RADIOJanuary 23, 2023

Does the Supreme Court TRULY not know who LEAKED Roe v Wade?

The Supreme Court has investigated the Roe v Wade leak, and it announced earlier this week that it was not able to identify the person (or people) responsible. But that’s an outcome Pat and Stu have a hard time believing. So, they provide their own theory as to who MAY have been involved (purely spectacle!). No matter who was responsible, do YOU believe the Supreme Court has no idea who was behind this all?!

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

PAT: So the investigation into who leaked the information on the Roe v. Wade decision.

Who leaked that?

They've investigated it, and could not figure it out. I can't believe it. I can't believe that's what they came back with.

STU: That's incredible.

PAT: It is -- can it really be that hard to figure it out?

STU: I mean, just think about this for a second?

How does this document, get into the hands. Was it political that actually printed it?

How does it get into their hands. It wasn't like a reprint, where someone typed it all out.

Like, for example, you're in front of the computer. You see it there. You're some staffer. You take photos of the computer screen. They can see the text.

This was the actual document.

PAT: Yeah. Yeah.

STU: So this document must have been either pulled off a drive. Sent by email or some other form.

Or printed out. And a physical copy removed from the Supreme Court offices. That's pretty much it.

PAT: Either way.

STU: Or a hack. Which is, they did not completely rule that out. But they did not see any evidence of a hack.

PAT: So which ever method they used, there's going to be traces left behind that you can track. So how did they not track it back to the person who did it? Incredible.

STU: I would think so. Now, maybe they were so loose with this stuff, that, you know, a bunch of different people had copies of the document. And one of them brought it home and made a photocopy, and that was it. You know, it's possible. But if so, that's a real problem, with security in the Supreme Court.

I mean, I --

PAT: No kidding.

STU: Again, I'm just flabbergasted how this is all available. It should not be possible to do. Any digital way would be traced, you would think. If you're on the system of the Supreme Court, you have this document. Unless they're just emailing it around to a million different people. How could this get out?

And then the fact that they can't come up with anything. No -- no leads. Nothing. No information.

PAT: Uh-huh.

STU: They really came up with a giant zilch.

PAT: After almost a year of not knowing who this is. What happened. And everybody is waiting, kind of with bated breath, to find out.

Okay. When are we --

STU: Almost immediately.

PAT: Yeah. Before the actual decision came out. Before they officially released it. I thought, they will find this person. And we will know soon. And we still don't. What was it? March? March when that happened?

Or May. It was either March or May.

And hard to believe, that here we are, going into February.

Yeah. We investigated, couldn't find anything. Huh.

STU: So let me ask you an important question. Are we there?

Are we at the point, where we could get to start to wildly speculate with conspiracy theories? Can I do it? Is it okay? Is the okay time?

PAT: Yes. So do you have a wild conspiracy theory?

STU: I do have one. Would you like to hear it?

PAT: Okay. I would love to hear it.

STU: Okay. If let's say, not an aide, not an intern, not a -- just somebody who -- the janitor, who works Supreme Court. If it wasn't one of those people. And let's just say, it was an actual Supreme Court justice who just emailed it out of their account to somebody. To Politico, directly.

And let us just -- just for speculation here, since that's what we're doing.

Let's say that person's name was Sonia Sotomayor. Let's just say.

PAT: Okay. You're just picking a name out of the nine.

STU: A name. I could have said John Smith, but Sonia Sotomayor.

PAT: But you didn't. And John Smith isn't a Supreme Court justice, so that wouldn't have made sense.

STU: It wouldn't have made sense. But I just came up with the first name that popped into my head.

PAT: Okay. That was the one. Not Clarence Thomas.

STU: No.

PAT: Not --

STU: No. Sonia Sotomayor. That's the name that fits this particularly wild example.

PAT: Not John Roberts. Okay.

STU: Let's say Sonia Sotomayor emailed from her Gmail, to Politico, and they just put it in their publication.

And after this investigation, that's exactly what they found.

Let's just say that happened.

PAT: Okay.

STU: This would be incredibly damaging to the Supreme Court.

PAT: Yeah. Wouldn't it?

STU: Because it's not just some aid trying to get attention.

Or trying -- this is some -- the reveal of such pathetic and blatant ideology, that the person who would do such a thing should not even be on the Supreme Court in the first place.

PAT: Should be impeached from the US Supreme Court. Yes.

STU: And I think, let's just say you had an institutionalist, like John Roberts. We'll call -- again, making up names. A John Roberts.

PAT: And it just so happened, that a John Roberts, happens to be the -- the chief justice of the US Supreme Court.

STU: Are you serious? I didn't know that.

PAT: So it's weird that you picked that name.

STU: I don't follow it. So let's just say, that when the investigation came back. The person who -- maybe was in charge.

John Roberts says, this would do too much damage to the court. We need to just throw this in the trash.

PAT: Hmm.

STU: I'm not saying, that that happened.

Because as I said, we are in a complete speculation period here. We're just making up conspiracy theories.

