The Glenn Beck Program - Best of the Program | Guest: Jason Buttrill | 11/15/19

Episode Date: November 15, 2019

Former ambassador Marie Yovanovitch testifies before Congress. Republicans can’t ask about Hunter Biden, Burisma, or other “debunked conspiracy theories,” but the Democrats can. Yovanovitch said Lutsenko retracted his “do not prosecute” statement, but we know that’s a LIE! All the focus is on how Trump hurt her feelings. Head researcher and writer Jason Buttrill lays out what Republicans should bring up: How was Shokin corrupt? The head of your Anti-Corruption Bureau meddled in the 2016 election! And a Fox News guest is being called anti-Semitic for bringing up George Soros. But we have proof all he said was true! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hey, it's Friday. Let me say that again. Oh, it's Friday. And the podcast today is really, really good. It's the impeachment hearings. We will show you in real time how the ambassador was lying, quite honestly, or just so unbelievably incompetent that she just didn't know all these things were going on around her. You'll have to decide. The circus continues today.

Also, Stu and I have shook hands on a car race. Sure, that's going to end well. Oh, yeah. Neither of us are race car drivers, but, you know, we both got our backup in the heat of the moment and decided, oh, really, I can, I'll race you, I'll beat you. And so we're, I think we're committed now. It's also pretty much how every world war starts. Yes, it is. It is.

We might run over an archduke. at some point. All right, all on today's podcast, you're going to love it. Here it is. The best of the men. The only thing that we know happened with Giuliani is that these guys introduced him to the two prosecutor generals because the prosecutor generals were desperate to get this information to America, to somebody who would listen.

And so they said, hey, we have the proof. The prosecutor generals, they want to get. And he said, well, can you line up a meeting? meeting with me. And so it was that guy, those two guys that are bad news, that put Rudy Giuliani in touch with the Biden, I've got to fire prosecutor general, and the Biden, oh, this is the good guy, prosecutor general. Those two had several meetings with Rudy Giuliani. And that's where he got all this information. And it is interesting that both the person that Biden wanted to replace initially and the person that Biden replaced them with,

both of them now are still saying things that are very critical of the storyline the Democrats are presenting. Correct. Both of them. Mm-hmm. You think normally, in a normal story, that would be a pretty big deal. Mm-hmm. Right?

Like when you have the person that Biden's basically hand shows to put in there as the good guy, and that guy is not agreeing with the left-way storyline here. No, but they've turned. They've turned because they just want to keep their job. They don't have jobs. I mean, there is this thing where basically, because there is so much corruption in this country, they can kind of just say, well, I mean, we just, we picked another person. We thought they were good and they were corrupt too. Yeah.

And it's like, well, that is believable at some level in Ukraine because seemingly anyone who goes within 100 miles of Ukraine turns into Mr. Corruption. Yes. Which brings us back to the ambassador Yovanovitch, who is more. more than 100 yards closer to Ukraine. She was actually in Ukraine. She is the key. Let's take Devin Nunes here and his opening statement real quick.

Yeah, it's coming up here. Coming up in just a second, they're getting ready to introduce the ambassador who is going to testify. And she's the one who was coordinating with, the ambassador in the United States for Ukraine to get information back and forth about Donald Trump and the last campaign. Everything that America thought they were going to find on Donald Trump in Russia, it's right here. I'm curious.

I mean, Schiff is finishing up and here comes Nunez. Does anyone think Schiff is good at this? Schiff? Yeah. Oh, I think he's horrible. Here's Nunez. The Democrats' day-long TV spectacles. Instead of solving the problems, we were all sent to watch.

Washington to address. We now have a major trade agreement with Canada and Mexico ready for approval, a deal that would create jobs and boost our economy. Meanwhile, we have not yet approved funding for the government, which expires next week, along with funding for our men and women in uniform. Instead, the Democrats have convened us once again to advance their operation to topple a duly elected president. I'll note that five, five Democrats on this committee had already voted to impeach this president before the Trump Zelensky phone call occurred. In fact, Democrats have been vowing to oust President Trump since the day he was elected. So Americans can rightly suspect that his phone call with President Zelensky was used as an excuse for the Democrats to fulfill

their Watergate fantasies. But I'm glad that on Wednesday, after the Democrats staged six weeks of secret depositions in the basement of the Capitol, like some kind of strange cult, the American people finally got to see this farce for themselves.

