The Glenn Beck Program - Inquisition Hearings Day 3: NOTHING Is Consistent! | Guest: Salena Zito | 11/19/19

Episode Date: November 19, 2019

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman and Pence aide Jennifer Williams testify before Congress. This is about the State Department’s shadow policies, not Biden, Trump, and Burisma! Trump said the Israeli West Bank settlements are LEGAL. But is Chick-fil-A caving to LGBT activists, or is it all media spin? And either Rep. Eric Swalwell or Chris Matthews ripped a big one on live TV in the new “Fartgate” scandal. Reporter and author of “The Great Revolt” Salena Zito provides an understanding of Kentucky’s elections, impeachment, and how Trump is faring. Rep. Devin Nunes asks questions the media won’t cover, while Schiff desperately protects the whistleblower. The inquiry has two different rulebooks, and Trump’s actions are NOT Watergate! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What a show we have planned for you today. First, let me tell you if you have a CPAP machine, I am a CPAP user, and it changed my life. It's part of my secret code, breaking and hacking sleep. Anyway, manufacturers recommend that you wash it by hand every day using soap and water. Not happening. So clean is something my wife and I found. It is the fast, easy way to maintain your sleep equipment. was so clean, you no longer even have to take your equipment apart.

You just put the mask in, you close the lid, you walk away. It's really super convenient. It's user-friendly. They have nearly 9,000 5-star reviews. I'm one of them. 100% waterless. Doesn't use any chemicals or anything else. It's H-S-A-F-A approved, which makes me feel better.

I don't even know what the hell it is. So stop yourself from washing it out all the time or getting sick. So clean, rest easy. It's super simple. Right now you can try So Clean risk-free for 30 nights. Call 800-5201813 or go to SoClean.com. Take advantage of the 30-night risk-free trial and free shipping. It's 800-5201813 or go to SoClean.com today.

Well, I don't know about you, but I wanted to get up this morning and just right away run to impeachment news. So we have a little bit of that because the hearings are running today. Also, Iran is in shambles. There's news on Chick-fil-A that I don't understand. What the president did yesterday with Israel made the head explode of everybody at the State Department, I guarantee. And the guy who's probably had the worst year, beside Donald Trump, the worst year of all, Eric Swalwell. The Farts Real, apparently.

This is the Glympeg Program. All right, so you're sitting at a stoplight, mining your own business, when suddenly a cold chill goes down your spine. Terror sinks in as you realize, I've forgotten something terribly important. There's something absolutely critical about today. What is it? It's my wife's birthday.

That's my anniversary. Slow roll, your stomach turns. It's the day that your warranty on your car expires. Your hands begin to shake. Sure enough, you look between them at the dashboard. The check engine light comes on. Wee, we, we, we, we. I wish I could do the psycho music a little better than that.

But anyway, Car Shield makes this nightmare go away. The process of fixing your car for a covered repair, it's really, really simple. You can have your favorite mechanic or dealership do the work, which frequently isn't an option. They also provide 24-7 roadside assistance and a rental car while yours is being fixed for free. So don't let the check engine light change your life. Get covered with the ultimate and extended vehicle protection like I did. It's Car Shield. 1-800, car-6,000, 1-800, car 6,000.

mention the promo code Beck or visit carshield.com. Use the promo code Beck and save 10%. It's carshield.com, promo code Beck, or 1-800, car-6,000. promo code back deductible may apply. All right. Welcome to the program. First, let me give you an update on a couple of things. The impeachment inquiry is happening today.

An NSC official, Pence. an aide to Pence is going to also testify. We're going to have, you know, Mr. Googly eyes open it up, and he'll probably be saying some really important stuff like blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. But we have first, Jennifer Williams, she's going to be testifying. She's State Department aide with Mike Pence. She has already testified behind closed doors. Transcript of her session was released on Saturday.

She was one that was on the phone call. she listened in on July 25th and said the mention of these specific investigations during the Trump Zelensky phone call seemed unusual as compared to other discussions with foreign leaders. She also testified about another phone call on September 18th between Mike Pence and Zelensky. This call was after the security was delivered to the Ukraine. The committee asked her of Pence gave Zelensky any advice how to approach Trump at the UN General Assembly meeting. She said Pence told Zelensky, President Trump would be eager about President Zelensky's progress in his reform agenda. Williams then asked what Pence meant by reform agenda. And she said the anti-corruption reforms on reforming the judiciary and the legislative action and his administration, you know, the things that he was doing.

He said she. That's you're meaning Mike Pence said this? Yeah. She said that Mike Pence said, okay. was talking about an anti-corruption reform. Mike is doing this the right way. Yeah. Right?

Like he's not, he's not blurting out names. He's being very careful with his language. And it'll be surprising that if in the end of this, we find that Mike Pence has said anything on the record to anybody about anything, right? That's what, that's the way, it's the way you would expect this to go down in the, in the movie.

Right. Right. Like if this is the movie, guy like Mike Pence who says everything perfectly and never gets in trouble. And that's exactly what you'd expect out of Penn. No, but there's never any guy like Donald Trump in the movie. There's never like the mob boss who's like, you know what? I say we kill them all right now.

And I'm on the record. Rudy, go on TV and say it. It doesn't happen that way. No, it makes it much more fun. Yeah. But it doesn't, but they were on TV saying it. I know. That's showing maybe that they didn't think there was something wrong with us, right?

Yeah, probably. Indicating when you. when you send out your personal attorney to go on television and tell everybody, you're going to Ukraine to look into the obviously, I mean, to me, obvious hint of corruption that's going on with the Bidens and Ukraine. Right. The thing that, you know, places like the New York Times had already reported on in depth, you know, it does seem like maybe it was something he wanted you to know about.

I don't know. Right. Yeah. Right. You know, usually you hide bribery. You know, usually you're like, hey, let's keep this between ourselves. It's not like you go on TV and announce it before you do it. Hey, I just want you to know, I send Rudy Giuliani over because I'm having him look into some things.

And of course, we're going to bribe and just kind of do all kinds of really bad things. We probably should hide that from you and the press. But we decided just to be up front about it. It's not even possible. Okay, a couple of other stories. first of all, also related to the impeachment. Remember what this impeachment is really all about. What is it really all about?

It's not even about the 2020 election. It's about the deep state of the State Department. That's what this is really all about. The State Department is really upset. The president is running a shadow policy. How can the president run a shadow? his administration is supposed to be setting the policy. So it's not a shadow policy unless you're so out of control and arrogant that you actually think that your policy,

that you're the one setting policy. Well, their argument, to be fair, to play devil's app, you had a little bit. Yes, go ahead. Their argument is the policy didn't change. So they had us over there communicating the same policies. to the same people. And the Ukrainians kept going back to us and saying, what is going on?

You're telling me one thing. And I got Rudy Giuliani over here telling me something else. Yes, because the president didn't trust everybody else. Because as we found out from Rudy Giuliani, and he says he has five witnesses ready to attest to this. The embassy in Ukraine was known as Hillary Clinton campaign had. It was jokingly called campaign headquarters. So, I mean, if you don't trust it, you do.

You send somebody out and you're like, hey, listen, don't necessarily, we got some things going on. Don't necessarily. You report right directly to me and tell me what's going on. That's what you do. Yeah. I mean, I think a potentially better path there. I mean, remember, nobody on earth wanted to be Secretary of State more than Rudy Giuliani.

Yeah, I know. I know. I'm just trying to get to this point. This is an argument between the State Department saying that they are in charge and the White House saying they are in charge. Well, yesterday, Mike Pompeo came out and he and the president have decided that the policy of the State Department is wrong in regards to Jerusalem and Israel. and so they've decided, yeah, you know, the occupied territories, we think they're fine. We think that's, we don't think that's against international law. We agree with the state of Israel.

They have every right to occupy that. They're not actually occupying it. It's a part of Israel. Oh, my gosh, that made everybody in the head, in the State Department from the old guard, their head. You could hear. I think that Eric Swalwell fart might have been the heads exploding across the street at the State Department. That's, it really is

amazing. I mean, well-timed. Well-timed there. Yeah. He's sending, it's interesting the way he's handling this because you know, he's going right after him. He's going right after the intelligence. He's going right after the State Department. It's probably caused him problems, but he doesn't seem to care about it. No. No, he's just going for it. And look, this is, of course,

the right policy we should point out. It is. It is part of Israel, and it's not an occupied territory. And it's all State Department that has kept that at bay. It's all State Department. Like we all knew the capital of Israel was Jerusalem, and we all faked it for some reason, and we all acted as if it wasn't. Because the State Department. Because the State Department said it was a bad idea. And remember how it was going to make the entire Middle East explode when he changed that embassy.

That has not been the case. I mean, it's never pretty there. I love this. But it's been positive, I think. Yeah, I think so too. Okay. So we have that going on. Eric Schiff is still, Eric Schiff is still.

I don't know who any of the people you're talking about are. Adam Schiff is a person that's involved in this. Oh, who did I say? You said Eric Schiff. Okay. I don't know who that person is. And then you said Eric Schiff, it was also not a person. Adam Schiff is the person. Adam Schiff is the guy. I just can't get past his eyes. They're a little spooky. I think the Trump nickname has worked on you. You're to the point. You think Shifty Shift, Shifty shift is his name.

But his name is Shifty Schiff or Schiff, but not shift. I know. It's just in your head. It's in my head. And it's true. It's a very accurate. nickname. It is. It is. So anyway, we have that coming on. And when he stopped saying all of the important things that he's saying now, like, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, this witness, which is going to say something bad about Donald Trump is unimpeachable. He's the perfect witness that's never done anything wrong in their lives. They went, he played band. It was the best clarinet player in his eighth grade concert. As soon as he stops talking about that, we'll start to cover it. Now, there is one thing. that I don't believe, I just don't believe this is true,

that Chick-fil-A has gotten out of their relationships with the Salvation Army and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes because they're dropping their anti-LGBQI square thing. Plus, thank you. they're dropping all of that now because of you know they need the what the gay chicken money you want the gay chicken money everybody wants the gay chicken money

everybody's after that you've got to get the gay chicken money right now Popeye's is like oh we almost had them the future of this economy is gay chicken money there's no way this is true it's true it's true but there's no way this is this is being spun by the press in my opinion we will find out this is being spun spun by the press to hurt

Chick-fil-A to make people like me now look if it is if they're like we got to have the gay chicken money I'm telling you right now we did this whole God thing for a while we stood on our principles for a while but we're at the point where we can

dominate and put all chicken people out of business if we just get the gay chicken money and we want to say officially marriage needs to be between a man and a man no intersagender marriage is weird. In fact, there is no such thing as gender. No such thing. These chickens are all genderless chickens. If that's what's happening, then I'm really upset at Chick-fil-A.

