Best of the Program | Guest: Jason Buttrill | 11/15/19

Hey, it's Friday.

Let me say that again.

It's Friday.

And the podcast today is really, really good.

It's the impeachment hearings.

We will show you in real time how the ambassador was lying, quite honestly,

or just so unbelievably incompetent that she just didn't know all these things were going on around her.

You'll have to decide.

the circus continues today uh also stu and i have uh shook hands on a car race

sure that's gonna end well oh yeah uh neither of us are race car drivers but uh

you know we both got our backup in the heat of the moment and decided oh really i can i'll race you i'll beat you

uh and so we're i think we're committed now it's also pretty much how every world war starts yes it is yes it is it is we might run over an archduke uh at some point all right all on today's podcast you're gonna love it here it is

you're listening to

the best of the benefit program

The only thing that we know happened with Giuliani is that these guys introduced him to the two prosecutor generals because the prosecutor generals were desperate to get this information to America, to somebody who would listen.

And so they said, hey, we have the proof.

The prosecutor generals, they want to get it.

And he said, well, can you line up a meeting with me?

And so it was that guy, those two guys that are bad news, that put Rudy Giuliani in touch with

the Biden, I've got to fire prosecutor general and the Biden, oh, this is the good guy prosecutor general.

Those two had several meetings with Rudy Giuliani, and that's where he got all this information.

And it is interesting that both the person that Biden wanted to replace initially and the person that Biden replaced them with, both of them now are still saying things that are very critical of the storyline the Democrats are presenting.

Correct.

Both of them.

You know, that's, you'd think normally, in a normal story, that would be a pretty big deal.

right?

Like, when you have the person that Biden's basically hand-chose to put in there as the good guy, and that guy is not agreeing with the left-wing storyline here.

Oh, no, but they've turned.

They've turned because they just want to keep their jobs.

They don't have jobs.

I mean, there is this thing where basically

because there's so, there is so much corruption in this country.

Yeah.

They can kind of just say, well, I mean, we just, we picked another person.

We thought they were good and they were corrupt too.

Yeah.

And it's like, well, that is

believable at some level in Ukraine because seemingly anyone who goes within 100 miles of Ukraine turns into Mr.

Corruption.

Yes.

Which brings us back to the Ambassador Yovanovich, who is

more than 100 yards closer to Ukraine.

She was actually in Ukraine.

She is the

key.

Let's take Devin Nunes here and his opening statement real quick.

Yep, it's coming up here.

Coming up in just a second.

They're getting ready to introduce the ambassador who is going to testify.

And

she's the one who was coordinating

with

the

ambassador in the United States for Ukraine to get information back and forth about Donald Trump and the last campaign.

Everything that America thought they were going to find on Donald Trump in Russia, it's right here.

I'm curious.

I mean, Schiff is finishing up, and here comes Nunez.

Does anyone think Schiff is good at this?

Shift?

Yeah.

I think he's horrible.

Continue engaging in the Democrats' day-long TV spectacles instead of solving the problems we were all sent to Washington to address.

We now have a major trade agreement with Canada and Mexico ready for approval, a deal that would create jobs and boost our economy.

Meanwhile, we have not yet approved funding for the government, which expires next week,

along with funding for our men and women in uniform.

Instead, the Democrats have convened us once again to advance their operation to topple a duly elected president.

I'll note that five,

five

Democrats on this committee had already voted to impeach this president before the Trump-Zelensky phone call occurred.

In fact, Democrats have been vowing to oust President Trump since the day he was elected.

So Americans can rightly suspect that his phone call with President Zelensky was used as an excuse for the Democrats to fulfill their Watergate fantasies.

But I'm glad that on Wednesday,

after the Democrats staged six weeks of secret depositions in the basement of the Capitol, like some kind of strange colt, The American people finally got to see this farce for themselves.

They saw a sit-through hours of hearsay testimony about conversations that two diplomats who had never spoken to the president heard secondhand, thirdhand, and fourthhand from other people.

That's literally what they were testifying on.

Rumors.

Hearsay.

The problem of trying to overthrow a president based on this type of evidence is obvious.

But that's what their whole case relies on, beginning with secondhand and third-hand information cited by the whistleblower.

That's why on Wednesday the Democrats were forced to make the absurd argument that hearsay

can be much better evidence than direct evidence.

They actually tried to make that case as well.

In case you didn't know, committee Republicans received a memo from the Democrats threatening ethics referrals if we out the whistleblower.

Out him.

As the Democrats are well aware, no Republicans here know the whistleblower's identity because the whistleblower only met with Democrats, not with Republicans.

Chairman Schiff claimed not to know who it is, yet he also vowed to block us from asking questions that could reveal his or her identity.

Republicans on this committee are left wondering how it's even possible for the chairman to block questions about a person whose identity he claims not to know.

The American people may be seeing these absurdities for the first time, but Republicans on this dais are used to them.

Until they secretly met with the whistleblower, Democrats showed little interest for the last three years in any topic aside from the ridiculous conspiracy theories that President Trump is a Russian agent.

