RADIODecember 13, 2023

Is THIS why Harvard PROTECTED President Gay from plagiarism scandal?

The Harvard board has promised to let Harvard president Claudine Gay keep her job, despite multiple scandals. On one hand, she has been criticized for failing to say that calls for Jewish genocide violate Harvard's policies. And then, there's her plagiarism scandal. But is this just a random attack dug up by conservatives trying to take her down? Washington Free Beacon staff writer Aaron Sibarium joins Glenn to explain why this is not the case at all. Harvard has known about President Gay's plagiarism scandal for months — and even hired "the best defamation law firm in the country" to try and shut the media's reporting efforts down. But why go through all this trouble to protect her? Aaron explains his theory and also breaks down why these alleged instances of plagiarism are so serious.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: There's a couple of things going on with -- with a woman that runs Harv

And one of them is, hey. I have to have a room with -- with color crayons. And comic books, so you can read a comic book, and then, you know, color a happy tree. Because you feel like you're being, you know -- you have microaggressions all around you.

Stopping free speech everywhere, unless you're calling for, you know, the death of Jews.

Then, I guess, hey.

You know, free speech.

It's crazy!

But there's something else that has now been brought up, that I think people knew about in the Harvard world.

But didn't say anything.

And that is the fact that its president Claudine Gay, broke Harvard's own code of conduct on plagiarism.

And it's a pretty significant amount of plagiarism.

Including her doctoral dissertation.

Parts of it were wholly plagiarized.

And she never credited anybody.

Now, here's why this matters: You plagiarize something. I don't really care.

You plagiarize something in a book. And claim it's yours.

Okay. I care. Because that's stealing from somebody else. You plagiarize in a university. Well, you're setting the standards, and trying to hold those standards of academic excellence and honesty. And if the person who is at the top is known to have plagiarized. How do you tell the students, we're going to kick you out?

This has nothing to do with her testimony, but it has everything to do with how corrupt our -- our universities are. How morally corrupt they are.

We have Aaron Sibarium on with us now.

He wrote a great piece for the Washington free beacon. And we wanted to talk to him about this.

You went to Yale. And you were the editor of the Yale Daily News. So you know something about Ivy League, and plagiarism.

Not really celebrated, is it?

AARON: No, Glenn. It is not. It is not celebrated. And, in fact, I would say that generally, at you all of these standards to get a lecture thing, it doesn't matter how small. It doesn't matter if it's unintentional. Even if you do it with the best intentions, it's still a serious problem. You should double-check your work to make sure absolutely nothing is plagiarized. That is what Harvard tells the students in a very long document that outlines its policy very clearly. It's no fewer than five times indicates that intent is irrelevant. Any language or even just ideas or content from someone else, and don't cite them, it's plagiarism. And according to the letter of the Harvard plagiarism policies, A, they clearly violated them.

GLENN: Yeah, and like significant.

I mean, you in your article go threw it. We don't have to go threw it here. But it's significant. Why does this matter?

AARON: Well, look, people do make mistakes.

And if this were -- if this was what we found out of a corpus of, say, a hundred or 200 peer-reviewed papers, one of which had won a noble prize. He might say, okay. A few paragraphs here or a there. It's the overall content. It's not such a big deal.

I think it's worth emphasizing that she had published in total, 11 peer-reviewed articles. Eleven in the past two decades. That is a really, really small number for any academic I think at a prestigious university. But especially for the academic that the university chooses to elevate to its position.

So you're not talking about a few instances of maybe perilous citations or plagiarism. How to have 100 papers. You're talking about it out of 11 papers. Right?

So we found -- so there have been, you know, 11 peer-reviewed articles. Two of them. We found examples of plagiarism.

Then a dissertation. Then another thing that she wrote. That is in another peer-reviewed journal.

So this starts to amount to a pretty substantial percentage of her academic output. That contained at least some plagiarized material.

So as a percentage thing, I think it's not actually the best way to look at it.

It's not just a couple mistakes here or there. It seems to be a pattern. And a pattern that is fairly consistent throughout two decades of relatively meager scholarly output. Meager scholarly output.

GLENN: So this is not anything new. It's my understanding it's kind of been known and kicked around for a while, but just kept quiet and didn't matter. Is that true?