But I don't think so. It's hard to believe. I mean, we've had Dan Kathy on. Like, the guy risked his entire business to make this moral stand. And now he's just like, yeah, who cares about I need gay fried chicken money. There's no way. Give it to me. There's no way. It doesn't seem like him at all. No. No.

Chick-fil-A has not really given their side of the story. The only thing they said is they had a multi-year agreement with the charities like Salvation Army. And that's come to an end. And they're moving the money to other charities, which they say only it's going to be limited to three categories. Education, homelessness, and hunger, which seems like right in the wheelhouse of Salvation Army. Like it's kind of like a lot of the stuff that they do. The homeless and hunger thing, that is. And the Christian athletes probably has something to do with education, I would assume, too, when it comes to, it's probably related to school.

So I'm not really sure, but there's no problem. That doesn't mean that they had a problem where they were changing their, they're suddenly going after the gay chicken money. Look, gay people eat Chick-fil-A. I just have to tell you. Now, social justice warriors, maybe they don't. Seems like they do. It seems like they've seen the numbers from Chick-fil-A. Everybody loves chick-fil-A.

Everybody. It's Jesus' chicken. If Jesus would have, if he didn't have fish, if he only had two chickens, in that basket would have been 5,000 Chick-fil-A sandwiches. I'm telling you right now. The best part about this one was when some NFL athlete was hit up by some social justice warrior on Twitter,

and was like, look, do you understand what Chick-fil-A stands for? Because he had posted that he was eating there. Do you understand what the chick-fil-a-stance-stance-for? They stand against gay people and blah, blah, All these things that aren't really true. And then he just responded, chicken too tasty. And, like, that's the greatest point of all time. Like, that's the truth.

It's just chicken too tasty. That's the one thing we have. They've got Disney. They've got all the parks. They've got all the movie. They have everything. This is all we have is the chicken people. Okay?

That's the only thing that we have where where social justice warriors and freaks are just like, I can't. It's too good. I can't not eat it. Chicken too tasty. Right. Right. We have Devin Nunez about to, he's just starting to speak here. Should we come to him here in a minute after our... Yeah, let's do a quick one minute and then we'll take him because...

60 seconds away. That means that Adam Schiff only has a little more to say after that. And then we'll hear from our first... First, what do you call it? A person trying to sandbag Trump. American Finance Corporation, NMLS-182334. www. nLs consumer access.org. All right.

That's Jeff Fisher, who is as effective as Adam Schiff. Is your budget being stretched a little thin? Didn't mean to say that after the word Jeffie. Is it getting stretched a little thin as we head towards the holiday season? You could be saving money, and it's easier said than done when life is, you know, constantly getting in the way that, you know, unexpected medical bill, the urgent car repair. The things in life that you just never. never a convenient. There's never a time where you're like, oh, well, I'm glad this happened now. No, never. How would you like to find an extra thousand dollars in that budget of yours?

The way to do it literally may be underneath your feet. You could make it happen with a mortgage refy. Mortgage rates are really low right now. And when you make the 10-minute phone call to American financing, you can take advantage of their free mortgage review. A salary-based mortgage consultant will explain refi options that could save you money without restarting your loan term. You need to be cautious. You need to be fiscally responsible. Make these decisions carefully, but you are smart enough to figure it out. If you want to refi your loan, American financing is a family-owned and operated business. I've been in business with them for absolutely ever. They're really good people and they're waiting for your phone call. There's no fees or anything else. Just call them and start the process

10 minutes to find out if this could help you out. 800906 2440, 800, 9062440 Americanfinancing.net. We break for 10 seconds station ID. All right. Let's join just real quick. Nunez. What is the full extent of the Democrat prior coordination with the whistleblower and who else did the whistleblower coordinate this effort

with. The media have fully accepted the Democrats' stunning reversal on the need for the whistleblower to testify to this committee. When the Democrats were insisting on his testimony, the media wanted it too. But things have changed since it became clear, the whistleblower would have to answer problematic questions that include these. What was the full extent of the whistleblower's prior coordination with Chairman Schiff, his staff, and any other people he cooperated with while preparing the complaint? I just don't see this ending well for the Democrats.

What are the whistleblower's political biases and connections to democratic politicians? How does the whistleblower explain the inaccuracies in the complaint? What contact did the whistleblower have with the media, which appears to be ongoing? Wow. if that's true? Who else did he talk to? And was the whistleblower prohibited by law from receiving or conveying any of that information? The media have joined the Democrats in dismissing the importance of cross-examining this crucial witness.

Now that the whistleblower has successfully kicked started in impeachment. He has disappeared from the story as if the Democrats put the whistleblower in their own witness protection program. My second question, what was the full extent of Ukraine's election meddling against the Trump campaign? In these depositions and hearings, Republicans have cited numerous indications of Ukraine meddling in the 2016 elections to oppose the Trump campaign. Many of these instances were reported, including the posting of many primary source documents by veteran investigative journalist John Solomon. Since the Democrats switched from Russia to Ukraine, Ukraine for their impeachment crusade, Solomon's reporting on Burisma, Hunter Biden, and Ukraine election meddling has become inconvenient for the democratic narrative. And so the media is furiously smearing and libeling Solomon.

It's crazy that we had Solomon on all these times and he was just like given good reporting. And now all of a sudden he's the focus of this impeachment hearing. Yeah. It's incredible. And he's been on with us for over a year on this. And been going back and forth, he is such an honest guy. he really has done his reporting. He's not some political hack.

He worked for the New York Times and the Washington Post and the Associated Press for 20 years. And now they're just slaughtering him. So now that Solomon's reporting is a problem for the Democrats, it's a problem for the media as well. Amen. I'd like to submit for the record, John Solomon's October 31st story entitled

debunking some of Ukraine's scandal myths about Biden and election interference. I encourage viewers today to read this story and draw your own conclusions about the evidence Solomon has gathered. 2017 article. Ask unanimous consent that we put this into the record, Mr. Chair. Without objection. All right. Now they're going to get to this next.

We're going to hear from several people today. Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, this is the guy that we've already heard from somewhat in. closed door testimony. He was told on July 10th that the meeting with Zelensky at the White House was conditioned on them opening an investigation into the Bidens.

He said the message was delivered to Ukraine by Gordon Sondland. Sondland said he was directed to deliver the message by Mick Volumulvaney. He also testified that Rudy Giuliani's involvement undermined U.S. government efforts to expand cooperation

with Ukraine. Well, yeah. I mean, if you saw the special last week, you saw their operation in Ukraine, and it probably should have been limited. You're listening to Glenn. There's a reason we go to experts when we need something done, especially if that something is really important. And buying or selling a home is one of those important and indeed difficult decisions that you're going to have to make. And that's why real estate agents I trust is there to guide you every step of the way. These are real real estate agents who have taken it upon themselves to be the best in their field and to do business their way and my way, really. These are the top performers.

These are the people who are willing to go the extra mile. They're happy while they do it. They love their job. They love their clients. They're the best there. And they've been doing it for a long time. That's the way all of us should be doing business. Real estate agents, I trust, is a network.

that provides both stability, which is good, and accountability, which is really good. Somebody's held accountable. You want your home sold on time for the most amount of money? All you have to do is contact real estate agents.I trust.com. This is not a client of mine. This is my company. Real estate agents I trust.com. Go there now. Sell your home fast. And for the most amount of money, real estate agents, I trust.com. We are only moments away from the latest moments in the circus that we're going to have in Washington. We'll have all the coverage coming up in just a circle way. All right, welcome to the program.

We have now a Pence aide, and she is now delivering her opening statement to the hearing. Let's listen in. I also inform the NSC that the vice president would not be attending so that it could identify a head of delegation to represent the United States at President-elect Zelensky's inauguration. On July 3rd,

I learned that the Office of Management and Budget had placed a hold on a tranche of security assistance designated for Ukraine. According to the information I received, OMB was reviewing whether the funding was aligned with the administration's priorities. I subsequently attended meetings of the Policy Coordination Committee, where the hold on Ukrainian security assistance was discussed. During those meetings, representatives of the State and Defense Departments advocated that the hold should be lifted.

and OMB representatives reported that the White House chief of staff had directed that the hold should remain in place. On September 11th, I learned that the hold on security assistance for Ukraine had been released. I have never learned what prompted that decision. On July 25th, along with several of my colleagues, I listened to a call between President Trump and President Zelensky, the content of which has since been... During my closed-door deposition, members of the committee asked about my personal views and whether I had any concerns about the July 25th call. As I testified then, I found the

July 25th phone call unusual because, in contrast to other presidential calls I had observed, it involved discussion of what appeared to be a domestic political matter. After the July 25th call, I provided an update in the Vice President's Daily Briefing book, indicating that President Trump had a call that day with President Zelensky. A hard copy of the memorandum transcribing the call was also included in the book. I do not know whether the vice president reviewed my update or the transcript. I did not discuss the July 25th call

with vice president or any of my colleagues in the office of the vice president or the NSC. On August 29th, I learned that the vice president would be traveling to Poland to meet with President Zelensky on September 1st.

At the September 1st meeting, which I attended, President Zelensky asked the vice president about news articles reporting a hold on U.S. security assistance for Ukraine. The Vice President responded that Ukraine had the United States unwavering support

and promised to relay their conversation to President Trump that night. During the September 1st meeting, neither the Vice President nor President Zelensky mentioned the specific investigations discussed during the July 25th phone call. Thank you again for the opportunity to provide this statement.

I'd be happy to answer any questions. Now we go to Lieutenant Colonel Vindman. Mr. Chairman, And his opening statement. Thank you for the opportunity to address the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence with respect to the activities relating to Ukraine and my role in the events under investigation. I've dedicated my entire professional life to the United States of America. For more than two decades, it has been my honor to serve as an officer of the United States Army.

As an infantry officer, I served multiple overseas tours, including South Korea and Germany, and I was deployed to Iraq for combat operations. Since 2008, I have been a foreign area officer specializing in European and Eurasian political military affairs. I served in the United States embassies in Kiev, Ukraine, and Moscow, Russia. In Washington, D.C., I was the political military affairs officer for Russia for the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, where I drafted the Armed Forces Global Campaign Plan to counter Russian aggression and Russian malign influence. In July 2018, I was asked to serve at the White House National Security Council.