And to be true about it, I don't have evidence that this occurred. I want to make sure --

PAT: No. There is speculation around those lines.

STU: There is speculation around those lines. And I do not find it completely implausible, that that's what happened.

PAT: I don't find it at all implausible. It's more plausible than, yeah. We just -- we couldn't find anything. We couldn't find anybody. I don't know what happened. It's more plausible than that.

STU: It really is.

You know, from the beginning, I -- I was -- very, very suspicious of Sotomayor and her aides right off the bat. You know, she's, again, in the a different category than other liberal justices. She is an idiot.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: She is not -- she is not the same -- she's not in the same universe, as Elena Kagan, who is very liberal, but very smart.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: You know, this is --

PAT: And Kagan has made some rulings or been part of rulings, that have really surprised me, a couple of times.

But that almost happens, with the liberals in the court.

STU: Totally. That's exactly what this situation is.

She's an embarrassment.

She really is. She's an embarrassment to the court. Sotomayor. Not Kagan. Again, is liberal.

But respectfully. You can respect Elena Kagan and have some credibility.

You can't do that with Sonia Sotomayor. She's terrible. She's your run-of-the-mill, boilerplate, Huffington Post editor that's working on the Supreme Court.

She is just -- that's who she is. And, you know, it's -- it's embarrassing. It's embarrassing.

And so it fits exactly with what you would think Sotomayor would do in this situation. Having no respect for the institution. Just a liberal activist, who found herself in a lifetime appointment, in a job, she should not have.

That's who Sonia Sotomayor is. I don't know if Ketanji Brown Jackson is that. I don't think she is. I don't know that she's maybe as talented or intellectual as Elena Kagan.

But she seems to be smarter than Sonia Sotomayor by, you know, leaps and bounds. Again, Sonia Sotomayor is special. And she is unique.

PAT: In her terribleness? She's special in her terribleness.

STU: Yes. She is unique. She's not the normal liberal judge. You can't just put them all together. She is different.

And I don't know. Speculating on her bending the rules, I don't think is crazy. Speculating on her thinking in her head, oh, well, this cause is too important. I must do something. Blah, blah.

She's an activist. That's who she is. And so I -- I don't think any of that is without -- without reason. It's not wild speculation from the point of, there's no reason to believe it. Like, if you were to say. There are some people saying, I think it was Alito. Why the hell would Alito do this?

This makes no sense. Why the hell would Samuel Alito ruin his own ruling? It doesn't make any sense at all. They keep trying to come up with justifications why a conservative would do this. And no one should do it.

If a conservative did do it, first of all, it's a really dumb move, because you put the entire thing at risk. Okay. If that happened, those people should be punished as well.

I just -- again, it's complete speculation. But Sonia Sotomayor, probably just emailed this to politico.

I --

PAT: I wouldn't be surprised.

STU: It's one of those theories, I would not be surprised by at all.

PAT: Yeah. It definitely could have happened.

But the official ruling, yeah. We can't find anybody who did this. So hmm. Okay. That's really weird that there was no trace.

STU: Incredible.

PAT: Someone really good did this.

STU: I keep coming back to this, Pat. No one relates to this more than you. Every time Pat Gray rolls through a stop sign, there is a cop there to catch him doing it. Right?

PAT: Yes. Yes.

STU: Right? This is what's happened. Pat has been pulled over 16 times.

PAT: Just since we've been back here in Texas, just in Dallas. Yeah. Uh-huh. Sixteen times.

STU: And honestly, your pace has slowed at the beginning. It was like eight times in the first year. It was really a lot.

PAT: I think it literally right around there. It really was.

STU: It's incredible.

But that's what happens in my life. If I mess something up, if I speed, if I roll through a stoplight.

PAT: You get caught.

STU: One day, Pat. I was coming back from a dinner. You know, it was relatively late at night on a Friday night.

Came back home. Streets are empty. Not a lot of people are around.

Pull up to a light. Now, do I roll through it a little bit while I'm taking my right?

Yeah. Probably. Maybe a little bit. And the reason I know that is because about a week later, I got a picture from the police officer in the mail, that said, you blew through this light. And then it linked -- this is real. Linked to a video of me rolling through a stop sign, taking a right on red, with no one around.

PAT: Yeah. We stopped that in Texas, by the way, which is awesome.

STU: Oh, they did stop that?

PAT: Yeah. They don't use the red light -- they don't use the cameras at the lights anymore.

STU: Good. No wonder I haven't been getting tickets lately. I didn't know that.

PAT: Yeah. So you don't have to worry about that anymore.

STU: But if I can get caught doing that, number one, how does no one find out this ruling? And number two, how does Hunter Biden get away with having sex with 900 prostitutes while doing crack on camera. How do these things happen?

PAT: Right. And how does Joe Biden get away with saying, I've never talked to anybody about business with Hunter, including -- I've never talked to Hunter about his businesses.

I don't even know what he did. I don't know what he does. How does he make a living?

