on those who indulged their wicked desires on that infamous island. Instead, we were dealt another disappointment, vexed once more by the swamp creatures Trump swore to destroy.

Many have turned their frustration towards the ensemble of new media representatives, including Glenn's friend and BlazeTV host Liz Wheeler, who was among those chosen to break the story. But don't shoot the messenger, if you take a moment to hear Wheeler's side of the story as Glenn did on radio, it's clear that the party at fault is the same enemy we've been fighting the whole time: the Deep State.

While Trump has won back-to-back victories during his first few weeks in office, he hasn't even been president for two months yet. It should come as no surprise that the swamp is still full of monsters, and they are starting to fight back. The events surrounding the release of the Epstein Filesprove there is still a lot of work left to do.

What happened?

JIM WATSON / Contributor | Getty Images

To fully understand last week's events, we need to go back to an interview Trump's new attorney general, Pam Bondi, did with Fox on Wednesday, February 26th. On the night of the 26th, Bondi sat down with Fox News host, Jesse Watters, where she first announced that the next day, Thursday the 27th, she would be releasing the long-awaited Epstein Files, and even made hints that the contents would be of interest, saying they would "make you sick."

The next morning, Liz Wheeler and other "new" media hosts were summoned to the White House, though they did not know why at the time. No mainstream reporters were present and Wheeler speculates that the purpose behind that was to deny them this story in retribution for Trump's poor coverage. Then Bondi and Kash Patel, the new director of the FBI, came in with the now-infamous binders, along with a letter Bondi had written to Patel and informed the reporters of the bad news. They told them that the binders contained what they had previously believed to be the full Epstein Files, until Bondi received information from a FBI whistleblower. This allegedly happened after her interview on Fox, and revealed that the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) and the FBI had withheld large portions of the Epstein Files from both Bondi and Patel.

After this meeting, the reporters were let out of the White House where they were ambushed by the mainstream media. Believing that they were going to immediately break the news, the new media reporters smiled and waved, gloating their exclusive access to the story while their antiquated counterparts took photos. Then the new media reporters learned that the White House forbade them from breaking the news until 3:30 pm EST, to avoid Trump's conference with the UK Prime Minister from being focused solely on the Epstein Files story. This explains why Liz Wheeler and her fellow media representatives were silent for so long. It was a bait-and-switch that they never intended.

What did we learn?

SAUL LOEB / Contributor | Getty Images

While initially this seems like a complete bust, there is new information we learned from this fiasco.

First, there was some new information in the binders, although a large portion of it was information we already knew. There was a copy of Epstein's Rolodex, essentially his contact list, which contained many of the same names we already knew had associated with Epstein in some capacity, though it's certainly not proof of any wrongdoing. The biggest reveal was a long list of known victims of Epstein and his degenerate client, although it was entirely redacted to protect the privacy of those on the list. This list was, allegedly, what Bondi was referring to on the Wednesday Fox interview, although Bondi's exact timeline is unclear and potentially suspicious.

The real takeaway from yesterday came from the letter Bondi sent Patel in response to the FBI leak. Not only did it prove our suspicions right, that this story is much deeper than we are being led to believe, but it reveals blatant betrayal within the government. The letter from Bondi orders Patel to knock some heads, get the real files, and compile a report highlighting who is hiding these files from Trump, Bondi, Patel, and the American people.

There are Deep State swamp creatures that are actively working against President Trump and his administration. Glenn likened this to aninternal Civil Warand encouraged Trump to take an axe to the whole system. We need to pull out this corruption root and stem.

What needs to happen next?

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

The next step is learning what Kash Patel found when he started knocking heads. According to Bondi's letter, the full Epstein Files and Patel's report were due on her desk by 8:00 AM February the 28th. The American people need to know what he found and soon. We have waited long enough.

There also needs to be immediate and hard-hitting action taken against SDNY, the corrupt FBI agents, and whoever else seeks to undermine Trump's presidency. Really, this should not come as a surprise, Trump has been in office for less than two months. That is a very short time to completely uproot the Deep State which has been twisting its corruption around every branch of our government for the better part of a century.

This is the first major hiccup of Trump's second term, amid nearly two months of victory after victory, and if anything proves the validity of DOGE's work gutting the government. While we can't let this slide, now is not the time to abandon hope, now is the time to double down and demand answers.

DOGE's top 5 BIGGEST cuts

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

President Trump has only been in office for a month, and already, he seems to have accomplished more than most presidents do in their entire careers.

Nothing defines Trump's first month more than the newly established Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE. Equally controversial as it is popular, the department, headed by tech billionaire Elon Musk, has made it its mission to root out wasteful government spending. DOGE has already combed through a handful of agencies and eliminated billions of dollars of waste, and it doesn't show any signs of slowing down anytime soon.

DOGE is part of Trump's initiative to curb runaway government spending and to start to chip away at the Fed's crushing debt. At the time this article was written, U.S. debt sat at over $36 trillion, with an estimated $1.9 trillion a year federal budget deficit. According to the U.S. debt clock, Musk and the DOGE crew have already saved more than $136 billion, and that number only keeps growing.

To help track DOGE's progress, we've assembled a list of their top five biggest cuts:

1. USAID

MANDEL NGAN / Contributor | Getty Images

The United States Agency for International Development, or USAID, has been hit with the some of largest cuts out of any government agency and will potentially even be shut down. This comes after Musk and his team revealed theabsurd things USAID was funding, including a transgender opera in Colombia. The total cut came out to approximately $6.5 billion.

2. Department of Education

SAUL LOEB / Contributor | Getty Images

The Department of Education is another agency that faces extinction, much like USAID. The American school system has been found seriously lacking, with many students struggling to meet expectations despite the torrent of cash spent on education. Trump's new Secretary of Education pick, Linda McMahon, has sworn to turn the agency around and even oversee the closure of the department. DOGE has reportedly cut almost $1 billion in waste within the agency.

3. Institute of Educational Sciences

Steven Gottlieb / Contributor | Getty Images

The IES, or Institute of Educational Sciences, is tasked with tracking the academic progress of America's students and helping improve outcomes. The changes made by DOGE will not affect NAEP, also known as "The Nation's Report Card," and the College Scorecard, which tracks the spending, costs, and outcomes of universities. The agency was all but gutted by Musk's deep cuts, totaling $900 million.

4. Social Security Administration

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

For years, we've speculated that the Social Security Administration was a colossal waste of resources, but after Elon Musk posted a screenshot from the SSA database showing that there was a significant number of people over the age of 100 that were still consideredalive by the agency, it seems our suspicions are proved true. It's no small wonder Musk was able to trim over $230 million from the SSA.

5. General Services Administration

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The GSA is the latest agency to be hit by the DOGE crew. The administration, which manages federal property and contracts, has started a massive "reduction in force" push, thinning the numbers of employees by a large margin. As of yet, upwards of $300 million have been cut by the once-bloated agency.