AARON: Well, yeah, it appears to be true. Because just last night, the New York Post reported that they had many of these examples, confronted Harvard with them. All the way back in October. And Harvard claimed, oh, we addressed this promptly. As soon as it was brought to our attention, we initiated the review. And Dr. Gay requested corrections.

Well, what the Harvard corporation didn't mention is that apparently, they intimidated and maybe even threatened to sue the New York Post for defamation after the New York Post reached out for comment.

So Harvard apparently took this seriously enough, that they thought it was worth hiring the best defamation law firm in the country. God knows how much they were paying them, to send a 15-page intimidation letter. To journalists who were coming to them. For examples of plagiarism.

Clearly, they thought it was worth pulling out the big bucks.

Shelling out a lot of money.

To shut this down. And that was all the way back in October.

GLENN: So why would they do this? To protect -- I mean, why?

AARON: I think that Claudine Gay is an emblematic of the -- of the kind of DEI ideology that is -- that is at Harvard.

You know, some people have focused on her race and gender. And I'm sure, they don't want the -- of firing, yeah, of course.

But I actually think it's more than that. It's that she -- she kind of represents the ideology they already subscribe to, and they don't want the ideology discredited.

And also, I think they haven't gotten as much attention.

She was a very shrewd political operator before she became president. She was sort at the center of a lot of cancellations, right? She helped engineer the bureaucratic administration of votes. The Israeli famous (inaudible) at Harvard. And she helped also strip Ronald Sullivan, Harvard law professor from the administrative post, after Sullivan meets the decision to serve on Harvey Weinstein's defense team. He can't defend the unpopular. That's no longer allowed.

So she -- you know, I think had a -- had a pattern of rewarding friends and punishing enemies. And sort of maneuvered the administration and bureaucratic apparatus, Harvard, around her.

Very strictly. That's a part of how she became president.

And I think that that background may be part of why they're so unwilling to let her go.

The whole kind of institution having some sense been mobilized around her. Kind of put all the places in place.

GLENN: Right. Does it play any role, that her first cousin is Roxanne Gay. Who is a feminist author and New York Times writer, who is absolutely -- absolutely a terrible human being.

AARON: Yeah, honestly, I don't know if that really -- I think they would view this with just about anyone in her position, anyone in her position, anyone with her ideology.

GLENN: Position.

AARON: I mean, and I would say, too, right? They've obviously been under pressure from donors. But they're also under pressure from their own faculty and students. And, you know, you mentioned the -- the testimony she gave where she put in forthrightly -- condemned calls for the genocide of Jews. I think part of the issue is that she couldn't really go up there and say, yeah. We support free speech in all cases. And, in fact, yes, even if you want to call for the genocide of other groups, we will protect that. Because we're so principled.

A, because it wouldn't be true. I mean, we all know it's not true.

And, B, if she would have said that, student activists would have come and tried to burn her house down.

GLENN: Right.

AARON: So they really -- to be fair to her, she is kind of in a rock and a hard place. And no matter what she does, or what Harvard does, some constituency is going to throw a fit.

GLENN: Well, I have to tell you, I do not want to see harm come to anybody. But, gee, if you get nailed by your own policies and your life is tough because you shoveled this poison, and now that poison is coming back to haunt you, you know, I have a hard time. Again, with nobody being hurt, I have a really hard time giving any sympathy to her at all.

AARON: Yeah.

GLENN: Thank you so much. One last question, is this an issue outside of her?

Should this be an issue outside of her testimony?

In other words, is this just being brought up, because there's a mob brought up on the other side, that is saying, hey, she should be fired for this.

Is this a real issue, beyond the anti-Semitism stuff?

AARON: Obviously, anti-Semitism stuff increased scrutiny on her. It would be silly to deny that. But I'm thinking what would be an issue, you know, this -- the plagiarism, isn't quite as severe as -- it's not like data fraud.

Right? There's a guy at Stanford, right? Stepped down amid allegations of data fraud. And that was really curious, right? On its own terms.

I think this would be a scandal on its own. The anti-Semitism stuff, obviously amplifies it and makes it worse.