I don't know. And now even CNN is admitting, yeah, he -- he had meetings with -- with business associates of Hunter Biden.

Well, thank you, finally, for verifying that.

Because we've been saying that for several years now. Really amazing.

STU: Do we have that report, Sara? We played it in the four-minute buzz. And, yes, they did say that. But I was actually impressed by CNN, for going into some depth on this. You know --

PAT: Kind of amazing.

STU: There is a change at some level at CNN. We can maybe taken this a little bit today.

Something is going on there. I think they're actually trying to be better. Which is a big statement, from me. And for --

PAT: What's the name -- is it Chris Lick? Did he -- he said from the beginning, he was going to try to make changes because he didn't like the bias. And he was going to get rid of the bias.

STU: Yes. And, of course, we all looked at him and said, we don't believe you.

How a Scandalous Political "Reporter" REALLY Got Her Juicy Stories | Olivia Nuzzi Exposed

Washington’s media bubble is imploding after explosive revelations that reporter Olivia Nuzzi carried on an emotional affair with RFK Jr. while covering him during the presidential race. The scandal has spiraled into leaked love letters, a derailed engagement, allegations of multiple political affairs, and a sudden firing that exposes the collapse of journalistic ethics in D.C. As new details surface involving Mark Sanford and Keith Olbermann, the story reveals a deeper truth about how power, access, and media influence really work behind the scenes.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

STU: Okay. Olivia Nuzzi. Do you know who she is?

GLENN: She's a reporter, right?
STU: Okay. Yes. Reporter. Very famous, inside DC, New York circles famous reporter.

GLENN: Lover, intellectual lover of RFK, if I'm not mistaken. Intellectual lover.

STU: Okay. Exactly. Yeah. So you remember the story.

GLENN: Not a lover lover.

STU: The story you don't know -- if you don't remember this, Glenn is referring to, is she was engaged to another reporter, Ryan Lizza, and it was revealed during this most recent presidential campaign that she was having an emotional affair of sorts with RFK Jr. Who as we -- you know, certainly has meant much to him during his life, but he is also married.

So he is -- so, I mean, he's a Kennedy. What do you expect here?

GLENN: He's a Kennedy. Yeah. Yes.

STU: He apparently, they were going back and forth, they had some sort of emotional affair going on.

And this is after she had written a profile about him.

So obviously, journalistically, there are ethical problems. As if they cared about ethical problems in journalism anymore.

This one rose to the level where she was fired. She's canned from her job.

She had this stratospheric rise in the media. She was -- remembering the time line right. She was hired. She wrote -- she was working for a campaign at one point.

She then wrote kind of an exposé of that campaign, that she worked for. And it got published in the New York Daily News.

Based off of just that, she was elevated to the main, like, political reporter at the Daily Beast, which shows you their particular standards.

She was 22, at the time, Glenn. Like, super young. This does not happen.

She wrote for a while there. People kind of like her writing. She also has the sort of throwback style. Very pretty. Kind of -- she has that mystique about her. And it was to the extent that they brought her to, I think, it was New York magazine. She wound up getting the lead political reporter job at that -- or, lead political columnist. A job they created for her. A position that did not exist previously.

And she's like 24 years old.

How has this happened?

GLENN: I think RFK has probably came up with other positions for 24-year-olds that didn't exist as well.

STU: Certainly, factually, accurate. Whether you want to say it or not, is another story, I suppose.

So, anyway, she goes through, and she breaks a lot of big stories. She's always getting odd amount of access to politicians, that you don't understand. You know, all across the spectrum.

She breaks big stories. She always has these big details about it. She writes very colorfully about all these interactions with these politicians. Anyway, this whole scandal blows up with RFK Jr.

Her -- her engagement breaks off. She kind of goes into hiding. For a year.

In that year, she's apparently writing a book. And the book comes out today.

Now, all of this could be just already an amazing salacious story. However, on the day before her book release, her ex-fiancé, also a reporter, releases a story about how he found out about all of -- all of the nonsense. Okay?

GLENN: Oh, good.

STU: And he writes that she comes back from a trip. And he uncovers some napkins from a hotel with a bunch of writing on it. Which turn out to be a love letter to the politician.

Which, again, in her book.

GLENN: Written by her.

STU: Written by her. In her book, she never says RFK Jr's name. She describes his relationship in detail. Never says the name. Just calls him "the politician."

Because I assume, because he might sue or whatever. Who knows?

You know, she doesn't want to be -- she doesn't -- she doesn't want to call him out by name. Every detail is quite clear in the book. It's quite clear it's about him.

GLENN: Yeah. She might find him in the bottom of a river.
(laughter)

GLENN: I'm just -- I'm just saying. I don't know what else could happen.

STU: The thing I love about this particular segment is that I would love to give you this story at any time.

The fact that you're deep on back medication right now is the perfect time for you to --

GLENN: I'm not on medication. I'm actually not on medication.

I'm just in so much pain, I just don't care.

STU: Whatever is making you delirious, I love it.