At the NSC, I'm the principal advisor to the national security advisor on Ukraine and other countries in my portfolio. My role at the NSC is to develop, coordinate, and implement plans and policies to manage the full range of diplomatic, informational, military, and economic national security issues, the countries in my portfolio. My core function is to coordinate policy with departments and agencies. The committee has heard from many of my colleagues about the strategic importance of Ukraine, as a bulwark against Russian aggression.

It is important to note that our country's policy of supporting Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity, promoting Ukrainian prosperity, and strengthening a free and democratic Ukraine as a counter to Russian aggression has been a consistent, bipartisan foreign policy objective and strategy across various administrations, both Democratic and Republican.

And that President Zelensky's election in April 2019 created an unprecedented opportunity to realize our strategic objectives. In the spring of 2019, I became aware of two disruptive actors, primarily Ukraine's then-prosecutor Uralizenko, and former Mayor Rudolf Giuliani, President's personal attorney, promoting false narratives that undermined the United States' Ukraine policy.

The NSC and its interagency partners, including the State Department, grew increasingly concerned about the impact that such information was having on our country's ability to achieve our national security. objectives. On April 21st, 2019, Vladimir Zelensky was elected President of Ukraine in a landslide victory on a unity, reform, and anti-corruption platform. President Trump called President Zelensky on April 21st, 2019 to congratulate him on his victory. I was the staff officer who produced the call materials and was one of the staff officers who listened to the call. The call was positive,

and President Trump expressed his desire to work with President Zelensky and extended an invitation to visit the White House. In May, I attended the inauguration of President Zelensky as part of the presidential delegation led by Secretary Perry. Following the visit, the members of the delegation provided President Trump a debriefing offering a positive assessment of President Zelensky

and his team. After this debriefing, President Trump signed a congratulatory letter to President Zelensky and extended another invitation to visit the White House. Gripping. On July 10, 2019, Alexander Doniuluk, then Ukraine's national security adviser visited Washington's insidious from either of them at this point. No.

Ambassador Volker and Sondland and Secretary Rick Perry also attended the meeting. I attended with Dr. Hill. We fully anticipated the Ukrainians would raise the issue of a meeting between the presence. Ambassador Bolton cut the meeting short when Ambassador Sondland start to speak about the requirement that Ukraine deliver specific investigations. in order to secure the meeting with President Trump. Following this meeting, there was a short debriefing during which Ambassador Sondland emphasized the importance of Ukraine delivering the investigations into the 2016 elections, the Bidens, and Burisma.

I stated to Ambassador Sondland that this was inappropriate and had nothing to do with national security. Remember that Bolton is also, I believe, a deep state kind of guy, not a deep state Obama kind of guy, but a deep state kind of guy on the right. President Zelensky won a parliamentary election in another landslide victory. The NSC proposed that President Trump call President Zelensky to congratulate him. On July 25, 2019, the call occurred.

I listened in on the call in the situation room with White House colleagues. I was concerned by the call. What I heard was inappropriate, and I reported my concerns to Mr. Eisenberg. It is improper for the President of the United States to demand a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen and a political opponent. I was also clear that if Ukraine pursued an investigation, it was also clear that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the 2016 elections, the Bidens and Burisma, it would be interpreted as a partisan play. This would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing bipartisan support undermining U.S. national security and advancing Russia's strategic objectives. If I ask a question on this, first of all, that's not all he was asking to investigate. He was asking to investigate, even if it was. Let's just say it was.

You're investigating the vice president and his son, who was paid millions of dollars for no reason while the father was distributing funds to that country for the industry that the son was just in. Right. That's bad corruption. By the way, those funds were all lost. Okay. So we have we have seven billion dollars that just disappeared. And the target of this investigation was the main competition to the company Joe Biden's son was working for. Correct. So what exactly is the problem here asking for that? Yes. He happened to have been running for the president, you know, as the president's opponent. Not yet, but not yet, but would be. So yes, there was an added benefit there, but every, we were talking about this being investigated before Trump got into office. You know, these things should have been investigated before, but we know why they weren't because of the deep state. The other thing is when they say they didn't want to bring this up, you know, they didn't want Trump investigating this stuff because it would be such, it would be seen as bipartisan, I mean, partisan. Partisan. And the bipartisan agreement on Ukraine would go away. Well, what's happening now?

Yeah, what's this? Well, what it is? They're very much now involved in political disputes in the United States. Right. I mean, all the stuff that they said they wanted to stop, they're now testifying on the behalf of. And everything that they said Donald Trump was doing, they're doing. And this idea that you can't investigate a political opponent because they're a political opponent. what are Democrats doing right now, would you say?

Are they investigating President Trump? Should President Trump be immune from all investigation because he's the political opponent of the Democrats? Like, no. That's why this being so partisan is so bad. Because if this were true, if this was a legitimate inquiry, it would be okay.

If it was a legitimate inquiry into Russia, but it wasn't, as we found out. I was for the inquiry into Russia, and I didn't think that Trump did anything. I would like to know if he did. And I did think that Trump would have liked to do something. You know, anybody, Hillary Clinton, everyone, if somebody comes to you and says,

hey, by the way, I've got the dirt on it's going to take him out. I think every politician under the sun is having that meeting, and they want something to happen. Or at least they're having some aid. Right. Off the record. Somehow or another, they're taking that meeting. So, you know, let's not be so high and mighty here.

However, if he had done that and he was colluding with Russia, I would have been all for the impeachment, all for it. But as we come to find out, that's not what was happening. This was a partisan investigation into him. This is a partisan investigation into him now. if you were going to do it fairly openly and you were actually looking for honest answers, this is great. But this is using tens of millions of dollars, if not hundreds of millions of dollars, for what? To discredit the president of the United States who's running for re-election. Which is the same thing they're investigating Trump for doing.

Right? Like it's hilarious. They're legitimately doing the same thing. Yeah. the same thing. Okay, they're getting into questions here in just a second. So let me pause and then we'll come back as they get into questions. Because that's what I really, that's what I really want to hear.

All right. So let me tell you about Norton. Remember the good old days when the internet was safe and fun? Not really. No, I don't. But anyway, the internet is a wild wasteland of digital tumbleweeds and cyber outlaws now with the aimed misbehave. Give me a double in a dirty glass. That's why you need Norton.

VPN. It uses bank grade encryption to help block the hackers from stealing the information that you send and receive over Wi-Fi. It is, you know, when you're sitting at a Starbucks or wherever and you're using Wi-Fi, I'm telling you, it is the Wild West. It's a part of multiple layers of protection now that you will get to stop that and clean this town up. It's Norton 360. It includes Norton Secure VPN, device security, a password manager, and so much more. Don't risk compromising your online privacy with the wrong VPN. Get a VPN that's part of the all-in-one protection you need for today's connected world. Get a Norton 360 today. You'll be helping to ensure that your online future is secure as possible.

No one can prevent all cybercrime, but Norton 360 is a powerful ally for your cyber safety. And until December 8th, you'll get up to 60% off an annual subscription on your first year at Norton.com slash back. Up to 60% off at Norton.com slash back. Well, I don't know. I mean, we're just debating. We have so many things to go on that we have to cover today. We have Adam Schiff. He's about to start asking questions. We also have FartGate that is happening. We need a fart investigation on this because I don't know if I buy the media spit on it. You know, there's too much conflicting information. And we please play Eric Swalwell being interviewed by Chris Matthews yesterday. This audio is. real. Taxpayer dollars to ask the Ukrainians to help them cheat an election.

And the complaint that I've heard from a... All right, let's hear it again. One more time. Taxpayer dollars to ask the Ukrainians to help him cheat an election. And the complaint that I've heard from... I mean, his shoulders go up. Yeah. I mean, there's a physical reaction visually that you can... Yeah. And he pauses.

Now, Chris Matthews says, that's just a coffee cup coming across the table. Let's listen to it with thinking about a coffee cup. Could it be a coffee cup? Taxpayer dollars to ask the Ukrainians to help them cheat in election. And the complaint that I've heard from a... Could be, maybe? I don't know.

It could be. We should try to recreate. I've got a coffee cup here. Well, you've got to take the pens out of it. You might need some liquid. Do you have any liquid you can put in that thing? Well, I've got to get all this. This table's too smooth, I think.

Yeah, it is. Well, what kind of... I mean, they're getting no. getting no friction at all on this table. What kind of, play that again. What kind of tables that have to be? Taxpayer dollars to ask the Ukrainians to help them cheat in election. And the complaint that I've heard from a public.

Chris Matthews is the one who said it. I don't think that there would be a problem believing that Chris Matthews has bad gas problems. Well, and there's an indication, I mean, this goes back historically to whoever smelt it dealt it. Correct. And so. Now, is that hearsay? Do you have firsthand knowledge of he who smelt it dealt it? Or is this

I mean, I mean, here's say, don't get me wrong. Here's say is as good as any, as good as gold. As good as gold. As good as gold.

Is any first hand, I was there, eyewitness kind of stuff. Here's the thing. To me, while it does sort of look like Swalwell Farts there, I don't know if the audio fits it.

There's not, he's in an echoey room. He's supposedly wearing a lapel mic, which would not indicate, like it's too far away from his butt for the, for the air to be that, Clear.

Play it one more time. Taxpayer dollars to ask the Ukrainians to help them cheat an election. And the complexity. I don't know. It seems to me more like Chris Matthews ripped one in the studio and he's trying to hide it. I don't know. But our investigation, it'll go into tens of millions of dollars and we'll spend

about three years on Fartgate. As we look into what's in Swalwell's pants and what did Chris Matthews know and when did he know it. You're listening to Glenn. Preferred not to look at what's in swallow his pants myself, but that's a, you know, it's a separate investigation.

I mean, I'm not interested either, but I've got to get to the facts. Do we have to take, do we have to take all the stuff that they're testifying? Oh, yeah, I mean, really? You can drop in and out. Yeah, drop in and out. We have Selena Zito on who wrote an article yesterday, and I'm, I'm more interested in how this is affecting people. And Selena is really the one that she wrote the book, The Great Revolt.

She was the one who nailed the Trump election. And everybody celebrated her. But now that she's saying, yeah, I think it might kind of happen the same way. You know, nobody wants to talk about it. She's got a great story that she wrote yesterday. We're going to talk to her about what effect is happening in America on voters. The fusion of entertainment and enlightenment. This is the Glembeck program.