When you find yourself on the phone, like the Democrats did with Russian pranksters offering you nude pictures of Trump, and afterward you order your staff to follow up and get the photos, as the Democrats also did,

then it might be time to ask yourself if you've gone out too far on a limb.

Even as they were accusing Republicans of colluding with Russians, the Democrats themselves were colluding with Russians by funding the Steele dossier, which was based on Russian and Ukrainian sources.

Meanwhile, they turn a blind eye to Ukrainians meddling in our elections because the Democrats were cooperating with that operation.

This was the subject of a July 20th, 2017 letter sent by Senator Grassley to then Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

The letter raised concerns about the activities of Alexander Chalupa, a contractor for the Democratic National Committee.

who worked with Ukrainian embassy officials to spread dirt on the Trump campaign.

As Senator Grassley wrote, Chalupa's action, quote, Chalupa's actions appear to show that she was simultaneously working on behalf of a foreign government, Ukraine, and on behalf of the DNC and the Clinton campaign in an effort to influence not only the U.S.

voting population, but U.S.

government officials, unquote.

After touting the Steele dossier and defending the FBI's Russia investigation, which are now being investigated by Inspector General Horowitz and Attorney General Barr.

Democrats on this committee ignore Ukrainian election meddling, even though Chalupa publicly admitted to the Democrats' scheme.

Likewise, they are blind to the blaring signs of corruption

surrounding Hunter Biden's well-paid position on the board of a corrupt Ukrainian company

while his father served as vice president and point man for Ukraine issues in the Obama administration.

New banking records have been released.

Democrats

shows he got all kinds of money

from Barisma, making direct payments.

Of course, he didn't make a dime.

We should also point out when they're bringing up Chalupa here, Chalupa is someone that, of course, the Republicans really want to talk to about all of this.

And of course, obviously you'd think, well, the Democrats don't want her to talk, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

And so they're not letting her be called.

She herself, though, is saying she wants to come testify.

She wants to.

So they're actually not only rejecting the Republicans, they're rejecting her request to come testify.

Unbelievable.

Unbelievable.

Unbelievable.

Okay.

We'll come back to this and

give you all of the important stuff.

I think it's worth listening to the ambassador.

It might make your head explode.

But really listen how the

embassy and the State Department are spinning this.

If you watched our specials, you already know who these people are.

If you watched Wednesday night and saw our special Wednesday night, you know why the State Department and why Schiff and everybody else is working so hard to control this

because one misstep on this, and

literally the State Department and the DNC fall apart.

The best of the Glenn Beck program.

Hey, it's Glenn, and you're listening to the Glenn Beck program.

If you like what you're hearing on this show, make sure you check out Pat Gray Unleashed.

It's available wherever you download your favorite podcasts.

So I haven't heard a lot of stuff, you know, besides the lies,

a lot of stuff on principle that I disagree with.

You know,

she does work for, you know,

at the will of the president.

So why wasn't she fired a year before?

Why, when the president first came to the State Department and said, I want you to change her out, did they not change her out?

That's the sort of stuff that Trump's been complaining about, where he wants things carried out and people don't carry them out.

Correct Haley has in her book.

Yes.

I mean,

that's why, honestly, he looks to be erratic.

He just did this in Ukraine.

No, he's been trying to fire her for a year and they wouldn't fire her.

You know, a guy, at least me,

is somebody just said this to me the other day.

You're going to speak this into existence.

And I said, yes, I'm going to.

Because sometimes when you're up against a whole mob that just doesn't see the vision or doesn't want to go there, then that's the time that you just say, I'm moving forward with or without you.

I'm moving forward.

And that's what Donald Trump did because the State Department thinks they run the foreign policy.

They don't.

They work for the president.

I also am fine with all the stuff that she said about we have to have stability and we don't want corruption.

Yes, however, as you, as we have shown you the deep state corruption and what they were actually doing in Ukraine, for her to say, I would never work together with anyone that was trying to throw the election, you weren't there.

You started by saying, I can't comment on those things, and then you comment on those things just to try to smear.

You're listening to the best of the Glenn Beck program.

All right, Jason, tell me the things that

you think they have to do right now.

I tell you what, I really do wish they had to phone a friend like who wants to be a millionaire millionaire because we would be calling in nonstop.

I've been rapid-fire tweeting Jim Jordan just in the hopes that someone from his staff sees some of this stuff.

But right from the get-go, the opening statement was exactly what we were talking about in our special the other day.

And that was pretty much, you know, in a nutshell, in summation, we know better than you do.

The president does not know what we know.

We're going to do what we want, regardless, so you can just, you know, shove it.

basically.

But right from the top, right after the opening statement, that, you know, there was the claims that Shoken was corrupt.

He asked her very specifically, is that the case?

And again, she said she wouldn't comment on things she didn't know.

But she, right from the get-go, commented on whether Shoken was corrupt.

And was like, yeah, I believe so.

Right.

That's what she wants.

Based on what?

Exactly.

They have never ever made a charge against this guy.

No one has.

They say he's corrupt, but no one has ever made a charge.

They've never done an investigation.

He's never, I mean, how do you go to jail?

What?

I shouldn't say this with Soros around.