GLENN: Right. Got it.

STU: So the Ryna Lizza piece comes out. It's called How I Found Out. He goes through the whole details. He finds the napkins, finds the love letter, written on the napkins.

Okay. And in the love letter, it says, if I swallowed every drop of water from the tower above your house, I would still thirst for you.

Now -- I just love it.

Now, they live in DC, Glenn.

As you may know, not a lot of water towers in their home in DC. She realized, this is not a love letter to me, but someone else.

Finally, she starts going in and realizing, this is about a famous politician.

We go through the same -- goes through the whole story and finds out, there's a lot of detail about everything.

This is going to blow up their life. He realizes, it's going to be a problem. He calls his publicist, of course. This is what you do when you're one of these DC insider reporters, you call your publicist. And he says, we have a big problem.

Olivia is sleeping with Mark Sanford, a totally different politician.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

STU: This is a totally different affair.

GLENN: Mark Sanford. Wasn't he -- he was in Virginia, wasn't he?

STU: No, South Carolina.

GLENN: South Carolina, that's right. That's right. Who went for a walk one day, and just never showed up.

STU: Yes! And remember, he was like, oh, he's out on the Appalachian Trail, and then they found out he was actually.

GLENN: That's right.

STU: He was actually hooking up --

GLENN: Yeah. Under a water tower.

STU: Right. With a person he called his soul mate. Which I guess that was true for a time. They got together after that old relationship got broken up. Then they got back together.

And he got together with the soul mate. Then that broke up. And then he's rerunning for president if you remember, Glenn, in 2020, against Donald Trump. And making the pitch that, you know, I'm -- I've turned my life around. At that time, apparently, allegedly, sleeping with this reporter who profiled him, same exact thing that happened with RFK Jr. Except that, you know, we don't know. At least, there's no allegations that they actually wound up consummating the RFK Jr relationship.

In the story, however, in addition to all of this, we also get additional details of a relationship that Olivia Nuzzi had when she was 21 years old with Keith Olbermann.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. Oh, my gosh.

STU: I mean, the story is almost too good to tell.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. So she's like -- what was the spy's name, you know, that was sleeping with everybody -- like Whory Harriet or something like that. I mean, is that how she gets the stories? She just sleeps with these people?

STU: I don't know. Seemingly, this does occur on a pretty regular basis in this situation.

GLENN: Wow.

STU: And, you know, we ran out of time. Tomorrow, we should do the Olbermann's part of the saga, which is absolutely fascinating.

GLENN: Oh, we must.

STU: They seem to be accusing him of something in this piece. Which is above and beyond just hooking up. So that's something we should talk about tomorrow as well.

GLENN: Oh, I will -- I'll just write it down now. I'm scheduling -- scheduling the Keith Olbermann segment for tomorrow.

A Secret Cracker Barrel Warehouse Holds the Truth About the Remodel Scandal | Glenn TV | Ep 470

When Cracker Barrel began remodeling select locations and stripped away the nostalgic décor that defined its brand, customers erupted in outrage, asking: Has the poster child of Americana gone woke? The intense public backlash and financial fallout forced executives to pause their modernization plans. For the first time since the backlash, Glenn Beck gained exclusive access to the center of the controversy and Cracker Barrel’s massive warehouse of Americana antiques in Lebanon, Tennessee. There, Joe Stewart — the man tasked with telling America’s story through the chain’s iconic wall decorations — shares his reaction to the controversial remodel. Plus, Glenn unveils an exclusive first look at his no-holds-barred interview with Cracker Barrel CEO Julie Masino in her first on-camera appearance since her "Good Morning America" interview.

Watch the full interview Thursday, November 20, on BlazeTV and Glenn’s YouTube channel.

Democrats' call for military defiance: Unveiling the real agenda

A group of prominent Democrats recently put out a video urging the military and CIA to defy any "unlawful" orders from President Trump. On the surface, Glenn agrees with their message. But he explains why he believes it was never meant for the military. It was part of a campaign to sow seeds of doubt into the minds of average Americans...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So let's start with Venezuela. The New York Times is now reporting that Trump has been said to authorize CIA plans for covert action in Venezuela.

Now, when I read this story, I thought to myself, didn't I read this story about three or four weeks ago?

I think this is the exact story. Correct me if I'm wrong. Do you remember it?

I think this was the exact story that the New York Times or someone else came out with, about four weeks ago.

We have Jason here, who watches this kind of stuff. Am I right on thinking that, Jason?

JASON: Just heard this. Thirty-four weeks ago or a month ago.

GLENN: Yeah. Right. There's nothing new here.

So what exactly is the New York Times doing?

JASON: Uh-huh. They're parroting what they were slipped from their unnamed source. Imagine that!

GLENN: So what do you mean, they were slipped from an unnamed source? What do you mean by that?

JASON: There's no way this is a leak. Like, oh, we've got to get this out. Because it's like, atrocious that this was happening. This is approved.