In a country increasingly engaged with national politics and divided, The next 12 months may feel like the next 12 years. Voters in both trenches are eager to vote, convinced not only of a victory, but also a vindication. The shocking result in 2016 was not a black swan, an irregular election deviating from normalcy, but instead the indicator of the realignment that is described in the book The Great Revolt. The story of America's evolving political topography is one of tectonic, plates slowly grinding against each other until a break notably alters the landscape with seismic consequences. The person who is probably the best to tell us the effects of the impeachment

and what people are actually feeling is a woman who spends her old life just traveling the back roads, the small towns of America, and listens to people. Her name is Selena Zito. She's author of The Great Revolt. She has an update on that, and we go to her in one minute. This is the Glenn Beck program. We're also monitoring the impeachment. We have Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, who is testifying now. We're going to be popping in and out of that all throughout the show. I want to talk to you quickly about My Pellow from Mike Lindell. Mike Lindell is the inventor of My Pillar, and his pillow is remarkable. It really is remarkable. I love it. From pillows now to sheets to towels, I have their towels, I have their sheets, and I have their pillows, and they are really great.

I can't tell you, you can spend a lot on sheets. Why? Try my pillow sheets. They're really, really soft. My pillow is a great, incredible company, and Mike credits it to you. His newest incredible deal is the Giza Dream sheets, which I rave about. These sheets are made from the world's best. cotton and Giza.

They're ultra soft, breathable, yet extremely durable. And right now, Giza Dream Sheets are buy one set, get one free. If you have people coming into your house, buy one set and get one free. Put one on your bed. Put one on the gas bed. They are so comfortable. My pillow products also come with a 60-day money-back guarantee. Take my word for it.

You're not going to want to send them back once you try them, but you can. MyPillow.com. Click on the new radio listener specials by one pair of Giza Dreamsheets and get the second free plus shipping. There's also deep discounts on all other MyPillow products. Enter the promo code Beck or call 800-9663117 for these great radio specials. It's MyPillow.com. We have Selena Zito on the phone with us.

She is a reporter and one of the best listeners, I think, in the country. she actually is the one who called the last election really spot on, spot on, and I think she's doing it again. Selena, welcome to the program. Hey, thanks so much for having me on. Nice to talk to you, Glenn. Good to talk to you. I know your book is, is it out in paperback yet? Yeah, it just came out in paperback this week with an update, an afterward that explains what happened in 2018, why that matters, what it tells us. and what we should continue to look for for 2020. Okay, so.

So I'm reading some of the stuff that you have written recently, and yesterday you have the new phase of the Great Revolt. And as I'm reading it last night, I'm gathering that what people did in the congressional and state elections here recently, we should not necessarily take that to mean anything for the presidential election. And that's absolutely right. Let's take the Kentucky governor's race for a moment. If anybody understood Kentucky or ever went there in the national press,

they wouldn't be writing, oh, it's all over because the Republican Kentucky governor lost. I spent a lot of time in Kentucky. Matt Bevan was not very popular. the point of view of him by the people who live there is that he was a carpetbagger. You know, he didn't understand Kentucky culture. And he made a lot of series of successive out-of-touch decision. Yeah, about his state. And governors' races are about being connected to the people.

And he did not demonstrate that he was. And if you look down ballot, Republicans not only won hugely like in the Secretary of State race or the Attorney General race, but also they gained seats in the Senate and in the House. So I think that saying, oh, this means Republicans don't want Trump. No, it meant that Kentucky voters were unsatisfied with Matt Bevin. All right. So we're watching the impeachment today. And I think it's just hardening people's positions. There's nothing new here, as we're watching.

There's no smoking gun. People who are against Donald Trump are so against him, they'll do anything to get him out. For those who are really even fence-sitters on Donald Trump, I think they look at this and say, this is not, this doesn't. even make sense to me. And I think it hardens people on which way they were leaning. It's absolutely correct. And to tell you what it reminds me of, do you remember when Scott Walker

won the governor's race in 2010? And then there was a recall election. Because, you know, the people who lost were unhappy. Essentially, that's what it was. And he came back and won that with higher percentage because people who didn't even vote for him thought, you know what, this is bogus. This is sore loserism. And I'm going to vote for him because I think the behavior of the Democrats is wrong. And I'm finding a lot of that sentiment among Trump skeptics who don't can particularly care for his comportment, which, by the way, is probably 70% of Trump voters. They don't care for his comportment.

They like the results. They also understand that you need to be a mean SOB to sort of break up the swamp's behavior, and the establishment behavior on both sides to make effective change. I will tell you, Selena, I said this, I mean, we talked right after. I said this right at the beginning. If you want to be effective and actually go against Donald Trump, you can't just throw everything at him. They started from the beginning and it drove, it drove people.

I mean, when I put the MAGA hat on, I don't know, about a year or two ago, mine was not a full-throated endorsement of Donald Trump because I like many of his policies, for instance, side note, Your Honor, just what he did with Israel just yesterday. I like many of his policies, but he is so hard to defend. because his because of the way he just is but you know what the way they're taking him on in congress through the state department and in the media god bless him just keep going donald just keep going you're there's a sentiment shared by by people and here's here's what really always gets under my skin is that the people in my profession don't understand that sentiment and you know why because they

live in the super zip codes of this country, and they don't know anyone who thinks or looks or acts the way that people do outside of those super zip codes. They control the media, they control entertainment, they control sports, they control corporations. And this, this populist coalition has been building for over 12 years. Donald Trump didn't cause it. He is the result of it. And the important thing about the Great Rural, revolt is this continues long after 2020. This coalition is not going away for at least a generation. What I would tell people to do is everyone in my profession says, oh, it's all up to the

suburbs. That's right. But not all suburbs are created equal. Suburban voter in Erie County, Pennsylvania, or Kenosha, Wisconsin, or Baldwin, Michigan, or McCone County, Michigan. does not look, act, or behave the same way a suburban voter in Philadelphia or Northern Virginia behaved in votes. Those are the voters who are going to make a difference. They have the exact same education that their cousins have in Northern Virginia and Philadelphia,

but they live among a variety of different viewpoints. And they are connected and rooted to community where voters in Northern, like, Northern. in Virginia are very transient. They aren't rooted to their community. Community doesn't mean the same thing. And voting for Donald Trump is about community and localism. And I have to tell you, and I would love to hear you respond to this, Selena. As I travel around, I just have this sense that there's a lot of people that would have voted

for another candidate that wasn't corrupt and wasn't a hardcore socialist. or even hanging around all the socialists. I think there's a lot of people who are Democrats, who are blue collar, et cetera, et cetera, who may not like Donald Trump, but will vote for him because they feel like the Democratic Party has left the building. And they have left the insane socialists in charge. Yes, that's absolutely true. All you have to do is keep your eye on Western Pennsylvania throughout this whole process. Most of the candidates on the Democratic side that are running said they believe in a ban on fracking on day one.

Well, let me tell you, Western Pennsylvania, Eastern Ohio, also Texas, Colorado, Kansas, North Dakota, these are areas that are thriving because of the shale industry. Lives and communities are being changed because they are now prosperous again. And so to ban it is to take – how are you going to sort of – It's a binary choice, right? I've got Trump who I like his policies, don't like his personality. I got the Democrats. Oh, they want to take my job away on the day they're sworn in.

I think I'll go with the guy with a weird Twitter account because he has my back. And a Democrat cannot win the White House without winning Pennsylvania. A Republican can. And a Democrat cannot win Pennsylvania without winning Western Pennsylvania. So that's why you have to keep an eye on. on those areas because that's where those sentiments will be reflected anytime someone visits there and they will understand why Trump, if it was held tomorrow, he would win the election. And that's hard for people who live out, you live in either the East Coast or the West

Coast to understand because they don't know anybody else in the middle. Remember this, this is in the Great Revolt, the 34% of Trump. Trump voters in 2016, which right now seems like the Ozzie and Harriet hour era, because it seems nicer than it was today. 34% of Trump voters do not tell family member or friend that they were voting for him. 34%. That was in 2006. In my mind, just can't even wrap around how people would, how they're going to approach

it now, given the intensity of the cancel culture. You know, I mean, you say you're going to vote for Trump. You have to worry about losing your job or affecting the people that work for you or affecting your family or affecting your social status. How is the impeachment affecting all of this? You had it absolutely right. If you love Trump and on Election Day 2016, you're still optimistic about the future. But what about those swing people? the people that are, you know, they don't necessarily like that they are voting for a Republican, let alone Donald Trump.

What about those people who voted for him last time? Has this made any impact on them? None. Zero. I have a story coming out about that in the New York Coast on Sunday. I went back to the people in the book, people that were skeptical, people that are hard time, you know, and people who supported him outright, but had reservations. Uh, that not, it's groundhog day. Nothing has changed. Their support for him has only gotten stronger.

Because they look at this and say, you know, they've been trying to do impeach him since day one. They just finally found something they think can make stick. But, but they, they, and they're watching this intensely. Like, there's no there there. I mean, in their minds, they think this is not an impeachable offense. This is something that someone does who is not part of them. Washington system, and this is how they behave. This is how Trump always behave.

What about those Democrats? What about those Democrats who vote for Democrats, but they are afraid of the socialist movement of the Democrat? Will they just sit it out? Or will they vote for the socialist Democrat or a Democrat? No, they won't vote for the socialist Democrat. They'll either sit it out or they'll hold their nose and vote for Trump. That's why I keep my eye on Minnesota as well.

That's a state. He only lost by 45,000 votes, and I just spent some time there, and you see the swing towards him in that state, and that broadens his coalition. That doesn't add to shrinking his coalition. I've heard talk from some people that they believe that this could be a Reagan-Mondale election. I don't think it would be that strong, but do you think there is a chance that it's a, it's not anything like we're expecting? If the Democrats go too crazy on this impeachment, which have already shown that they have no problem doing,

and they pick someone very far left, such as Elizabeth Warren or Pete Buttigieg, then, yeah, you would see a landslide election, absolutely. All right. With no doubt in my mind. Selena, thank you so much. The name of the book is The Great Revolt. I'm anxious to see your next article and get the update to your book. Selina's the one who really listened to people and was the one who finally really just listening to her explained it to me and I was like, oh my gosh, I get it.

It's called The Great Revolt by her and Brad Todd, who also is instrumental in putting this together. It's out in paperback now. Selena, thank you so much. Thanks so much for having me. You bet. God bless. All right. We have, you know, it's interesting because I seem to recall, Stu, don't you, that when you have hearings like this, don't you have the one side ask a question, then the other side ask a question, then your side asks a question? That's an interesting approach.