But, again, I think the real context here is them meager, scholarly record. Right?

Again, I really don't think people would care. I wouldn't care all that much if we had found this and it was in the context of like 200 brilliant peer-reviewed papers. That's not the context.

And I think what it underscores, this woman was clearly not chosen for her scholarly manner.

If that was the criterion, they had a lot of other candidates at Harvard, would have been better.

GLENN: Thank you so much. I appreciate it. Appreciate all your work and all your writing. God bless.

AARON: Thank you.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

Jeffrey Epstein's SHOCKING connections to intelligence agencies | The Glenn Beck Podcast REPLAY

Journalist Whitney Webb has worked to uncover some of the most dangerous stories of our lifetime, and she joins Glenn to reveal just how eye-opening it’s been. Her new two-volume book, “One Nation Under Blackmail: The Sordid Union Between Intelligence and Crime that Gave Rise to Jeffrey Epstein,” examines Epstein’s elaborate network of corruption and power, from Bill Clinton to Ghislaine Maxwell and many more. Her research into transhumanism has given her a terrifying perspective on the World Economic Forum and tech elites, including Elon Musk. And she tells Glenn the dark truth about Biden’s push for electric vehicles that she noticed while living in Chile.

Watch Glenn Beck's FULL Interview with Whitney Webb HERE

$13.8 TRILLION in interest ALONE: Can America survive this debt bomb?

The United States is facing possibly the largest debt crisis in our history as our national debt rises faster and faster. Glenn Beck warns: is our bankruptcy inevitable? Plus, Glenn and Stu discuss the recent protest during an ICE raid on a farm in California.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Now, here's another thing. And I will hit this once.

Because it's a little -- it's a little overwhelming.

But I just think you should know it.

Since the dead ceiling was raised on July 3rd. July 3rd.

The US debt is up $410 billion.

Just in the first two days.

Let me say that again.

We raised the debt ceiling. And the US debt goes up 410 billion, almost half of a trillion dollars in two days!

Now, this comes after the US Treasury ended extraordinary measures, raising the debt ceiling by 5 trillion.

We are in the midst of the US' largest crisis.

Largest one ever. Now, listen to this.

After hitting the debt limit of $36.1 trillion in January of 2025, Treasury began extraordinary measures to conserve cash. Last week, when Trump's big, beautiful bill was signed into law. The debt ceiling from 36.1 to $41.1 trillion. And what happened?

In two days, up 410 billion. Raised due to a technical process.

Now, Stu, I don't want to get all technical here. But I think that -- that the debt ceiling going up, and then us spending an additional $410 billion. I think that technical process. And, again, if I'm too wonky, maybe you can explain it, is out of control politicians that are just spending too much.

But maybe that's just me. Is that too technical. Is that too wonky, to get to?

STU: Yeah. You're in nerd world with that one, Glenn. People aren't going to understand it.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

So they were just -- they were just doing what you do, when you don't have the money. They were just moving bills around. And paying what they absolutely had to. Until the debt ceiling was raised.

And then when they did, they were like woo. Because we were completely out of money.

Now we can print some more. Now we're free to borrow a record 41.1 trillion dollars in debt.

Now, here's the part that kind of opens your eyes. To put this into perspective, at the start of 2020, the US had $23.2 trillion in at the time. In 2020, $23.2 trillion.

Where are we now?

Well, we just moved that debt ceiling up to 41 trillion, because we're at $36.1 trillion.

With the new limit, we will mark $17.9 trillion increase, since 2020. That's a 77 percent increase in our debt. Have you thought of it this way?

At our current pace, we will reach the new debt ceiling much sooner than expected.

The treasury posted a 316 billion-dollar deficit in May. That's the third largest in record.

For the first eight months of 2025, the budget gap hit $1.3 trillion. The third largest in history.

Over the last 12 months. The US borrowed 1.9 trillion.

Or 158 billion, every month.

That is half -- this is half of the May levels.

But let's take 158 billion to be conserve.

US current debt stands at 36.6.

We are 4.5 trillion below the limit now.

At our current pace, it will take us 28 months, to hit that limit.

STU: Jeez.