GLENN: Yeah, this is something -- this is something that you're seeing the Deep State in action. Somebody wants to make sure that this is -- that this is -- circled around. So everybody is like, oh, my gosh. What are we doing in Venezuela?

What are we doing in Venezuela?

We already told you what we're doing in Venezuela. This is to secure the western hemisphere. To get China out of the western hemisphere.

This has everything to do with that little training island. That we told you about, a year or two ago. Where Hamas and Hezbollah are training people in Venezuela, just off the coast.

That's what this is about. This is to stop the infiltration of the Islamic radicals. In cahoots with Maduro. In Venezuela. That's what this is about.

And the Chinese are an extra added benefit. You know, don't believe the -- well, it's the drugs. If it was the drug thing, we would be going after Mexico.

I mean, not that that doesn't play a role. But it's only part of the story. And we've told you that. And now, you know, Trump authoring plans for the CIA. Yeah. We know that. You said that to us, long ago.

Now, at the same time that is happening, there was a video that was released from the Democrats. Now, these are Democrats that are currently, you know, in power.

Big name Democrats. And listen to what they're telling the troops and Intel officers. Listen to this.

VOICE: I'm Senator Alyssa Socket.

VOICE: Senator Mark Kelly.

VOICE: Representative Chris Deluzio.

VOICE: Congresswoman (inaudible).

VOICE: Representative Chrissy Houlahan.
VOICE: Congressman Jason Kraut. I was a captain in the United States Navy.

VOICE: Former CIA officer.

VOICE: Former Navy.

VOICE: Former paratrooper and Army Ranger.
VOICE: Former intelligence officer and former Air Force.

VOICE: We want to speak directly to members of the military.

VOICE: The intelligence community.
VOICE: Who take risks each day.

VOICE: To keep Americans safe.

VOICE: We know you are under enormous stress and pressure right now.

VOICE: Americans trust their military.

VOICE: But that trust is at risk.

VOICE: This administration is pitting our uniformed military.

VOICE: And intelligence community professionals.

VOICE: Against American citizens.

VOICE: Like us, you all swore an oath.

VOICE: To protect and defend this Constitution.

VOICE: Right now, the threats to our Constitution aren't just coming from abroad, but from right here at home.
VOICE: Our laws are clear: You can refuse illegal orders.

VOICE: You can refuse illegal orders.

VOICE: You must refuse illegal orders.

VOICE: No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution.

VOICE: We know this is hard. And that it's a till time to be a public servant.

VOICE: But whether you're serving in the CIA, the army, the Air Force.

VOICE: Your vigilance is critical.

VOICE: And know that we have your back.

VOICE: Because now, more than ever.
VOICE: The American people need you.

VOICE: We need to you stand up for our laws.

VOICE: Our Constitution. And who we are as Americans.
VOICE: Don't give up.
VOICE: Don't give up.
VOICE: Don't give up.
VOICE: Don't give up the ship.

GLENN: Hmm.

So I'm looking at this, and I'm thinking, I agree 100 percent with everything they just said. 100 percent.

My question is: Why are they saying?

What illegal orders?

And why now? Are you telling me that all of the stuff with USAID, all of the stuff that was going on with the FBI with our intelligence community. With Russia, Russia, Russia. All of that stuff was on the up and up? They had no concern about that?

When -- when Barack Obama was targeting US citizens to be droned.

US citizens to be droned. They had no problem with it?

And now all of a sudden, because of what? Venezuela?

Now, all of a sudden, they have a problem. No. I don't think so.

I think this is a -- this is the beginning of a campaign.

And again, all it does is sew seeds of doubt, not in the mind of the military.

Not in the mind -- well, maybe CIA. But I think CIA is off their own if territory, anyway.

This sows seeds of doubt in the mind of average Americans. They're now sewing seeds saying, Donald Trump is doing something unconstitutional with our military.

What is it?

Speak clearly. Don't say we're under pressure! Speak clearly.

What exactly is he doing that is unconstitutional, that they should -- that they should disobey. I would like to know what it is. Because all this is doing is undermining.

STU: Is it Venezuela?

Like, did they state --

GLENN: No. They didn't say that. No.

STU: Just generalized advice. Whatever you do -- don't -- like, that seems really sketchy. Because we were talking this a little bit off the air. That, like, there's a version of that, that is like treasonous. Right?

You're telling me, the military to not listen to the commander-in-chief. Now, I don't think that was the version of it, that is treasonous.

I think that was worded very carefully. And as you point out. I don't think anyone would disagree, that if there's something blatantly illegal, you shouldn't be doing it.

But I guess their idea is some of -- is that Venezuela.

Are they trying to encourage these people to not drone the ships.

What's the ask here?

GLENN: I don't know. They didn't mention -- I don't know. They're just sending out. That's why this seems so unbelievably calculated to cause chaos.

Because they're not sewing seeds in the doubt of the mind of the military. They are sewing the seeds of doubt in the mind of the US public.

This went out to everybody in the whole world.

And what it's sending is a message to the whole world.