They saw a sit-through hours of hearsay testimony about conversations that two diplomats who had never spoken to the president heard second-hand, third-hand, and fourth-hand, other people. That's literally what they were testifying on. Rumors.

Hear say. The problem of trying to overthrow a president based on this type of evidence is obvious. But that's what their whole case relies on, beginning with second-hand and third-hand information cited by the whistleblower. That's why on Wednesday the Democrats were forced to make the absurd argument that hearsay can be much better evidence than direct evidence. They actually tried to make that case as well. Just how you thought the spectacle couldn't get more bizarre.

Case you didn't know. Committee Republicans received a memo from the Democrats' threatening ethics referrals if we out the whistleblower. Out him. As the Democrats are well aware, no Republicans here know the whistleblower's identity because the whistleblower only met with Democrats, not with Republicans. Chairman Schiff claimed not to know who it is. yet he also vowed to block us from asking questions that could reveal his or her identity.

Republicans on this committee are left wondering how it's even possible for the chairman to block questions about a person whose identity he claims not to know. The American people may be seeing these absurdities for the first time, but Republicans on this dais are used to them. until they secretly met with the whistleblower, Democrats showed little interest for the last three years in any topic, aside from the ridiculous conspiracy theories that President Trump is a Russian agent. When you find yourself on the phone, like the Democrats did with Russian pranksters offering you nude pictures of Trump, and afterward you order your staff to follow up and get the photos, as the Democrats also did,

then it might be time to ask yourself if you've gone to go. on out too far on a limb. Even as they were accusing Republicans of colluding with Russians, the Democrats themselves were colluding with Russians by funding the Steele dossier, which was based on Russian and Ukrainian sources. Meanwhile, they turned a blind eye to Ukrainians meddling in our elections because the Democrats were cooperating with that operation. This was the subject of a July 20th, 2017 letter sent by Senator Grassley. to then Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. The letter raised concerns about the activities of Alexander Chalupa,

a contractor for the Democratic National Committee, who worked with Ukrainian embassy officials to spread dirt on the Trump campaign. As Senator Grassley wrote, Chalupa's actions appear to show that she was simultaneously working on behalf of a foreign government, Ukraine and on behalf of the DNC and the Clinton campaign in an effort to influence not only the U.S. voting population, but U.S. government officials, unquote. After touting the still dossier and defending the FBI's Russia investigation, which are now being investigated by Inspector General Horowitz and Attorney General Barr, Democrats on this committee ignore Ukrainian election meddling

even though Chalupa publicly admitted to the Democrats' scheme. Likewise, they are blind to the blaring signs of corruption surrounding Hunter Biden's well-paid position on the board of a corrupt Ukrainian company. Do you see the latest on this? While his father served as vice president and point man for Ukraine issues in the Obama administration. New banking records have been released. Uh-oh. What do they show? Shows he got all kinds of money from Burris.

making direct payments. Of course, he didn't make a dime. We should also point out when they're bringing up Chalupa here. Chalupa is someone that, of course, the Republicans really want to talk to about all of this. And, of course, obviously, you think, well, the Democrats don't want her to talk, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And so they're not letting her be called. She herself, though, is saying she wants to come testify. She wants to.

So they're actually not only rejecting the Republicans, they're rejecting her request to come testify. Unbelievable. Unbelievable. Unbelievable. Okay. We'll come back to this and, you know, and give you all of the important stuff. I think it's worth listening to the ambassador. It might make your head explode.

But really listen to how the embassy and the State Department are spinning this. If you watched our specials, you already know who these people are. If you watched Wednesday night and saw our special Wednesday night, you know, why the State Department and why Schiff and everybody else is working so hard to control this. Because one misstep on this, and literally the State Department and the DNC fall apart. The best of the Glenn Beck program. Hey, it's Glenn, and you're listening to the Glenn Beck program. If you like what you're hearing on this show, make sure you check out Pat Gray Unleashed.

It's available wherever you download your favorite podcasts. So I haven't heard a lot of stuff, you know, besides the lies, a lot of stuff on principle that I disagree with. You know, she does work for, you know, at the will of the president. So why wasn't she fired a year before? Why, when the president first came to the State Department and said, I want you to change her out, did they not change her out? That's the sort of stuff that Trump's been complaining about. Correct. He wants things carried out and people don't carry them out.

That's what Haley has in her book. Yes. I mean, that's why he, that's why, honestly, he looks to be erratic. He just did this in Ukraine? No, he's been trying to fire her for a year and they wouldn't fire her. You know, a guy, at least me, this is somebody just said this to me the other day. You're going to speak this into existence. And I said, yes, I'm going to.