Yeah, they've decided to do this a little differently. They seem to be asking all of their questions. And then they break for afternoon when everybody is gone. And then they let you ask your questions. the afternoon. So you don't really get any of the other side at the same time, which is, I've not seen before and is so slanted. By the way, they have five people to testify. Three of them are the ones that the Republicans wanted. That's why you have two this morning and then later this afternoon and into the evening when no one is watching is when the Democrats are going to allow the Republicans to have their people testify. I mean, look, they control the process.

It's incredible. I mean, it's the way it's set up. It's in the Constitution that way. They can kind of do it however they want. However, if they actually wanted to convince the American people that this was going on and they believed in their case, wouldn't they try to be more fair? Yes. All right. Let me tell you about an ex-chair right now.

10 different adjustments. It is so comfortable. I believe in this chair so much, this is what I'm getting my wife for Christmas. And she knows it because she asked for it. So Merry Christmas, honey. Have fun opening that box, taking all the joy out of getting somebody at present. Anyway, X-chair, really, really super comfortable. Have it at your office.

You can have it for your home office. You might think the chair you're sitting in is comfortable until you sit in an X-chair with its 10 different settings and the dynamic variable lumbar support. Try the X-chair for 30 days. No question, ask. Guarantee of satisfaction, zero risk. So go on site right now and order. Look at all the different options. You'll find one for your budget.

It's x-chair, beeck.com, X-chairbeck.com. On sale now for $100 off. You can call them at 844-4-4-X-chair. Use the promo code Beck. You're going to get a free set of the new X-wheel. So promo code Beck at 844-X-chair or X-chairbeck.com. We break for 10-second station ID.

So I don't know, Stu. who are the who are the Democrats going to have to run? I mean, it must be Joe Biden. I mean, this doesn't seem to be affecting him yet, but if the president

does go and he's not going to testify now with these hearings, but if they take this up in the Senate and they actually have a real trial where you can call the whistleblower, etc., etc., this is going to destroy Joe Biden, just destroy

him and then who you left with? Well, Mayor Pete is there for you. Mayor Pete now leading in Iowa, according to the most recent poll there by the Des Moines Register, one of the top rated pollsters in the country. He is up by eight or ten points there.

And Buttigieg, you know, I know Selena mentioned him as a far left candidate, which of course I would fully agree with, but he is not positioning himself that way in the primary. He's trying to say he's the moderate option. But people are not going to believe it. People are not going to buy that in the general. They just won't believe it in the

general. I really don't think so. Well, he's trying to, he's trying to give, I mean, remember, this is, we were talking about Chick-fil-A today. This is a guy who came out kind of famously and said, yeah, I'm gay, but I still like Chick-fil-A. He's trying to position himself there. And, you know, he's from the Midwest. He's from this region that Trump won the election in. I mean, he is, this is, He's not real successful in his little teeny town. I'm not making an argument for bootzegra. By any means for you to vote for him, I know. I know.

I described him yesterday, though, as just the latest pair of pumps that the Democrats are trying on. Go shoe shopping with your wife. She'll try on a whole buttload of shoes. And she'll like them when she tries them on. And then she'll say, I'm going to try one more pair. And she'll like that. And then you'll end up walking out without buying anything. that's who he is, just the next set of pumps.

You're listening to Glenn Beck. Goldline, you know, when you say, are you prepared for retirement out loud? It's a little scary, to be honest. What is it that you were supposed to do? How prepared are you now? And even if you prepared, are you ready? Because, man, the next 10 years could be,

I mean, everything could be up in the air. and most likely will be. That's why I include precious metals in anything that I am investing in. Gold and silver is so important because there is already a rush on gold in Russia. There is a rush on gold in China. The Swedes are now saying that their central bank is going to start loading up on gold. Smart people are doing that because that's what a reset means. A reset means you reset the currency to the gold standard.

Goldline right now is offering a five plus year IRA's fees in bonus silver for new qualifying self-directed IRA purchases. So if you want to put this in to your inflation proof as possible portion of your retirement account, do it now. Call Goldline 866 Goldline. 866 Goldline. Call them right now. Go to blazTV.com. Use a promo code Glenn for 10 bucks off. You can get all the specials that we've been running on Ukraine. All are available there at blazTV.com.

Welcome to the program. We have an NSC official, Pence aide, testifying in the public hearing today. And Nunez is now talking to Ms. Williams. So let's listen to his cross-examination here. Until... You prepared for this hearing? Until others have been testifying in more detail on those issues. That's correct. You've been following it more closely. Correct. Did you know that Burisma's American legal representatives met with Ukrainian officials just did

days after Vice President Biden forced the firing of the country's chief prosecutor. Again, sir, I was not working on Ukraine policy during that time. None of these are trick questions. I'm just trying to get through the record. I understand. Did you know that Burisma lawyers pressured the State Department in February 2016 after the raid and month before the firing of Shokin and that they invoked Hunter Biden's name as a reason to intervene? I was not aware. Does you know that Joe Biden called Ukrainian President Porchenko at least three times in February 2016,

after the president and owner of Burisma's home was rated on February 2nd by the state prosecutor's office? Not at the time. Again, I've become aware of that through this proceeding. Thank you, Ms. Williams. Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, I'm going to ask you same questions, just to establish some basic facts about your knowledge about Ukraine, Burrisome, and the role of the Bidens. In September 2015, U.S. ambassador to Ukraine,

Jeffrey Paiet publicly called for an investigation into Sloshefsky, the president of Burisma. Were you aware of these public statements? I wasn't aware of them at the time. When did you become aware of them? During the course of the testimony and the depositions after this impeachment inquiry began. Did you know of anti-Trump efforts

by various Ukrainian government officials as well as Alexander Chalupin? a D&C consultant. I'm not aware of any of these interference efforts. Did you know about Deputy Assistant Secretary of State's Kintz concerns about potential conflict of interest with Hunter Biden sitting on the board of Burisma? The only thing I'm aware of is pertains to his deposition. Does you know that financial records show a Ukrainian natural gas company, Burisma,

routed more than $3 million to the American accounts tied to Hunter. Biden. I'm not aware of this fact. Until recently. I guess I didn't independently look into it. I'm just not aware of what kind of payments Mr. Biden may receive. This is not something I'm aware of. You know that Burisma's American legal representatives met with Ukrainian officials just days after Vice President Biden forced the firing of the country's chief prosecutor. I'm not aware of these meetings. Did you know that Burisma lawyers pressure the State Department in February 2016 after the raid and a month before the firing of Shokin, and that they invoked Hunter Biden's name as a reason to intervene.

I'm not aware of any of these facts. Does you know that Joe Biden called Ukrainian President Porchenko at least three times in February 2016, after the president and owner of Bresum's home was raided on February 2nd by the state prosecutor's office? I'm aware of the fact that President Biden or Vice President Biden was very engaged on Ukraine and had numerous engagements. That's what I'm aware of. Ms. Williams and Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, as you may or may not know,

this committee has spent nearly three years conducting various investigations, starting with the Russia collusion hoax, FISA abuse, democratic hysteria over the lack of collusion in the Mueller report, and now this impeachment charade. One of the most concerning things

regarding all of these investigations is the amount of classified or otherwise sensitive information I read in the press that derive either from this committee or sources in the administration. To be clear, I'm not accusing either one of you of leaking information. However, given that you are the first witnesses who actually have some firsthand knowledge of the president's call by listening in on July 25th, it's imperative to the American public's understanding of the events that we get a few matters out of the way first. Ms. Williams, let me just go to you first.

For the purposes of the following questions, I'm only asking about the time period between from July 25th to September 25th. Okay. Did you discuss the July 25th phone call between President Trump and President Zelensky or any matters associated with the phone call with any members of the press? No. To be clear, you never discussed these matters with the New York Times, the Washington Post, political, CNN or any other media outlet? No, I did not. Did you ask or encourage any individual to share the substance of the July 25th phone call

or any matter associated with the call with any member of the press? I did not. Do you know of any individual who discussed the substance of the July 25th phone call or matter associated with the call with any member of the press? No, I do not. Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, the same questions for you. Did you discuss the July 25th phone call between President Trump and President Zelensky or any matter associated with a phone call with any member of the press?

I did not. Just to be clear, you did not discuss this with the New York Times, the Washington Post, Politico, CNN, or any other media outlet. I did not. Did you ask or encourage any individual to share the substance of the July 25th phone call or any matter associated with the call with any member of the press? I did not. Do you know of any individual who discussed the substance of the July 25th phone call or any matter associated with the call with any member of the press?

We have an NSC press shop and they field any of these types of questions. I do not engage with the press at all. Let me ask the question again. Do you know of any individual who discussed the substance of the July 25th phone call or any matter associated with the call with any member of the press? We have an NSC press shop. whose job is to engage on any of these types of questions. I am not aware, but it is possible and likely that the press shop

would field these types of questions. Right, but the question is, the question is, do you know any individual? Do you personally know any individual who discussed the substance of the July 25th phone call or any matter associated with the call with any member of the press? Thank you, a ranking member, for clarifying. I do not. Ms. Williams, did you discuss July 25th phone call with anyone outside the White House on July 25th or July 26th, and if so, with whom? No, I did not discuss the call with anyone outside or inside the White House. Ms. Williams, during your time on the NSC, have you ever accessed a colleague's work computer without their prior authorization or approval?

I have not, just to clarify him in the Office of the Vice. vice president so not on the nancy right but represent no i have not thank you for that clarification by the way i want to just run with this because you will not see any of this stuff on tv tonight on july 25th or the 26th and if so with whom yes i did my core function is to coordinate u.s government policy interagency policy and i spoke to two individuals with regards to providing a some site some sort of readout of the call two individuals that were not in the White House not in the White House cleared US government officials with a with a appropriate need to know and what agencies were these officials with Department of State

Department of State Deputy Assistant Secretary George Kent who is responsible for the the portfolio Eastern Europe including Ukraine and an individual from the office of an individual in the intelligence community. What, as you know, the intelligence community has 17 different agencies. What agency was this individual from? If I could interject here, we don't want to use these proceedings. It's our time. I know, but we need to protect the whistleblower.

Please stop. I want to make sure that. There's no effort to out the whistleblower through the use of these proceedings. If the witness has a good faith belief that this may reveal the identity of the whistleblower, that is not the purpose that we are here for. And I want to advise the witness accordingly. Unbelievable. Mr. Vindman, you testified in your deposition that you did not know the whistleblower.