GLENN: In fact, the debt ceiling crisis. It looks like it will hit us now, every two years. The debt ceiling is hit faster than it can be moved. From June 2023 and October 2021, we're the last debt ceiling crisis. The US budget deficit has averaged 9 percent of GDP over the last five years.

But over the last 12 months, the budget gap has hit 7 percent of GDP. That is higher than during 2001, or any of the 1980 recessions.

We now spend 7.1 trillion dollars, 24 percent of our GDP. We have a spending problem.
That's our problem. We are issuing so much debt now, bond prices are falling. And yields are rising. What does that mean? It means, we're charging less, and we're paying out more in interest. That's not going to help us!

The US spent a record of $1.2 trillion on interest expense alone.

That's more than the total spending on defense. Medicaid, and the veterans program.

At our current pace, we're set to see US cost exceed $2 trillion within a matter of years!

Over the next ten years, the US is projected to pay $13.8 trillion just in interest.

For interest alone. This is not taxpayers. This is per person in the United States.

For interest alone, we are now on the hook for $40,500 per person, just for the interest!

This is four times Social Security cash deficit in the next ten years.

Five times the cost of 403 US weather and climate disasters. Since 1980.

403, weather and climate disasters.

It's the cost of 403 of those! Sorry.

It's the -- it's five times the cost of those, since 1980! I just wanted to -- I mean, just want to start there. Wake up to your situation.

People are arguing about all of the wrong things right now, and they are -- we think we are skating. And we think that this can last forever. It's not going to last forever, and then you add things on top of this.

Like, what is happening with -- with ICE?

I don't know if you saw the video of the protesters. Some protester that was firing some sort of a weapon, at a federal agent during the ICE raid at a farm in California. Let me play this. Cut two, please. This is the raid --

VOICE: Take a look at this video right here. It appears a protestor fired some kind of gun at federal agents. This happened this afternoon.

It was a really chaotic scene at the time.
A lot of smoking was being launched at the protesters. Again, it appears that a protestor fired back with that weapon.

It looks like he fired at least a couple of times. We've not heard about any agents being hurt.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: So we are entering a very violent. Very, very violent time. First of all, let me talk about this particular raid. This was at a legal pot farm!

Okay. I think we can probably in the past, just done an hour on that. You know, oh, it's a legal pot farm.

Okay. Forget about that. That's not a problem apparently anymore.

It's being tended, this legal pot farm is being tended by illegals. That are coming across the border.

Well, we don't want to hurt our farming community.

I don't think of our farming community, as pot farms. But maybe that's just me.

Again, why get -- why get down in those details?

STU: Yeah. Glenn, this is just an existential question here.

But is it a legal pot farm, if the workers are illegal?

GLENN: Stu. Stu, again, that would be hour two of any past show that we have ever done together.

STU: Okay. All right.

GLENN: All right. So they go in, and they're trying to bust the illegals.

All right. What happens? Well, there starts to be protests. These protests come.

They start firing at ICE.

ICE has to put tear gas down.

Now the illegals are running to save themselves.

But who is running amongst this crowd?

Apparently, a bunch of children.

Now, I suppose those legal pot farms are providing a good education for those kids.

You know, probably has a pot farm day care center for those kids. So they can be out of the fields. And of course not working for their parents. Because that would be underage labor. You wouldn't want that to happen in America.

You know, all these people that have these bleeding hearts. Like, oh, this is just so wrong.

You're not even thinking anymore.

You're not even thinking.

You just see a video where you have kids running with their parents. Children running from the fields of this pot farm.

What were they doing there?

Certainly, that wasn't underage labor, was that?

Because you would be against that.

Wouldn't you?

Or are you?

Or are you only against that, if it's white children?

I'm not sure. I'm confused.

So you have the underage children. And these bleeding hearts, who are saying, we have to let these people go.

We have to let them just do what they do!

Really? You mean work in the shadows?

You mean engage in possible child labor? Okay. Possibly making, what?

A dollar an hour. Yeah. No, no, no. That's really, really, really good.

Then let's just let these protesters, and they're not protesters.

They are terrorists now.

We just let these terrorists get away with firing guns at our -- at our ICE agents. Things are changing in America. Let's just look at the violence, just in the last couple of weeks.