Because sometimes when you're up against a whole mob that just doesn't see the vision or doesn't want to go there, then that's the time that you just say, I'm moving. forward with or without you. I'm moving forward. And that's what Donald Trump did because the State Department thinks they run the foreign policy. They don't. They work for the president. I also am fine with all the stuff that she said about we have to have stability and we don't want corruption. Yes, however, as you, as we have shown you the deep state corruption and what they were actually doing in Ukraine for her to say I would never work together with anyone that was trying to throw the election you weren't there you started by saying I can't comment on

those things and then you comment on those things just to try to smear you're listening to the best of the Glenn Beck program all right Jason tell me the things that that you think they have to do right now. I tell you what, I really do wish they had phone a friend, like, and who wants to be a millionaire, because we would be calling in nonstop. I've been rapid fire tweeting Jim Jordan, just in the hopes that someone from a staff sees some of this stuff. But right from the get-go, the opening statement was exactly what we were talking about

in our special the other day. And that was pretty much, you know, in a nutshell, in summation, we know better than you do. The president does not know what we know. We're going to do what we want, regardless, so you can just, you know, shove it, basically. but right from the top, right after the opening statement, that there was the claims

that Shokin was corrupt. He asked her very specifically, is that the case? And again, she said she wouldn't comment on things she didn't know, but she right from a get-go commented on whether Shokin was corrupt

and was like, yeah, I believe so. Right. That's what you said. I believe so. Based on what? Exactly. They have never, ever made a charge

against this guy. No one has. Yep. No one, they say he's corrupt, but no one has ever made a charge. They've never done an investigation.

He's never, I mean, how do you go to jail with, I shouldn't say this with Soros around, how do you go to jail without an investigation? He still doesn't know why he's being called corrupt. And we've talked to members of his staff that have court, that have, you know, problems. Yeah, and they had problems with, didn't like his policies. Yeah, right. Left his employee because they didn't agree with what he was focused on. But when they said he was corrupt, they were like, he wasn't corrupt. Look, I have nothing to do with this guy.

I have no love lost here, but he wasn't corrupt. He wasn't corrupt. So questions for, I think Jim Jordan and the Republicans should be doing us. Okay, you say he was corrupt. Tell us why he's corrupt. Tell us the specific charges. Oh, were none officially brought up? Then show us the evidence that you gather to come to having a foreign leader fired from his job.

Right. That's a big deal. And replaced by a guy that when years later, When Biden said, and we had him replaced as he was bragging with a good guy, what's changed since then? You want to talk about a smear campaign? Tell me the evidence on what Shokin did to get fired and how the guy who Joe Biden, years later, when he's bragging about it, how that guy is suddenly corrupt.

Like to see the evidence, like to see the charges, like to see anything that anyone filed. And why doesn't that seem like that should corroborate the person, the information that you got fired when the second prosecutor, one of your guys that you signed off on basically said the same exact things. When they corroborate each other, doesn't that put more, you know, a little bit more evidence that what they're saying is actually happening? They're both corrupt. They're both corrupt and shouldn't be listened to. That's so ridiculous. And if they, but it wouldn't be if you had made the case. They just say he's corrupt.

no one will make the case. There's never been any charges. There's nothing. Nothing. You know, it's like the part that drove me nuts is when she was saying with that list, you know, Yovanovitch, he said, or not Yovanovitch, Lutsenko, the prosecutor general that came in to the embassy. and she apparently said, here, here's the list of people you can't. I don't want you touching George Soros or these NGOs.

And she says he retracted that. He said that didn't happen. No, that's not what he said. What he said is an answer to a very specific question. So she handed you a list and he said, no. I said, oh, you're giving me a list. And I got a piece of paper out. And she said, no, no, you misunderstand.

He said, no, I don't misunderstand. I know exactly what you're saying. Now, a first meeting with a brand new U.S. ambassador, you as the prosecutor general, who you know those people just got the last guy fired, you're going to go in and just kick up dirt with this nice, sweet lady. You're just going to go and say, no, I don't misunderstand. I know exactly what you're saying. I'm used to this getting this from the politicians here, but it's great now to see. that I'm also getting it from the U.S. Embassy. He was calling her and the embassy and the United States of America more corrupt than his country.