Ranking Member, exiled, Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, please. Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, you test. justified in the deposition that you did not know who the whistleblower was. I do not know who the whistleblower is. How is it possible for you to name these people and then out the whistleblower? Per the advice of my counsel, I've been advised not to answer specific questions about members of the intelligence community. Are you aware that this is the intelligence committee that's conducting an impeachment hearing? Of course I am. Wouldn't the appropriate place for you to come to testify

would be the Intelligence Committee about someone within the intelligence community? Ranking Member, per the advice of my counsel and the instructions from the Chairman, I've been advised not to provide any specifics on who I have spoken to within the intelligence community. What I can offer is that these were properly cleared individuals or was a properly clearly an individual with a need to know. Well, this is, I mean, you can really, you can plead the fifth, but you're here to answer questions, and you're here under subpoena. So you can either answer the question or you can plead the fifth.

Excuse me. On behalf of my, we are following the rule of the committee, the rule of the chair with regard to this issue. And this does not. call for an answer that is invoking the fifth or any theoretical issue like that. We're following the ruling of the chair. Counselor, what ruling is that? If I could interject, counsel is correct. Whistleblower has the right, statutory right to anonymity. These proceedings will not be used to out the whistleblower. And I've advised my client accordingly, and he's going to follow the ruling of the chair. If there's a alternative or you want to work something out with the chair,

That's up to you, Mr. Nunes. Well, we've attempted to subpoena the whistleblower to sit for a deposition. The chair has tabled that motion and then has been unwilling to recognize those motions over the last few days of this impeachment inquisition process. Well, that I'll go to Mr. Castor. Notice he uses the word inquisition, and he's absolutely right on this. This is an inquisition where you, don't have a right to face your accuser. You don't have a right to know all of the information.

This is the Intelligence Committee. And for the intelligence officers to not answer to the Intelligence Committee on what was happening in the intelligence community, there is no oversight. It makes not only the State Department not have to answer to the President in the United States for foreign policy. But now this kind of behavior makes the intelligence community not have to answer to the intelligence committee. Who's responsible for anything anymore? More in just a second.

Let me tell you about relief factor. When you climb the ladder of time, eventually you start to get the rungs that hurt a little more than the previous ones did. That's what Greg, who lives in Alabama, found out. He turned 53. Akes and pains, aches and pains, the old story over and over again, except he wasn't that old. He was 53. He was having a hard time getting up and down, desperate for some relief.

Greg finally wound up hearing me talk about relief factor, and he thought, I don't have anything else to lose, and I can gain a lot. Well, you know the story by now. Only a few weeks later, Greg's aches and pains began to melt away. He got his life back. he can climb the ladder of his life again. When taken properly, Relief Factor attacks the inflammation that causes so much of our pain, and it works for 70% of the people who take it. I'm one of them.

We've had so many listeners. Greg is another one. If you want a drug-free natural way to ease your pain and get your life back, go to Relief Factor right now. It's ReliefFactor.com. We're talking about the impeachment. There's a lot of things going on today. I want to talk to you a little bit about what happened yesterday with Israel and also Chick-fil-A, which they came out and they said they were giving up their charity. A contract ran out with the charity known as the Salvation Army.

And the press is spinning this as, you know, they're just going after the gay chicken money. But we, is this right? We have Santa on the phone. Hello, Santa. Merry Christmas, Glenn. Yeah, Merry Christmas. Have you been a good boy or girl? I've been a boy my whole life there, Santa.

Well, that's how I have to ask it now. If you do a good boy or girl? Right, okay. I mean, come on, Chick-fil-A. I mean, I've been, you're taking money from the Salvation freaking army? Well, it's, I'm not. Here I am sitting at like 1,200 Walmarts at the same time raising money. Right, right.

Right. I'm Santa. gaze. Look at my suit. Super frilly. So Santa loves the gays. I put bells on everything. Hello. I mean, I gotta say a lot of the streets around here were not for the tinsel.

They said it was over the top. I pushed for it. Right. Okay. All right. When it got a request from some kid named Stan that wants a Barbie, I don't bring a do-it-yourself gay conversion therapy kid instead. That's not what I'm doing here.

Right. Right. So maybe the Salvation Army is something that... I'm trying to feed people here, homeless people, not push up your toddler. And might I remind you? I'm a guy who is inside your home while you're asleep. Right. Okay?

I have access to your fireplace. Right. I know when you are sleeping, stop screwing with me. All right. Thank you very much. that's an official response from Santa about Chick-fil-A distancing themselves from the Salvation Army, which I am not sure that's anything other than spin on what actually happened from Chick-fil-A. We're waiting for a comment from Chick-fil-A.

Tinsel is a relatively gay product, though. I will say, I never really thought of it that way. I didn't know, but it kind of is. I still don't think of it that way, but... You're listening to Gliton. We have the last hour of the impeachment. We're going to be looking into a couple of other things, including the Chick-fil-A thing. I just don't understand it, but as we read more into it, it looks like that kind of is what Chick-fil-A is saying, we think.

I hope not, but we think. Let me tell you about our spotlight sponsor, and that's Relief Factor. Two years ago, it was two years ago in about three weeks that I went up to the ranch, which I could barely do anymore, because it's cold and cold affects me at very high altitude and the altitude affects me. And I said, I just can't live this way anymore. And Tanya said, before you completely give up, try relief factor. Just try it, please. And I did.

And it has changed my life. I'm not dreading going to the mountains for the holidays because I don't have to anymore. Relief factor. It worked for me. Give it a shot. Please try it for three weeks. call 800,500,88384 ReliefFactor.com. I honestly don't understand how thinking people are consuming this impeachment hearing

and feeling that, A, it's fair or even consistent. And I want to start there as we continue our coverage on the impeachment hearings in one minute. This is the Glembach program. Okay, imagine your cell phone is a voting booth. And every time you use your cell phone, you're voting for impeachment. You're voting for open borders. You're voting for gun confiscation. That call to your mother just voted for abortion.

That's the way you need to look at this. It's a horrible thought, but it's not unrealistic. Because this is what you're doing when you spend money with all of the cell phone companies that hate everything you believe in. Just to add insult to injury, these cell phone carriers have all kinds of hidden fees like AT&T's administrative fee. You know the one they're currently getting sued over?

What is that? Compare that with Patriot Mobile, the only conservative phone company in the nation. They not only support your values with no hidden fees, but for a limited time, they're also giving you a free Moto Z3 when you open up a new line,

A free Moto Z3, when you open a new line, the offer is only valid through Cyber Monday when you call 877-367-7524. Why not use a carrier who believes in the same things you do and isn't voting with their money? Your money. Every time you make a phone call, they donate to those causes. Patriot Mobile doesn't do that. Switching is really easy. You'll get reliable 4G-L-T-E nationwide service for as low as 25 bucks a month. Plus, you're helping preserve the country that we love.

It's patriotmobile.com slash Beck. Patriotmobile.com slash Beck. Or call their U.S. base team at 877-367-7524. 877-367-7524. Patriotmobile.com slash Beck. So now we're talking to the people that we've already really heard from. We've heard from Lieutenant Colonel Vindman. He's an NSC guy.

he he was there at the White House it's his testimony on what what happened and how there you know how there was collusion but not really you know how there was bribery but not really

it's based basically on how he feels I felt this was wrong okay well I appreciate your feelings I do appreciate your feelings but do you have any more than your feelings? We're going to give you all the entire breakdown here at 5 o'clock this afternoon on what's, what is happening today in the impeachment trial.

But I can't help but in listening to this, then ask just for, just give me a couple of minutes. And let me ask three questions. Right now, we are being. told that asking for an investigation on Joe Biden was targeting of a political opponent, and it is impeachable. Okay. All right.

Let's say I give you that. All right. Asking for an investigation on someone who is your foe in an upcoming election is impeachable. Why? Because just the... the hint of scandal hurts them, right? Just the hint of scandal hurts them.

But don't you have a responsibility to make sure that information gets out if there is actual corruption? Let me ask the question this way. Asking for an investigation on Biden was targeting a political opponent and it is impeachable. But doing an investigation based on the steel dossier is not impeachable. launching this investigation, this impeachment based on a partisan whistleblower is somehow heroic and the job of Congress, yet calling for an investigation on the corruption of a Democratic vice president is impeachable. I can't give you both. I can't.

I give you one. Looking into your opponent is either impeachable or it is not. I can't say it is sometimes and not the other. You can't tell me, well, that was just a political campaign. Well, that's what the Steele dossier was. So that was a political campaign. You can't say, well, he's in the administration. Well, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, we have evidence that they were working to discredit Donald Trump and his campaign.

the same way that people are accusing Donald Trump using his administrative power to discredit Joe Biden. This is question number one. Why are they different? Can you explain how they're different? Question number two. Holding back aid and then later releasing it to Ukraine, all of the money. and doing that only after that same administration had already delivered military support in a javelin missile system is somehow not only impeachable, but it shows support for Russia and U.S. weakness towards Ukraine.

That's what they're saying now. Donald Trump held this back, which was a clear sign to Russia, even though the Ukrainians didn't know we were holding it back, Somehow the Russians did, and it was a sign that the United States was weak on Ukraine and wasn't really going to support them. Even though they had already given a missile system, the second missile system was held back for a couple of months. However, at the same time, holding back all the military aid during an actual conflict with Ukraine, The United States held back military support when Ukraine was actually in the military conflict with Russia. That administration that was outwardly working towards a reset with Russia and who had said during the 2012 election, Mr. Romney, the 1980s called and they want their foreign policy back,

that was not sending a signal of weakness on U.S. support for Ukraine. You can't have both. You have to pick one or the other by Ukraine doing an investigation into corruption of U.S. officials. By asking Ukraine to do an investigation into corruption of U.S. officials, investigating what happened to our $7 billion investment, as well as looking into election tampering, where two Ukrainian officials, including the head of the Anti-Corruption Bureau,

that was set up by the American and Ukrainian administration, in a partnership, the head, one of the guys that was convicted was the head of that bureau found guilty in a Ukrainian court of law for tampering with the U.S. elections to throw it toward Hillary. by asking to investigate that would destroy the bipartisan support for Ukraine. So does that mean that the Democrats all know that Ukraine is corrupt and in their corner? And so they will no longer support it to be free? Because the Democrats doing an investigation on Trump's asking for this investigation, they say, will not polarize Ukraine in Congress?