You have the July 4th ICE ambush, which is what?

ICE 25 miles outside of the city of Dallas. They have a detention center.

A coordinated well-planned attack.

Guy is covered in black. You know, in -- in military gear. They come and they start shooting fireworks at the detention center. Then a few of them break off, and they start spray painting the cars. Which brings unarmed ICE agents out of the building, to try to stop them from defacing the -- the cars.

They're unarmed. Well, this group has snipers in the woods. Hiding in the woods.

As soon as those unarmed agents come out, they start shooting them. Shot one of them in the neck. Thank God, he's still alive. What do you call that?

What do you call that? A Revolutionary War. Terrorism. It's certainly not a peaceful protest. Neither was it yesterday.

And, meanwhile, we have Congressmen who are actually trying to pass a bill in Congress right now, saying that the ICE members can't wear masks.

Well, you know what, when your bad guys stop wearing masks. When your people who are on the -- on the college campuses stop wearing masks, maybe we can live in a community and live in a society where our police officers don't have to wear masks.

Don't give me this. That's gets appear zero stuff.

By the way, the gestapo never wore masks.

They didn't care.

This is the kind of stuff that you see in the third world countries.

You mean like riots on the streets?

Yeah. It's stuff you see in third world countries. And you're dragging us into a third world country.

And, you know what, it's just -- it's -- it's time!

It's time. It's just time to say, enough is enough. And I'm not saying take extraordinary measures.

I'm saying, can our US government, our FBI, our department of justice stop acting like every Bond villain I've ever seen.

And here's what I mean by that. It's like you take these guys off the street, and then you strap them on to a table. And you say, the laser is going to cut your head in half.

No. It's not going to. We all know it's not going to.

Can we stop acting like Bond villains? Can we actually take care of the problem?

Actually arrest these people. Try them. And put them in jail.

We need to start setting a few examples. Otherwise, this is going to ton spiral out of control.

Will the Deep State let former CIA director John Brennan go to JAIL?

The FBI has opened a criminal investigation against former CIA Director John Brennan. But will Americans finally see justice for his alleged crimes and cover-ups? Or will the Deep State protect him? Former Department of Defense intelligence analyst Jason Buttrill joins Glenn Beck to give his prediction.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Let's bring in Jason Buttrill who is our chief researcher on the program.

You know, I'm reading a lot about John Brennan, and, you know, I think everybody knows he's a bad guy.

Well, everybody, but MSNBC and CNN.

They know he's a bad guy. But, you know, Jason, as I was starting to really refresh my memory. And look into Brennan, as we're -- it looks like maybe the Department of Justice is going to take him on.

And maybe prosecute him for some pretty bad perjury. I started looking into him, and I didn't realize. I had completely forgotten.

He was the guy who was the main guy that was pushing for torture, during the war.

I mean, he couldn't torture enough people.
And then he actually had a little group that would meet with the president, and they would develop the kill list. Do you remember, Stu?

Talking about the kill list, that Obama was doing? You know, every week. They developed a kill list. And everybody was like, what do you mean a kill list? Who is on the kill list?

It was John Brennan who was doing all of that stuff. He's a really, really dark dude. And, you know, hopefully we'll actually send him to jail for the things that he allegedly has done, besides, you know, develop the kill list. Jason, welcome to the program.

JASON: Hey, thanks, Glenn. I don't -- you know, it depends on -- I don't know. John Brennan has been one of the most slippery, I don't know how to describe him.

Whether it's like Bond villains. Or actually maybe it's more accurate to kill him like a Batman villain.

You remember like in Batman. You know if like the Joker is connected and remains in that comment or cartoon, or if it's the Penguin.

You know at the end of the comic, they're going to get away.

You will just see them in a slide. You know, all of a sudden in page where they slip away. They have to live again. You know, to the villain in another comic book.

GLENN: Oh, I know.

Yeah, I know.

And we are playing the role of a -- of a -- of a Bond villain as well, when it comes to justice.

Our DOJ is like, oh. And we have sharks that are going to eat you.

We have strapped you to this table. But they are going to start with your shoestrings. And then, we will leave. But before you know it, you will be dead in the belly of a shark. And they're not going to -- it's not going to kill them.