Our president is so bad, that we in Congress, need to tell -- tell the military, do not obey him.

Well, can you be specific?

On what exactly? On what, exactly?

No. They -- they can't be specific. If you could be, I would have no problem.

If you came out with that message, and you said, look, we just want to restate the policy of the United States.

Whether the president is a Republican or a Democrat, you do not have to obey the commander of chief, if he is asking for things that are unconstitutional.

For instance, if he asks you to do X, Y, or Z.

They're not just talking about as well, as the military. What's intriguing to me is they're also including the CIA.

Who in their right mind today, thinks the CIA is under control?

Who in their right mind thinks the CIA is actually living within the Constitutional bounds. Because I don't. To a?

Do you know anybody who thinks that? Left or right?

Does anybody within the sound of my vice, thinks that the CIA is actually contained and living in its own little space, constitutionally, where it should be?

Does anyone actually believe that they answer to Congress?

Because I don't. Do you, Stu? Do you, Jason?

JASON: I -- I think the establishment of the CIA is actually anti-constitutional. To be perfectly honest, I don't think an organization like the CIA can operate within the bounds of disclosure, with, you know, letting Congress know everything that they're doing. It can't operate that way. So I think all too many times, they understand that. And they just do whatever the heck they want to do.

GLENN: Yeah. It's all black ops. It's all black ops stuff. And, you know, look at what -- where was this message when we found out from -- what was the guy who blew the whistle and went to Russia? What was his name?

STU: Snowden?

JASON: Snowden.

GLENN: Snowden. Where was this message with Snowden?

When that came out. Hey, if you're in the NSA, you're in the CIA, you can't be doing this stuff. So blow the whistle.

Where was that?

Where has this message been with any of the whistle-blowers have come out. Where was this with the whistle-blowers that were coming out today, about what the CIA has been doing. What the intelligence community has been involved in.

Where was this message?

This is not an honest message.

That's the problem with this. This is not an honest message. This is part of Colour Revolution. This is just, sew the seeds of doubt.

Make sure you are positioning the president as somebody who is so radical, and so unconstitutional. That they have to tell the military, not to obey his orders. Without any specifics, whatsoever.

That's pretty remarkable!

Because, again, I don't have a problem with saying that. We're one of the only countries. You do not answer to the president of the United States. You do not answer to your general.

You answer to the Constitution of the United States.

That's absolutely true!

So I have no problem with this message being taught. It should be taught by every single president. President!

But it's not. They have seen so many abuses under their rule, and now, all of a sudden, you get this?

Where -- where was this message when the president used the military as a prop? Behind him in the speech where it was blood red, and Biden was saying, these are enemies of the state!

You can't do that with the military. Where was this message, from anyone?

Hey. You cannot be used as a prop behind the president. You cannot do that.

I didn't hear anybody saying that. Because they don't have a problem with it.

If it's their side, they don't have a problem with it. I have a problem with it, on both sides. I want the military -- I want the military. Let me separate these.

I want the military to know. We have your back. If the president. Any president is ordering you to do things that are unconstitutional. Do not do them.

Do not do them. Blow the whistle and the American people should have your back. I know I will have your back.

To the -- to intelligence community, you better stop doing what you're doing.

Because I know the American people. And I don't know if you can be stopped. But I know the American people know that you're doing things that you should not be doing. And you're doing them under every president for God only knows how long.

Stop doing it. Because if we ever get into the position where we can stop you, we will.

And the American people will demand a trial for every single one of you that was breaking the Constitution.

Don't care who ordered you to do it.

It's your responsibility to say no.

And you haven't. You haven't.

Start saying no, to any president, any boss, anybody who is telling you to violate the US Constitution.

Don't do it. Don't do it!

But, but I don't think that's the reason why they're saying it.

JASON: No, and they know this. Because all of them are -- are -- are veterans of the military or the intelligence community. They know, and I've gone through these before. This is stating the obvious.

This is already taught within -- from the lowest enlistment ranks, all the way up to the top, you know, within officer school within the military. There are procedures, if you ever have an unlawful order, how to, you know -- you know, work through it. And report it.

GLENN: Stu, what do you think this is really about? What are they doing?

STU: It feels like it's about politics. Right? I mean, it feels like they are trying to build a case that the president is continually engaging in things that are illegal and unconstitutional. And like, you bring up Colour Revolution.

I think it's -- I think it's -- I think there's a political element to that. And I think they may very well be related. But if you think about -- it might be about Venezuela. But I don't think the American people really care about that story.

I don't know that that's necessarily healthy that we don't care about it. I think there are real questions about the process here. And how this all went down. I almost feel like it's more related to something like immigration enforcement.

Right? In the United States. And that's not. Because we've talked about the -- the military being involved in cracking down on cities. And -- and things of that nature. Where like, you know, we've talked about the questions around them. There are legitimate questions about how much can be done in that realm.

I wonder if they're trying to kind of set that precedent. This sort of tone, that the president is engaging in these things.