Because I, I, don't understand. How come one is an affront and the other is not? One is bipartisan and one is not. One is impeachable and one is not. This impeachment doesn't

help Russia? I'm only looking for consistency and I would love to hear somebody that can answer those questions. How is it impeachable to look into somebody's corrupt history? If one side does it and it's

it's heroic if the other side does it. And they're both in power. And they're both running against each other. How's that work? It's all flavored by the same thing, which is they are going into this with the assumption that Donald Trump is guilty of everything they're accusing him of. He's this really bad person who's doing these really bad things.

So therefore, obviously, if he's doing these things for these bad reasons, he should be punished. And it's okay. It's a just investigation because he's a bad guy doing bad things. things. However, Biden isn't. He's a good guy doing good things. And if you go into it with that prism, of course you see it this way. But then you have to, then you have to accept that the people who are holding the hearings themselves do not believe that all investigations are just. And they can't. Like, this is such a weird line they're trying to draw with the Biden part of

this. Anyone, like, they're trying to convict Donald Trump. of wanting to investigate his political opponents, but they are investigating their political opponents. So what they're saying here, and I just want to make this clear, what they're saying here is all investigations are not equal, and all investigations done by our government are not just. If that investigation went on, it would not be just. And that's what they did.

They did the same thing with Benghazi. Exactly right. Exactly right. Those are good things. People doing good things. Correct. I just want people to connect with that. Because what that means is there is no justice one size fits all.

There is one court that could be very, very just and one court that is very, very evil. We're not working on the same handbook. We're not working on the same set of rules. If it's conducted by these people, it's fine. if it's not conducted by those people, it's not fine, which means you better be careful on whose camp and whose side you're on. Right. And this is such a huge point.

And it's such a good one you bring up because what they are proposing essentially is a system in which your political opponent has immunity for anything they do. You can't investigate them if you're a Republican. But on the other side, you can do it with Democrats. It shows they have no more. consistency here at all. Because the idea isn't, well, we, you went after Biden

after knowing there was nothing there. We all know there's big questions, right? We all know there's big questions there, though. And even the New York Times says that. They've all done it. Now at this point, they've all written big reports on this, whether this stuff was questioned.

And you know, what's interesting is, why haven't they called John Kerry's stepson? Yeah, it's a great one. John Kerry's stepson comes out and says, to Hunter Biden. I'm not doing this, man. I'm not going with the Ukrainian thing. This is crazy.

This is really crazy. You're going to get nailed for this. This is not good. And he backs out and says, I just want to make it really clear. I'm not part of it. Well, you know that John Kerry heard that from his son.

You know that he had to have gone to John Kerry and said, hey, is this cool? I mean, really? Because this doesn't seem right to me, which means that he either didn't talk to his father or, which I don't believe, or his father said, stay way away from this one, son, stay way away. He's on record getting away from those two because he said to them, you're in a different league here.

This is really bad. How come we're not hearing that? because this isn't a hearing. This isn't a trial. This is an inquisition. All right. If you've been thinking about home security, there's no better time to get it than right now.

Simply Safe is offering their best deal of the year. You're going to get 25% off any new system, plus an HD-free HD security camera. I talk about Simply Safe home security every week. I've been talking about them for a very long time because they are truly the best home security company out there, period. You get everything you need to keep your home safe. Entry sensors, motion sensors, smart lock, video doorbells, security cameras, everything.

Plus SimpliSafe offers 24-7 professional monitoring with police dispatch that's three and a half times faster on average than other security systems. I've known the Simply Safe founder Chad for many, many years. These, I trust him. I trust his team and I trust their system. If you have been waiting or on the fence about getting home security, don't wait. If you're looking for something to maybe give your older kids for a Christmas present, this is it. Simplysafebeck.com. You're going to get 25% off the entire system plus the free security camera.

Best deal that you've found all year at SimplySafebeck.com. That's simplysafebeck.com. 10 seconds. Station ID. All right. Welcome to the program. The Health Intelligence Committee. is going to resume shortly. They've taken a break. So they'll let the, as soon as everybody's out and, you know, on their lunch break or they're, you know, doing things this afternoon, getting

ready to go home, they're going to start this thing right back up so the Republicans can have their time. Oh, yeah. Look, it's, the messaging here is simple. We're going to be super fair. We're going to make sure both sides are heard. It's a high priority for the House. Have you seen anything like this before? Well, I mean, look, It is a partisan exercise, and they have 100% of the power to set these rules. They don't have to do anything for the Republicans. Doesn't that, shouldn't that frighten every decent Democrat? Because if they want to railroad you, they want to railroad your industry, they decide what's right and wrong.

They will do it any way they want. 100% they will. And the thing here is, which I find is interesting, is not the fact that the Democrats would bend the rules so that they can, you know, manipulate this process into the best possible outcome for them. That is not particularly surprising to me. What is surprising to me is

they don't even seem to be attempting to try to convince a non-left-wing person that this was going on. Correct. Because if you did, you would at least have on the face, you'd say, look, this is fair, we let them have these witnesses,

we let them have these extra questioning. We're going out of our way to let them present their case because we know their case sucks. So come on here, make your case. We'll argue about it. And then once the American people hear it, they're going to go turn on public opinion. And all those Republican senators over there are going to switch sides and vote on our side. That's not what they're attempting to do here. And it's so clear that they have nothing.

Remember, this is the Tuesday before we all go away for Thanksgiving. Yeah. Okay. Next week, it's done. No one pays attention now. No one pays attention next week. No one really pays that much attention unless it's a nuclear explosion before Christmas. So they have taken their best shots.

Last week was the time to put your A game on. Then this week, put your B plus game on. I have not heard anything that makes me or anyone I know go, well, now wait a minute. Have you heard this? How do you explain this? I mean, legitimately, the biggest moment of this hearing so far. I mean this seriously, is that one guy said one of his aides overheard Trump asking about the thing we know he asked about in the transcript. Right.

He followed up and said, hey, now we don't even, I mean, do we know if that's true? I have no idea. But he overheard Trump say, hey, what about those investigations? And then afterwards, they said he cares more about the investigations than he does actually Ukraine, which would actually make sense considering. No, he's the president of the United States and not the president of Ukraine. And when they asked about hearsay, the defense actually said, or the prosecution in this case, actually said, here say is sometimes, this is a quote, hearsay is sometimes better than firsthand knowledge.

When? When? Can you give me an example of that? When? I mean, I guess maybe if the people, if they're accusing. the first-hand people of lying. I mean, maybe if they heard, someone else heard the truth and those people are lying to cover something up,

but Sondland doesn't seem to be lying. He doesn't seem to be on Trump's side here. I mean, he's the one that revised his own testimony to say, yeah, I did tell Ukraine about a quid pro quo. This is a Trump guy who said that. Now, that doesn't mean that Trump told him that, per se, but it is what he communicated to Ukraine. So Ukraine thought this was going on, for sure,

unless we don't believe Sondland, too. The point here, though, is that, like, they are going, this is all stuff that is, that points to, I think, the overall narrative that we all understand, which is Donald Trump legitimately believed that there was something shady going on with the Bidens. You can say that yes, you can guesstimate and guess about his motives and say it was 100% politics. You can even say he absolutely wanted that information, 100% to destroy Joe Biden. However, it was also in the U.S. interest. If the freaking vice president of the United States is overmaking shady deals to enriches children, that is completely in the U.S. interest. It's our money.

Of course it's in the U.S. interests. Now, does that align with his personal interest? Sure. And if you could find examples of him, you know, something really hardcore, not some aid overhearing an analysis of another individual of what he can. cares about. I'm talking about actual evidence. If you have that, that's one thing. On the other side of this, the same thing can be said about Joe Biden. Yes, it may have been in the U.S. interest to go after these prosecutors. Who knows? But in reality, it also just happened to help his son make

$83,000 at a month at a job he had no right having. Of course that's something that's in the U.S. interest to look into that. Of course it is. You're listening to Glenn Beck. I'll tell you about Sandra. She was having trouble sleeping for a very long time because all through the night. She'd wake up in pain and the problem was the inflammation in her joints. You know that achy feeling you get when you have the flu? One of the most miserable things. Sandra was experiencing every night. She didn't have any hope that it was going to change. She thought this is it. And she was really starting to despair and be a little bummed out. But then a friend told

her about relief factor. Sandra was skeptical. She was also desperate. So when you have little to lose and a lot to gain if something works, she's decided, I'm going to take it. She's decided she was taking just for a few days. Her pain, she says, began to melt away. Now she's sleeping like an angel every night. Relief, technically, I don't know if angels sleep, but relief factor, and if they do,

what if they're on a different time zone than us? And my guardian angels is only awake when I'm asleep. That's, anyway, relief factor reduces the inflammation, the major source for most pain, and you can get it for 1995, a three-week quick start right now. Drug-free natural way to ease your pain and get your life back. Go to Relieffactor.com.

That's Relieffactor.com. More on the impeachment and everything that happens today at blazTV.com with Glenn on TV. If you use the promo code, Glenn, you will save $10. All right. Welcome to the program. I'm glad you're here. You know, they've been trying really hard to make this into Watergate. but let me just go through a series of questions about Watergate. Stu, what is, what was Watergate all about?

What is Watergate? It's a hotel. It's a hotel in Washington. Yep, they broke into it and tried to get some information on the election. They were oddly up by like 30 points in. Right. Who broke in? The underlings of the president, the committee to reelect the president.

Yes, the committee to reelect the president. The committee to reelect the president broke in. They hired a bunch of people to go in in the middle of the night. Okay. Yep. And break into the water gate. What were they looking for? I mean, any information on their political opponent.

Okay. And not necessarily dirt, just anything. What are they doing? They're running anything. Exactly. Right. Where, what are their polls look like anything? Okay.

What was the president's role that we know of? I mean, at that point, nothing, right? I mean, it wasn't until afterwards. he's in trouble for covering it up afterward. Okay. And how did he try to cover it up? I mean using all sorts of levers of the government. Government assets. Yes. Right? Okay. CIA, DOJ, etc., etc.

Using government assets to cover up a crime committed in his name or in his interest for pure political reasons and all they were looking for was political dirt, right? Sure, yes. National interest of anything that would have been found that they thought was there, national interest value. None. Your only argument is Nixon really needed to be president. That was their only argument. Right.

There's no national interest value. It's political value only. At all. Got it. All right. Let me just change a few factors of Watergate and see if it changes anything. Because they're trying to compare it like crazy. Oh, yeah.

