Subversion of a President Is Not Exposing Government Overreach

June 07, 2017

WRITER

Reality Winner is a name you're going to hear quite often over the next few months, if not years. This is the woman charged with taking top secret documents and giving them to the media. She's going to be compared to Edward Snowden, but the real comparison is to Hillary Clinton.

"She's not anything like Edward Snowden as far as we know. Whether you condone what Snowden did or you didn't, he said he thought he saw something wrong. The government was doing something wrong, so he exposed it to the world," Mike Broomhead said Wednesday, filling in for Glenn.

The reality is that Reality subverted the president of the United States --- and politics should have nothing to do with this story going forward. Good luck with that.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

MIKE: All right. It is the Glenn Beck Program. We're talking about Reality Winner. That is her name. It's a name you're going to be hearing quite often, I'm sure, over the next month, probably year or so, as this is the woman that has been charged as the White House leaker. Someone that has been charged with taking top secret documents. Removing them from the White House and giving them to the media.

Now, she's going to be compared to Edward Snowden, when she should be compared to Hillary Clinton. And what I mean by that is, Hillary wasn't trying to subvert anyone. But what she did was so negligent, and it was the same act. It's just that Hillary did it digitally. I wish that point could be -- if that point could have been made to the American people during the election better, it would have been much worse for her. There is no difference -- and I guess it's a generational thing. You know, I'm 50 years old. So for me, a hard piece of paper being taken out of a room where it's not supposed to be removed from, you can see the crime in that. Sending an email over an unsecured server versus a secured server, for someone that's 50 years old, I don't know what that means. I know that makes me sound old. But it doesn't resonate with me. With young people who have never lived without tablets or smartphones or devices where they do business online, where there's paperless everything, you realize, A, there's not much privacy on those devices. You're giving away your privacy. You're being watched by everyone. I mean, just try to buy something online. Go to Amazon one day and look for a product. And the next day, when you open your Facebook page, the advertisement for that product shows up magically on your Facebook page.

I mean, obviously they're watching what you're doing. But when it comes to a crime like this, somebody explain to me the difference. I would love to have an expert try to explain that way.

That what Hillary Clinton did was no different than what this girl did, except she didn't give it to the press. She was emailing it to other people on unsecured servers. She took documents that were classified and put them in an unclassified place. That's illegal. That's where the comparison should lie with this Reality Winner. But more importantly, where she's not anything like Edward Snowden as far as we know. Whether you condone what Snowden or you didn't, he said he thought he saw something wrong. The government was doing something wrong thing. So he exposed it to the world.

What she is doing is subverting a specific person. She is working the White House, and she is subverting the president of the United States. If you go to her Twitter account, some of the things she's tweeted out have been horrible things about people. And so there were -- there were a few tweets. So on Glenn Beck's -- on his Twitter page -- if you go to Glenn Beck -- if you follow Glenn, @GlennBeck, or you go to GlennBeck.com, the poll asks, which of the tweets was her most troubling?

The one in the lead right now is being white is terrorism. Because she did tweet that out. She tweeted out @KanyeWest, that he should make a T-shirt that being white is terrorism.

The one that's in last place is calling the president foul names. Because she did. She called him all kinds of stuff. The tangerine-in-chief and stuff like that. The other two -- the other tied close to first place was the one I thought was the worst, was when the Iranians were tweeting out about the Americans and weapons, she tweeted back to the Iranians that if the president, with a derogatory term, starts a war or declares war -- which she must not know her Constitution because the president can't do that, but if the president declares war, there are people in America, like her, that will stand with the Iranians. How does that woman get and maintain a security clearance? That's the one I chose as the most egregious. And then there's also one in there about the attorney general being a confederate, which, again, is just name-calling nonsense. But if you want to vote on that. You can go to GlennBeck.com. You can find the story there. Or you can go to Glenn Beck. And it's pretty easy. Then you can see the vote total and how it's gone and up what the percentages are.