And slowly, over time, you can build to not only a political answer. Maybe the Colour Revolution angle. And also the chaos in the streets angle.

At some point, if you believe your president is doing unconstitutional things and forcing the military of the United States to engage in actions that are unconstitutional against the American people. Man, you're going to get a lot of people out on the streets for that one, if this thing were to be successful.

So I think that might be the path. Do you buy that?

GLENN: Yeah, I do. I just think that the main goal here is just to undermine credibility.

Undermine. Tear us apart even more. Undermine credibility, sow the sees of chaos once again.

Did the FBI scrub Thomas Crooks' DISTURBING past to keep us in the dark?

New reports have dropped linking failed Trump assassin Thomas Matthew Crooks to a multitude of online accounts, including some that were deep into the “furry” community. Glenn Beck asks, how did the FBI miss all of this when they insisted the Butler, PA, shooter didn’t have much online presence or a clear motive?! Or did they purposefully scrub this information from their reports to keep us in the dark?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So there's a couple of things that are in the news. That Thomas Matthew Crooks thing.

You know, this is crazy. Went by they/them. Furry. I don't even -- I've been thinking about this a lot in the last 24 hours. You know, the kid that tried to take out Donald Trump back in July in the Butler rally.

It's a year later, okay? November 17, 2025. These new reports are dropping bombshells. It is the 17th, isn't it? 18th. Sorry. The 18th. These -- these new reports are dropping over and over and over and over and over again.

And there are things that nobody mentioned in the official investigations.

Independent researchers now are using the same kind of digital forensic tools that the Feds have. And they're piecing together a bunch of old online accounts, tied directly to Crooks' email. His real email and his name.

And one of the biggest ones was on Deviant Art. Okay. That sounds great. User names like Epic Microwave and The Epic Microwave.

Okay. This site -- apparently, a huge hub for artists. But also, ground zero for the furry community.

Now, we're going to get into this a little later. Because Stu is a big furry. And he will go right into it.

Where he likes to --

STU: Furries are not that large actually. More moderate sized.

Okay. All right. Well, this is where people get into the anthropomorphic animal thing. And they turn animals into half humans. And it turns sexual. And I don't even know.

So, anyway, this kid was not casually browsing. He was deep in that subculture, we find out now.

So that's two high-profile attempted assassination cases, or one attempted and one actual assassination case. And they're both tied to the same thing.

And nobody seems to be worried about that.

Nobody is talking about that. Imagine if we had two. One attempted and one actual assassination. And it was Charlie Kirk and president Biden.

Okay.

Anybody. And they both were deep into the GlennBeck.com subculture. Do you think the media would be like, what's going on there? But this thing, nobody cares. Okay? And when I say nobody cares, it seems like our FBI doesn't care either. Our DOJ doesn't care. The Trump case specifically blows a hole into the mysterious lone wolf with no known motive. Wait. What?

Now, this wasn't -- this wasn't Patel pushing this. This was the -- the Biden FBI that was pushing this. Christopher Wray went to Congress. And shrugged. And said, you know, we can't find any ideology. Or any online trail that explains this. What!

It's right here! What are you talking about? It's right here!

Crooks had at least 17 accounts across discord, YouTube, Gab, Deviant Art, all of it. Easily tracked to him!

And as we told you last week, he started cheering for Trump. And then went a die hard, you know, 180-degree turn around in 2020.

And then he started echoing anti-Semitic, anti-immigration rants, calling for political assassinations, repeating Maoist lines like, "Power grows at the barrel of a gun," and even chatting with sketchy European extremists, Nazis, who are linked to a designated terrorist group. He posted violent threats under his real name for years. Now, listen to this. He also got flagged by other users, who literally tagged law enforcement in their reply! And nothing happened. Nothing happened. They didn't know who this guy was. They didn't search for him. They didn't question him. Nothing happened until he climbed on to the roof and started shooting at Donald Trump. Excuse me?

Do you believe that? Stu, do you believe that?

They have people online, tipping the FBI off, and they didn't even who know this guy was.

They had no idea who he was.

STU: I mean, it seems impossible to believe.

You have one stray comment, that is taken the wrong way online. And, you know, Secret Service is calling you up. I mean, we've -- I don't want to bring up.

GLENN: We've personally gone through this.

STU: Exactly. This same thing.

GLENN: We said. I said -- I said it on one show.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Something about Donald Trump.

STU: No. No. No. No. I'm not going to let you get away with that.

No. I want to make sure that it's clear what occurred on the show was you essentially threatening my life!

And I want people to know. Where no. I was going to say. Right. I was saying something about Donald Trump.

And then Stu got in, and I said --

STU: I said --

GLENN: I will choke you to death. Or something. Yeah. I just need to choke you to death.

And people in the audience said, I was threatening Donald Trump.

No, I was clearly threatening, and nobody called about poor Stu. I was clearly threatening Stu's life.

STU: Yeah, think about that when you're driving in your car right now. You didn't call! You heard it. And you let my life be threatened. And you didn't care at all.