Just shoot them in the head. What are you doing?

Stop with the shark thing. That's what our DOJ is like. They just have these guys get away with murder.

JASON: Yeah. As you point out, with Brennan, it goes way, way back.

He was -- as you outlined. He was one of the guys that were right at the center of the enhanced interrogation, or torture controversy.

He -- he always said, hey, I was not in the enhanced interrogation techniques, air quoted, program.

But he was one of the guys, that was defending transferring some of the suspects, the country, where, you know, the rules are a lot less, you know, strict than they are here in the United States.

Where you can employ some of these.

Yeah. It goes beyond that.

He actually withdrew his name. You know, from being in the BCI director because of this.

But like any fat man villain or Bond villain, if he decides to run again, and he's confirmed by a massive amount. He just keeps on slipping through.

GLENN: Well, how does he get -- let me ask you: How do you think he gets this power?
Because he just keeps slipping through.

And, you know, if I remember right, it was Dianne Feinstein that -- that actually came at him, and said, you and the CIA are spying on the committee in -- in the Senate.

And they were investigating the torture, or enhanced interrogation. And he was knee-deep. Maybe neck-deep in that. And he said, we're not spying -- the CIA would never do that.

It's just unthinkable. Well, it turns out, yes. They were spying.

And then he never -- they never pushed for any kind of penalty on him.

He said, well, I'm going to find out, who did this.

And then they will pay.

Nobody paid. Nobody. Nothing. Does he have stuff on -- on members of the Senate and the House? Is that what -- is that what's happening here? How does he keep getting away with this?

Understanding John Brennan, in my opinion is understanding how the Deep State operates.

That example that you just put out there, with spying on the intelligence committee.

Deny. Deny. Deny.

Later it comes out, Glenn. That five CIA employees. Five, improperly accessed.

Five!

And then finally after a while. Like months later. He's apologizing to the Senate intelligence committee.

You know, all, but admitting this happened.

But no resignations.

No prosecutions. This goes on and on and on.

STU: Hang on.

And then on that same case, five years later, he writes his -- you know, his biography.

And he talks about how none of that happened.

So he admits it.

First, he denies it.

Then he's caught. Then he admits it.

He says, I will take care of it.

Nothing happens. Time goes by.

And then he writes a book. And then he goes, all of that. None of that happened.

That was all wrong. This guy is just --

JASON: Yeah. It really is.

And it's the same with the Steele dossier.

You know, did think it in front of Congress.

And then later, now we're coming out. Now we can see that he totally -- it appears like he was just completely lying.

Now we're trying to figure out what about he told John Durham. Because maybe they can get him for saying the same statements to John Durham. If they can, then maybe we can go after him.

But I really don't know.

I really don't know if the audience wants to hear this right now.

I don't know if it will make a difference.

This is how the Deep State operates.

To understand it, and understand John Brennan.

You understand, the executives don't control Deep State apparatuses. That's not how it works.

You have multiple people, and people that were under John Brennan and the CIA, are still there. They're still there.

The Deep State controls the Deep State apparatus, not the executive. Not Congress.

None of them. It is the shady individuals that continue to get away with things. We catch them in lies that never really matters.

I think if we could actually get some justice on this, that John Brennan could actually get -- you know, outed publicly, that he had in the past. This time, something actually happened. That I think that would be a huge step forward in getting rid of some of these people. That just linger. And secretly pull strings, while we're demanding I couldn't wait.

STU: So tell me what happened with the -- the ICA.

You know, the new report out, about the intelligence community assessment.

What is this story all about?

JASON: Yeah, it's a trade craft. The CIA trade craft review.

GLENN: What does that mean?

A trade craft review?

JASON: It's kind of a sexy way of juts saying, how did we operate, you know, from this time, to this time period?

GLENN: Okay.

JASON: And it points out, you know, how things -- like I said. It points out, in part of it. How things like the Steele dossier, ended up getting included into the, you know, whole Russia gate scandal.

And it looks very, very clear, that -- you know, that should not have -- unverified intelligence should not have gotten as far as the president's desk?

It should not have done it.

Even if it had, then it should have been heavily caveated showing, that this is just opposition research bullcrap.