Explain that. That was the second big thing I had put down. And my head almost exploded when I saw it because we have directly debunked this whole thing. That entire thing. And granted, this meeting happened within days of him officially being sworn into that position. So this is one of the good guys. This is the guy you just signed off on now claiming that he's, well, whoa, what are you trying to do to me? Now he's seeing what they did to Shokin.

I'm going to make this offer to the Republicans, and I'm going to call them. I, on my own dime, will send Jason and the boxes of evidence that we have so you can have him sitting right underneath the desk there. Nobody will see him, and it'll be like, hey, ask her about this one. I mean, as no one done their job, if they don't ask these questions, I'm telling you, these people should be impeached for incompetence. Jason, just a warning, getting under desks in Washington, not always. That was so blatant because he asked her, it was so leading. He was, and that was redacted, right? He redacted that do not prosecute claim.

And she straight up said, yes. Now, we've traced that. You can go back to the special. I think we're actually cutting something. I just talked to one of our producers now to show you the back and forth on that. But that originated in a Bloomberg article. It originated from there. It then got copied in every single fact check saying that it was recanted.

Now, we traced it all the way back. We found the actual interview where they claimed that shows that he recanted. And just like you described, he didn't recant on it. He said she didn't hand me a physical piece of paper. She said who I could or could not prosecute. And I wrote those names down. I turned the paper around and put it in her face. And that's when he said, this is what we got into the Russian controlled government.

Now we're getting it from the United States Embassy. That's their big recant. Now, Jim Jordan should be asking that right off the top. Right off the top. Right off the top. And the other that right off the top is he should say, excuse me, you have a serious, serious question about your abilities. If you tell me that you don't know that there were two people,

one of which was the head of the Anti-Corruption Bureau, that you keep touting as this clean operation, that you keep saying is the guardian against corruption, you can't tell me that the ambassador of the Ukraine did not know that there was a trial, and a hidden recording of that guy who run that bureau admitting to being the guy who snuck the information about Manafort to Hillary Clinton and the Democrats. And he was convicted and so was someone else. You honestly didn't know that?

Come on. It was plastered. There's no way, Jason. There's no way. No way, because it was plastered all over Ukrainian press. It's not plastered in our press. It's nowhere here. They think they can get away with it because no one.

Look, if the New York Times didn't publish it, it didn't happen. Really? Because there were other papers and there were other institutions that did publish that and all of them Ukrainian. And yes, you do have to take the extra step and have it translated. We had to have it translated ourselves. We found it. on the front page of the Ukrainian papers.

But we had to have it all translated because no one in the U.S. had done that. How is that possible? And how is it possible for this woman to say that, well, I know. I've heard rumors of that, but nothing, no facts, no, nothing, nothing tangible. Really? Because Ukraine convicted the guy you keep touting as running the great. Anti-Corruption League. They convicted him.

Just those two things. It's done. Just those two things. And you can subpoena most of that information. Like for the do not prosecute list, we know for a fact that Lutsenko claimed that there was multiple U.S. State Department people in the room. There was multiple Ukrainian prosecutors and assistance in the room.

You can subpoena them all. Have the people come over from Ukraine, have the U.S. diplomats. They're not like every, I don't think every single U.S. diplomat is going to be in agreement with what Yovanovitch is saying here. No, but you know what? Here's the thing. Here's the thing. If you are asking me to believe that this person didn't mean, didn't mean this, okay,

didn't mean to give you a quid pro quo, okay? If you're asking me to believe her when she says, I didn't give him any list, well, I've got one hurdle, the guy who was the first time meeting the new ambassador, first time. And these are the people that just got his boss removed. He goes in and he just flies off the handle and says, no, I'm used to this. I'm used to this. You know, we used to get the cram downs all the time, but I didn't expect it from America. Really?

he said that? And your response was, no, you misunderstand. And he says, no, I didn't misunderstand. And then after, when asked about it again later to make sure it was all clear in the press, he said, no, she didn't give me a list. She verbally gave me that list. And I wrote it down. If you're asking me to believe her, I'm having a hard time because of all of the

other evidence. But if I'm forced to believe that, wait, how come I have to believe the opposite of Donald Trump? When the president of Ukraine, when the people who they were talking to didn't say, they all said, I didn't think that was going on. I didn't think that's what was going on. It was only the State Department that felt that that was going on. How is that? Why do I have to leave the State Department both times but for the opposite outcome. Doesn't make any sense. There's no, there is no logic and no reason behind this. The, the Republicans are going to pick this up soon.

Those are the questions that they should stand on. The Blaze Radio Network. On Demand.