GLENN: That's right.

STU: None of you cared. But apparently people care --

GLENN: That's why I love this audience.

That's right. So, anyway, so, anyway, the -- the -- secret service was with us two hours later. Okay?

STU: Rightfully so.

GLENN: Yeah. Rightfully so. And we have no problem with it. You know, we were talking to them. They were like, Mr. Beck, we know -- we listened to the tape, we know what happened. We just have to dot all the I's, cross all the T's, and just get a statement. And I'm like, no, not a problem.

I was threatening to kill him. And, you know, they laughed and went, yeah, we understand that. And they left!

Okay. That's the way I remember it.

This guy threatens to kill the president and others! People tag him to the FBI and to law enforcement. And they never check into him?

STU: And, Glenn, I think people can say, well, you know, the thing we're talking about did happen on a national radio show. A lot of people heard it.

Maybe some of the comments on, what is it? Deviant Art are not as well picked up. And that's probably true.

Though, we've seen --
GLENN: They've sent it to them. They've sent it to them.

STU: Right. We've seen tons of examples of people making offhanded statements where this has happened.

You know, not just a threat. Which would be serious enough. But constant threats. Dozens of them, it seems.

We're still, I feel learning about all the details about this. A lot of threats from a specific person.

And it doesn't seem like their argument is, it wasn't even on their radar! I mean, that's unbelievable! It's --

GLENN: Here's -- here's bare minimum.
Everyone should be fired. Everyone should be fired!

Not just the top person. Everyone should be fired. I'm sorry. You can reapply, but we're cleaning house.

Because this is inexcusable. Inexcusable. Now, here's the other thing that's inexcusable. None of this stuff about the threats. None of the radicalization. None of the violent posts. None of the furry gender stuff even made it into the big congressional report that dropped December 2024.

None of this!

It was like they scrubbed the kid clean to keep the public in the dark. Let me say that again. It's like they scrubbed the kid clean, to keep the public in the dark.

Hmm. Let me go to the comment about -- from President Trump yesterday. We played it in the news a few minutes ago.

Where he was talking about the Epstein case. Listen to this.

DONALD: We have nothing to do with Epstein the Democrats do. All of his friends were Democrats. You look at this Reid Hoffmann. You look at Larry Summers. Bill Clinton. They went to his island all the time. And many of this, all Democrats.

All I want is I want for people to recognize the great job that I've done on pricing, on affordability, because we brought prices went way lower. On energy. On ending eight wars, and another one coming pretty soon, I believe.

We've done a great job. And I hate to see that deflect from the great job we've done. So I'm all for -- you know, we have given 50,000 pages. You do know that.

Unfortunately, like with the Kennedy situation, with the Martin Luther King situation, not to put Jeffrey Epstein in the same category, but no matter what we give, it's never enough. You know, with Kennedy, we gave everything, and it wasn't enough. With Martin Luther King, we gave everything, and it's never enough.

We've already given, I believe the number is 50,000 pages! 50,000 pages. And it's just a Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia hoax as it pertains to the Republicans.

GLENN: Okay. Stop. So why?

Why is it never enough? Why is it never enough?

Because the government has lied to us, over and over and over and over and over and over again.

Why is it never enough? Because what the hell happened here with this guy? What happened with these two shooters, and you're not telling us about the, you know, role-playing as a buff cartoon fox/wolf hybrid with they/them pronouns. And then being groomed by foreign edge lords, quoting Mao and terrorist manifestos. And then going out and trying to shoot somebody.

You don't mention that!

Yeah. That's why we don't believe the government. And until the government becomes fully clean, immediately, on everything, just, you know what, here it is.

Here it is!

Nobody is going to believe it. Now, what does this say about our kids. We have a whole generation now growing up the blued to these hyper niche, unmoderated corners of the internet, with fantasy and porn and identity confusion and hard-core political extremism. And all of it, just smashed together into one stream.

What do you think is going to happen? Family, school, real interactions with family. Real life friends. They don't touch these spaces.

You know, how's -- I feel weird about my body morph into, I need to commit mass violence against the world.

I mean, this is the five alarm tire. When you have two political assassinations. Two of them!

That trace back to the exact same subculture, you've got a real problem!

It's not like every furry is dangerous. Well, I know. I question every furry.

I mean, I don't even know what -- anyway!

There is some sort of radicalization pipeline that is happening. And we're raising our kids in digital petri dishes. Where mental illness and sexual confusion and violent ideology is all growing together!

And then we act shocked when one of our kids grab a rifle. America, wake up! Stop pretending this stuff is just a harmless little quirk. You know, or live and let live. Or we're just going to keep burying victims one after thorough. Parents and schools and tech companies. Law enforcement. Everybody dropped the ball on crooks.

For years! Red flags were out there, screaming about this guy.

And nobody in the government did anything. Nobody in law enforcement did anything? How many of our kids have to climb roofs, before we admit these dark corners of the internet are producing real monsters.

How many? How many?

And this is only the beginning of it.