To be honest with you, this girl deserves to be punished. She is subverting the American government. And it's funny how people left and right are asking such silly questions. I have a close friend, I think I mentioned yesterday on the show, my friend who I grew up with, he's like a brother to me, but he's so far left of me that it's impossible to have conversations sometimes. And he gave the caveat that if she did something wrong, she should be punished. But -- then there was the big "but," was, but why are people more concerned about what she did than the information that she put out there? And I laughed out loud by myself at that.

Are you kidding?

What was the mantra when the evidence was out there by the Russians about Hillary Clinton and her time as Secretary of State? And this great firewall between her office as Secretary of State and the foundation in which she started, where she said there would be no interaction. And then we found out that there was not only interaction, there was collusion. There were people that couldn't get a meeting -- and that wasn't a Saudi prince. But it was a government official, I think, for the Middle East, who couldn't get a meeting through proper channels with the Secretary of State. So they reached to Huma Abedin, through the foundation, who said, this guy is a big donor to the foundation, trying to get a meeting with the Secretary. Can't do it through the other channels. Can you help? Huma Abedin replies, we've sent some dates, let us know which one works.

The most egregious was the Haiti relief. And there's the documents that show that if you were friends of Bill Clinton or you were a big donor to the Clinton Foundation, you were directed to people in the State Department that would get you expedited contracts or, you know, at least get your applications in to get the relief contracts to do the work that would be paid for by our State Department, by our government. And it was said in those emails, if they aren't either, A, a big donor or, B, a friend of Bill, they're to be directed to a website to submit an application.

All of that stuff was out there. Was anybody on the left saying, we need to worry about the information and not worry so much -- so let's worry about the information in both cases. What is it that Reality Winner put out there? Reality Winner released a document that said -- an NSA document saying that the Russians tried to hack into the elections in a few places. They sent out phishing emails, trying to get election officials to give them information, and they directly tried to hack into some of the voting poll places -- or, polling software. And there's no evidence that they were successful on any level.

So the uproar was, of course, oh, my gosh, look what's going on. And I said two thing. Number one, who was president when that happened? It wasn't Donald Trump. He was running for president then. Why would the Russians help Trump?

But more importantly, if you're going to blame the White House for this, why would President Obama help Donald Trump? Because that's what happened here. It was under his administration that these things were going on. So she's releasing documents that this happened. That they tried to get in.

So okay. Let's look at the reality of that. Let's say that the smoking gun is that the Russians tried to hack into the American election system. They were unsuccessful. What is the big -- what's the big story there to be told?

So you compare that with the okay, now let's pay attention to the evidence against Hillary Clinton, where she had a server. Don't we all? I want to make sure that we're all on the same page here. I think everybody keeps a private server for their email corporation and their business in their bathroom, right? We all do that. We all set up a private server at our house and put it in the bathroom. And then when we become -- when we get investigated, our people pick and choose which emails are going to be turned over, when the law says you turn them all over. And she said, the other ones were just recipes and yoga stuff. Okay.

First of all, no way you do yoga and no way you cook. So let's just dispense with that right away. And the fact of the matter is all of those emails should have been turned over. If you taint the water by mixing your personal emails with your business emails, they all get turned over. It didn't happen. Then she sanitizes -- she has someone sanitize and completely dismantle that server that took months and months and months and months to get information off of. And yet, nobody wants to scream about that.

Reality Winner stole documents and gave them to the press -- to the press to subvert the American president. Whether you like Donald Trump or you don't like Donald Trump, if you respect the system, how is this not a huge crime? It is. It is absolutely a huge crime.

What happens if Trump wins from prison?

Rob Kim / Contributor | Getty Images

If Donald Trump is sentenced to prison time, it will be the first time in American history that a former president and active presidential candidate is thrown behind bars. Nobody knows for sure what exactly will happen.

With the election only a few months away, the left is working overtime to come up with any means of beating Trump, including tying him up in court or even throwing him in jail. Glenn recently had former U.S. DoJ Assistant Attorney General and Center for Renewing America senior fellow Jeff Clark on his show to discuss the recent resurrection of the classified documents case against Trump and what that could mean for the upcoming election. Clark explains that despite the immunity ruling from the Supreme Court this summer, he thinks there is a decent chance of a prison sentence.