Well, it didn't.

And if you look at it, very, very physically. It shows that if you are, let's say a Bond villain. Or a Batman villain. And you really, really want this damaging information, that's just opposition research, to somehow make it into the hull of the White House. And then knowing that that's going to get leaked down to the media.

They have perfected, you know, the CIA perfected this kind of operation. They know exactly what they're doing. Who would be responsible for doing it?

Why would they be doing it? And it would be for election interference.

And then that's allegedly what John Brennan was actually doing.

That's what it looks like he was doing.

Now we have the intelligence community assessment, showing that this is what happened. With that information and with now being able to go back to people like John Durham or looking at exactly what statements were made to him. So we can fit them into the statute of limitations. Or before it runs out.

GLENN: Which is in the middle of August.

Which really pisses me off. It's another thing like the -- the debt ceiling. Oh! You know, we've had all these years to fix it. But now we have to fix it tonight, and then it's never fixed.

I mean, I'm telling you, this is -- this is not going to be good!

You know, this -- this Epstein thing is not going to go away. It's just not going to go away.

And I'm sorry, but I think the president is on the wrong side on this.

And I'm not assigning any kind of reason for it, but he wants it to just go away.

And I have my belief, I expressed them yesterday.

It's about Intel, again. But you can't keep stacking these things up. You just can't.

John Brennan is a known bad guy, Russiagate. You would think that Donald Trump would be all over this. Because it affected his life so much. This guy is a very, very bad guy.

And both sides of the aisle know it.

And for some reason, nobody can ever do anything about John Brennan. He's got to be investigated and prosecuted if that's where the evidence leads.

But you can't just walk -- if the statute of limitations runs out on this guy, I think -- I think you've got another chink in the armor. A big one!

JASON: Yeah. Yeah. And not just him. I mean, I would go a lot further and say, who were the people that were directly underneath him?

Who were his subordinates? Who were their subordinates?

How many people had knowledge of this?

What we're really talking about is how it operates.

This is how things happen, outside of the wishes of the president.

You know, the executive or even Congress.

This is how -- you know, this is how outside.

This is how justice and how operations work, you know, from people who are not elected.

People that we did not give a mandate to.

This is how this operates. You have to root out every single one of them.

Identify them.

Have them stand in front of justice and see if we can just finally start to will this thing away.

If we do not, then the future does not look great for what we want for this country.

GLENN: Oh, and it's everywhere.

You know, Kevin O'Conner. He's the White House physician for Biden. The testimony that he gave, well, fine. You know, give him -- give him immunity. Give him immunity.

I don't want to know about the private conversations, you know, about his health.

Although, I do think that is really important. We're talking about the president of the United States. He's not just a private citizen. He's property. You know, the president can't say -- if the Secret Service says, sir, you're not going into that room.

The president no longer has the right to say, I'm going into that room.

Sorry, while you're prosecute. It's almost F you're property of the United States of America. And control over your own person in many ways. I'm sorry. But, you know, the physician, client. Or physician patient confidential, I'm not sure that exists, when you're president of the United States.

But there's no reason why you shouldn't give this guy immunity, and then say, okay. Who said, what?

Were you ever told to lie?

I'm not sure you will get the truth out of this guy. Because he is a -- he is a Biden guy, through and through. But people should start going to jail on that.

I'm so sick and tired of these investigations, that start to show promise and then nothing happens. Nothing.

It's been 20 years of investigations, and no one goes to jail.

It's been 20 years of riots on the streets. You know, people burning cities down. People, you know, looting stores. Destroying our economy.

Destroying the safety in our city. And no one goes to jail. President Trump has got to start sending some big, big messages. And he is on so many fronts.

But this one cannot escape his view.

He's got to be on this one.

All right. Jason, thank you very much.

Are fired USAID workers plotting REGIME CHANGE in America?!

Glenn Beck reviews a potentially terrifying story: some former USAID workers, who were fired under Trump, may be planning to use their color revolution tactics to “undermine Trump’s power” and plot regime change. Also, former Department of Defense intelligence analyst Jason Buttrill joins to discuss how the ambush at a Texas ICE detention facility looked eerily similar to what he saw while fighting in Afghanistan.