They're saying it's the same thing. except worse. Okay. Well, let me just change a few of the things. Let's say at the Watergate Hotel is the Ukrainian ambassador's residence. Okay. And in his safe is information of electioneering, corruption by U.S. officials at the highest level all the way to the previous president, that there is evidence of electioneering, corruption by U.S. officials at the highest level all the way to the previous president, that there is evidence of, of money laundering, money that was U.S. aid dollars that were laundered by criminals over in Ukraine

and found its way back here into the United States. And you had credible witnesses that worked in and around that embassy and witness these things. But it involved several people in and around the intelligence agencies, the Department of State. and even people in your administration know about it and are covering it up. Let's say that that's what's in that safe in Watergate. And the president says to a couple of people, DOJ and CIA spooks and says, look, I can't trust anybody. I can trust you. I need you to go in and break into that safe because I believe there is evidence of massive corruption.

in our government, and we're about to sell them javelin missiles. Break into the safe. Impeachable? Well, no, because that's clearly in the U.S. interest, right? I mean, there's not a, it's not a political reason he's doing that. It's a, it's in the U.S. interest. Let's say that safe was not in the embassy or the ambassador's house, but instead that was in the safe of a guy he was going to run against.

he had saved all that information to use against other people and to keep himself safe so he had all the evidence of everything in his safe but he was the campaign that was against the sitting president it wouldn't make a difference right if they've committed crimes against the United States

obviously we're summarizing that the president can just ask people to bring in the safe I mean like would he be in favor of this investigation of course and would it be justified yes Yes. And believe me, as soon as Trump is out of office, you're going to see all of these things happen. The Democrats are going to go into break into every little corner of safe that they can think of in this analogy to get at Donald Trump and all the things they believe he did. Right.

Right. You're also going to see, I think, eventually, you will see all of the dirt come out and you will see that in that safe, if you will, was all the evidence, was all the evidence. Because now what we have is a president who they're not. trying to compare to Nixon, who was breaking into the DNC, instead breaking into a safe that has all of the evidence, he brings it out. He even tells people before he does it. Somebody should look into that safe. Somebody should look into that safe. He instructs people in his own departments. Somebody should look into that safe. Nobody does. Finally, two people that work at that house go to the president's attorney and says, you know that everything is in that safe, right? Yes. We've been

trying to get people. Well, we can help you get it. Really? Yes. Then that attorney goes on air and says, I got two people who's helped me break into this safe. Okay, that's not a good, that's not a smooth criminal. I have two people that are going to help me break into this safe and get all this information. they do it, then that same attorney brings it to the Justice Department and says, ah, by the way, I broke into the safe and here's what I found. How could you possibly in your right mind say, oh, they were trying to get away with this? They told everybody what they were going to do breaking into the safe. They asked other people to go to the safe.

Then when they broke into the safe and they got all the information, they brought it to the authorities. It seems to me like something is in that safe, that very powerful people, more powerful in the collective than the president of the United States, do not want coming out. The State Department, the CIA, the Justice Department, the media, the DNC, none of them are want this to come out. It's fascinating. I mean, the double standard is so clear on this one. Think about this, go ahead. The main thing about just going to go back to the simple form of this with Joe

Biden potentially enriching his kid because of U.S. policy, right? Yeah. Very basic thing. This is something that he wants to look into, right? That is impeachable for using any, that is an impeachable offense for the president of the United States. Remember, think about. like the way and many many

Democrats have called for this already. Investigations of how Donald Trump and his policies have benefited his children. It is legitimately, like they wanted Kelly Ann Conway charged with a hatch. I think it was a hat, was it a hat, is it the Hatch Act that I'm thinking of? Yes. Yeah.

Because she said Ivanka Trump's clothing line was good and you should go buy some. Remember that they wanted an investigation and they wanted to charge her because she said that on television because they said oh well this administration is trying to benefit their children but they have no interest in the Biden thing whatsoever so who is it that is using the levers

of government like Nixon and who's using the levers of government like the guy trying to break into the ambassador safe it's very very clear which which one is uh happening hang on just a second we have some breaking, we have some breaking news. Can we, are we going to stop for the breaking news? We do. Okay.

We have an update on FART investigation, 2019. Oh, fart? Fart. Fart investigation? Fart investigation. Yes, Fartgate, being investigated. Fartgate, which is. Eric Swalwell, farting on national television. Or did he?

Right. Well, this is the big controversy. I will tell you, it took a lot to restrain myself, but I did restrain myself on Twitter yesterday because I thought there's no way that fart is... Somebody just added that fart onto that, and I wasn't going to be a part of that. But now I find out, and this is real, I come in the morning and, yes, that sound was not added later.

This is the original clip with Eric Swalwell and Chris Matthews. You'll hear Eric talking and then somebody just rips one in the middle of the statement. And you see a physical reaction by Swalwell. but is that misleading people from the real facts behind the story. Here's the evidence is uncontradicted that the president used taxpayer dollars to ask the Ukrainians to help them cheat an election. To ask the Ukrainians to help them cheat in election. It looks like it pushes it out with the E.

Like it's cheat. Yeah. I mean, he just through the election. And that was what pushes it out. It does look like it. It does look like that. It does look like it. Now, looks can be deceiving.

Yes. Now, Chris Matthews, I was going to present this the way that the alternate theory is developing. Chris Matthews, he's back in studio. He knows it's not Eric Swalwell. Eric Swalwell is taking on the heat for it. So what does he do? Swalwell is going to call him out and said,

you're the guy that farted Matthews. You're the guy who farted on television. And Matthews has to come out and release a statement saying, no, it wasn't Swalwell, or Swalwell will come out with the truth. So what he does is he said, oh, it was a mug. We've already tried to simulate the mug. Do you want to give us another quick mug simulation?

Yeah, let me just give you the simulation. Here's the mug on my desk. Here it is. Does not sound like a fart. Does not sound like a fart whatsoever. We know that. Okay. Well, investigations are going on and information is coming out.

And there have maybe been some other situations where Chris Matthews has farted on the air during interviews. Don't believe it. That would be the normal stance and it would be one I would understand. Right. Okay. All right. But let me just present the evidence.

All right. Go ahead. Here is clip number one. and said that when he pleaded guilty to these charges in the Southern District of New York. But what's different today is that... Now, you heard that. That sounded very similar to the cup across the desk. It did sound a lot like the cup across the desk.

What is this desk made out of? I don't understand. Part sounding material of some sort. Not a thing. Right, okay. Okay. Next clip, another clip of Chris Matthews doing an interview. Listen.

Wow, what a critique. And with me now is Scott Arsena. He's the executive director of the Florida Democratic Party. Bobstrom is a Democratic strategy who's been through a lot of these races. Scott, just give me the skinny here. Can we get a clean, fair, honest? Now, if these been added,

because it sounds like they've been added. I don't know. I'm not up on my... I don't know your source. Of who is collecting fart sounds from Chris Matthews? Many sources around the internet, actually. Okay, so there's another one. Here's another one.

If you're taking the President of the United States down into So that really depends on how it's ultimately structured if they were able to make some sort of a... I mean, I'm hearing them. I'm hearing them, too, and I will tell you, he is at that point to where he's an old man. He's very old, Glenn. And sometimes when you hit that age that starts with a one and then has a two after it, and then there's like a three or four after that, things are hard to control. Right.

I mean, like, it's not Chris's fault, per se. I mean, when I get into that situation, I'm going to be saying to, you know, Doris, Curran's Goodwin, pull my finger. Right. I mean, you just go for it. I'll just go for it. I'll just go for it. But Chris is, I think. So what you're saying here in this fart investigation is that don't be so hasty.

It's probably not Swalwell. Yeah. And so people are blaming Swalwell. And look, he's had a rough year. You know, there's an argument to be made that the fart in question lasted longer than his campaign. Right. And that's not good.

And smelt about the same. Maybe better. However, as much as I think Swalwell is a funny target of this, number one, I want the truth. Okay. That's what we're about. That's what we're about. Right. Okay, that's number one.

Number two, I feel like Chris Matthews might be a better target. No one knows who Eric Swalwell is. No one cares. Eric Swalwell kind of came and went and no one's going to hear from the guy again. Chris Matthews. is a guy I kind of want to believe farts on the air. I want it to be true. I will tell you this.

I mean, is this a, I had to work in an atmosphere with an old man that was farting all the time? Because I think there's a lesser Me Too movement that could be had. Me number two movement? Yeah. I mean, no, he didn't touch me or grope me or anything like that. Right. But he farted around me all the time.

Especially during interviews. This is why you notice none of these interviews are guests in studio. They've all booked it to be outside. You know, tomorrow we might do an expose on this. And we ask you tomorrow to just wear a green, brownish-green ribbon on your lapel tomorrow. Some sort of a cheap. In support. Did you hear that?

Yeah, no, I play it one more time. I might. This is not a borderline issue. That's a montage of all three clips. Okay, I am actually paying people to make fart montages. I am re-evaluating. A fartage? A fartage.

Thank you. Thank you, Stu. Appreciate what you bring to the table today. All right. Let me tell you a little bit about our sponsor this hour, and it is LifeLock. New report suggested. Companies are underestimating the damage that could be done if employees' data is stolen and leaked to the dark web or wider Internet. Employee email addresses are a broad entry point into a company's system,

and having access to employee data can lead to many, many of the security issues that the business world is worried about day to day, and you should be too. It's really important to understand how cybercrime is affecting your life. somebody has their identity stolen every two seconds, and you're going to miss things if you're only monitoring your credit. LifeLock detects a wide range of identity threats and alerts you to if and when a threat is detected. You should give them a call or just visit their website today and find out all about it. Nobody can prevent all identity theft or monitor all transactions at all businesses. But LifeLock sees the threats that you might miss on your own.

And until December 8th, join and get a special radio discount. Save 30% or more off your first year. year by using the promo code back. Call 1-800 LifeLock, 1-800 LifeLock. Or LifeLock.com. Use the promo code back, save 30% or more off your first year. It's LifeLock.com promo code back. You're listening to Glenn Beck. So we have the wrap up today at 5 o'clock, the full wrap-up of what happened in the impeachment trial today.

But let me give you just the highlight real quick of what the important. parts of the trial were. Some sort of a cheap. That's definitely the most important part. Yeah, some people say that that's just the Chris Matthews fart montage. Fartage? And I'm telling you that yes, it is,

but there's no difference between what you heard in Congress today and that fartage. I want Adam Schiff to fart in the middle of this thing so bad today. That would be the best twist of this story. You're listening to Glenn Stop.