What would that even look like if it happened? This is a completely unprecedented series of events and virtually every step is filled with potential unknowns. Would the Secret Service protect him in prison? What if he won from his jail cell? How would the American people respond? While no one can be certain for sure, here's what Glenn and Jeff Clark speculate might happen:

Jail time

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor | Getty Images

Can they even put a former president in prison? Jeff Clark seemed to think they can, and he brought up that New York County District Attorney, Alvin Bragg, had been talking with the New York jail system about making accommodations for Trump and the Secret Service assigned to protect him. Clark said he believes that if they sentence him before the election, Trump could be made to serve out his sentence until his inauguration, assuming he wins. After his inauguration, Clark said Trump's imprisonment would have to be suspended or canceled, as his constitutional duty as president would preempt the conviction by New York State.

House arrest

BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

Another possibility is that Trump could be placed under house arrest instead of imprisoned. This would make more sense from a security standpoint—it would be easier to protect Trump in his own home versus in prison. But, this would deny the Left the satisfaction of actually locking Trump behind bars, so it seems less likely. Either in prison or under house arrest, the effect is the same, Trump would be kept off the campaign trail during the most crucial leg of the election. It doesn't matter which way you spin it—this seems like election interference. Glenn even floated the idea of campaigning on behalf of Trump to help combat the injustice.

Public outrage

Jon Cherry / Stringer | Getty Images

It is clear to many Americans that this whole charade is little more than a thinly-veiled attempt to keep Trump out of office by any means necessary. If this attempt at lawfare succeeds, and Trump is thrown in jail, the American people likely will not have it. Any doubt that America has become a Banana Republic will be put to rest. How will anyone trust in any sort of official proceedings or elections ever again? One can only imagine what the reaction will be. If the past is any indication, it's unlikely to be peaceful.

POLL: What topics do YOU want Trump and Harris to debate?

Montinique Monroe / Stringer, Win McNamee / Staff | Getty Images

Does Kamala Harris stand a chance against Donald Trump in a debate?

Next week, during the second presidential debate, we will find out. The debate is scheduled for September 10th and will be hosted by ABC anchors David Muir and Linsey Davis. This will be the second presidential debate, but the first for VP Kamala Harris, and will feature the same rules as the first debate. The rules are: no notes, no chairs, no live audience, and the debater's microphone will only be turned on when it is his or her turn to speak.

This will be the first time Trump and Harris clash face-to-face, and the outcome could have a massive effect on the outcome of the election. Trump has been preparing by ramping up his campaign schedule. He plans to hold multiple rallies and speak at several events across the next several days. He wants to be prepared to face any question that might come his way, and meeting and interacting with both voters and the press seems to be Trump's preferred preparation approach.

With the multitude of issues plaguing our nation, there are a lot of potential topics that could be brought up. From the economy to the ongoing "lawfare" being waged against the former president, what topics do YOU want Harris and Trump to debate?

The economy (and why the Biden-Harris administration hasn't fixed it yet)

The Southern Border crisis (and Kamala's performance as border czar)

Climate change (and how Trump pulled out of the Paris Agreement)

The "lawfare" being waged against Trump (and what Trump would do if he were thrown in prison)

Voting and election security (and how to deal with the possibility that illegal immigrants are voting)

3 ways the Constitution foils progressive authoritarianism

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor, Kevin Dietsch / Staff, Pool / Pool | Getty Images

This is why it is important to understand our history.

Over the weekend, the New York Times published a controversial article claiming the Constitution is a danger to the country and a threat to democracy. To those who have taken a high school American government class or have followed Glenn for a while, this claim might seem incongruent with reality. That's because Jennifer Szalai, the author the piece, isn't thinking of the Constitution as it was intended to be—a restraint on government to protect individual rights—but instead as a roadblock that is hindering the installation of a progressive oligarchy.

Glenn recently covered this unbelievable article during his show and revealed the telling critiques Szalai made of our founding document. She called it an "anti-democratic" document and argued it is flawed because Donald Trump used it to become president (sort of like how every other president achieved their office). From here, Szalai went off the deep end and made some suggestions to "fix" the Constitution, including breaking California and other blue states away from the union to create a coastal progressive utopia.

Here are three of the "flaws" Szalai pointed out in the Constitution that interfere with the Left's authoritarian dreams:

1. The Electoral College

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The New York Times article brought up the fact that in 2016 President Trump lost the popular vote but won the Electoral College, and thus won the election. This, as Szalai pointed out, is not democratic. Strictly speaking, she is right. But as Glenn has pointed out time and time again, America is not a democracy! The Founding Fathers did not want the president to be decided by a simple majority of 51 percent of the population. The Electoral College is designed to provide minority groups with a voice, giving them a say in the presidential election. Without the Electoral College, a simple majority would dominate elections and America would fall under the tyranny of the masses.

2. The Supreme Court

OLIVIER DOULIERY / Contributor | Getty Images

President Biden and other progressives have thrown around the idea of reforming the Supreme Court simply because it has made a few rulings they disagree with. Glenn points out that when a country decides to start monkeying around with their high courts, it is usually a sign they are becoming a banana republic. Szalai complained that Trump was allowed to appoint three justices. Two of them were confirmed by senators representing just 44 percent of the population, and they overturned Roe v. Wade. All of this is Constitutional by Szalai's admission, and because she disagreed with it, she argued the whole document should be scrapped.

3. Republicanism

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

To clarify, were not talking about the Republican Party Republicanism, but instead the form of government made up of a collection of elected representatives who govern on the behalf of their constituents. This seems to be a repeat sticking point for liberals, who insist conservatives and Donald Trump are out to destroy "democracy" (a system of government that never existed in America). This mix-up explains Szalai's nonsensical interpretation of how the Constitution functions. She criticized the Constitution as "anti-democratic" and a threat to American democracy. If the Constitution is the nation's framework, and if it is "anti-democratic" then how is it a threat to American democracy? This paradox is easily avoided with the understanding that America isn't a democracy, and it never has been.

Kamala Harris' first interview as nominee: Three SHOCKING policy flips

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

On Thursday, Kamala Harris gave her first interview since Joe Biden stepped down from the race, and it quickly becameclear why she waited so long.

Harris struggled to keep her story straight as CNN's Dana Bash questioned her about recent comments she had made that contradicted her previous policy statements. She kept on repeating that her "values haven't changed," but it is difficult to see how that can be true alongside her radical shift in policy. Either her values have changed or she is lying about her change in policy to win votes. You decide which seems more likely.

During the interview, Harris doubled down on her policy flip on fracking, the border, and even her use of the race card. Here are her top three flip-flops from the interview:

Fracking

Citizens of the Planet / Contributor | Getty Images

In 2019, during the 2020 presidential election, Harris pledged her full support behind a federal ban on fracking during a town hall event. But, during the DNC and again in this recent interview, Harris insisted that she is now opposed to the idea. The idea of banning fracking has been floated for a while now due to environmental concerns surrounding the controversial oil drilling method. Bans on fracking are opposed by many conservatives as it would greatly limit the production of oil in America, thus driving up gas prices across the nation. It seems Harris took this stance to win over moderates and to keep gas prices down, but who knows how she will behave once in office?

Border

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

In her 2020 presidential bid, Harris was all for decriminalizing the border, but now she is singing a different tune. Harris claimed she is determined to secure the border—as if like she had always been a stalwart defender of the southern states. Despite this policy reversal, Harris claimed her values have not changed, which is hard to reconcile. The interviewer even offered Kamala a graceful out by suggesting she had learned more about the situation during her VP tenure, but Kamala insisted she had not changed.

Race

Tasos Katopodis / Stringer | Getty Images

When asked to respond to Trump's comments regarding the sudden emergence of Kamala's black ancestry Kamala simply answered "Same old tired playbook, next question" instead of jumping on the opportunity to play the race card as one might expect. While skipping the critical race theory lecture was refreshing, it came as a shock coming from the candidate representing the "everything is racist" party. Was this just a way to deflect the question back on Trump, or have the Democrats decided the race card isn't working anymore?

Glenn's Show Prep