How do you go to jail without an investigation?

He still doesn't know why he's being called corrupt.

And we've talked to members of his staff that have court that have, you know, problems.

Yeah, and they had problems with it, didn't like his policies.

Yeah,

left his employees because they didn't agree with what he was focused on.

But when they said he was corrupt, they were like, he wasn't corrupt.

Look, I have nothing to do with this guy.

I have no love lost here, but he wasn't corrupt.

He wasn't corrupt.

So, questions for, I think Jim Jordan, the Republican, should be doing is, okay, you say he was corrupt.

Tell us why he's corrupt.

Tell us the specific charges.

Oh, were none officially brought up?

Then show us the evidence that you gathered to come to having a foreign

leader fired from his job.

Right.

That's a big deal.

And replaced by a guy that

when years later, when Biden said, and we had him replaced, was he was bragging

with a good guy.

What's changed since then?

You want to talk about a smear campaign?

Tell me the evidence on what Shoken did to get fired and how the guy who, Joe Biden, years later, when he's bragging about it, how that guy is suddenly corrupt.

Like to see the evidence, like to see the charges, like to see anything that anyone filed.

And why doesn't that seem like that should corroborate the person that the information that you got fired when the second prosecutor, one of your guys that you signed off on, basically said the same exact things?

When they corroborate each other, doesn't that put more, you know, a little bit more evidence that what they're saying is...

They're both corrupt.

They're both corrupt and shouldn't be listened to.

That's so ridiculous.

And if they, but it wouldn't be if you had made the case.

They just say he's corrupt.

No one will make the case.

There's never been any charges.

There's nothing.

Nothing.

nothing

you know it's like the the the part that drove me nuts is when she was saying uh

uh with that list

you know uh

yovanovich he said or uh not yovanovich uh

um lutsenko the the uh prosecutor prosecutor general that came in to the embassy And she apparently said, here's the list of people you can't, I don't want you touching George Soros or these NGOs.

And

she says he retracted that.

He said that didn't happen.

No, that's not what he said.

What he said, it was an answer to a very specific question.

So she handed you a list and he said, no.

I said, oh, you're giving me a list.

And I got a piece of paper out.

And she said, no, no, you misunderstand.

He said, no, I don't misunderstand.

I know exactly what you're saying.

Now, a first meeting with a brand new U.S.

ambassador,

you as the prosecutor general, who you know, those people just got the last guy fired, you're going to go in and just kick up dirt with this nice, sweet lady.

You're just going to go and say, No, I don't misunderstand.

I know exactly what you're saying.

I'm used to this, getting this from the politicians here, but it's

great now to see that I'm also getting it from the U.S.

Embassy.

He was calling her and the embassy and the United States of America more corrupt than his country.

Explain that.

That was the second big thing I had put down, and my head almost exploded when I saw this because we have directly debunked this whole thing.

That entire thing.

And granted, this meeting happened within days of him officially being sworn into that position.

So this is one of the good guys.

This is the guy you just signed off on.

Now claiming that he's, well, whoa, what are you trying to do to me?

Now he's seeing what they did to Shokin.

I'm going to make this offer to the Republicans, and I'm going to call them.

I, on my own dime, will send Jason and the boxes of evidence that we have so you can have him sitting right underneath the desk there.

Nobody will see him, and it'll be like, hey, ask her about this one.

I mean, has no one done their job?

If they don't ask these questions,

I'm telling you, these people should be impeached for incompetence.

Jason, just a warning, getting under desks in Washington.

Not always

going to just say that.

That was so blatant because he asked her.

It was so leading.

He was, and that was redacted, right?

He redacted that do not prosecute claim.

And she straight up said yes.

Now

we've traced that.

You can go back to the special.

I think we're actually cutting something.

I just talked to one of our producers now to show you the back and forth on that.

But that originated in a Bloomberg article.

It originated from there.

It then got copied in every single fact check saying that it was recanted.

Now we traced it all the way back.

We found the actual interview where they claimed that shows that he recanted.

And just like you described,

he didn't recant on it.

He said, she didn't hand me a physical piece of paper.

She said who I could or could not prosecute.

And I wrote those names down.

I turned the paper around and put it in her face.

And that's when he said, this is what we got under the Russian-controlled government.

Now we're getting it from the United States Embassy.

That's their big recant.

Now, Jim Jordan should be asking that right off the top.

Right off off the top.

Right off the top.

And

the other that right off the top is he should say, excuse me,

you have a serious,

serious

question about your abilities.

If you tell me that you don't know

that there were two people,

One of which was the head of the Anti-Corruption Bureau that you keep touting as this clean operation that you keep saying is the guardian against corruption you can't tell me that the ambassador of the ukraine did not know that there was a trial

and a uh a hidden recording

of that guy who run that bureau admitting to being the guy who snuck the information about Manafort to Hillary Clinton and the Democrats, and he was convicted, and so was someone else.

You, you honestly didn't know that?

Come on.

It was plastered.

There's no way, Jason.

There's no way.

No way, because it was plastered all over the Ukrainian press.

It's not plastered in our press.

It's nowhere here.

They think they can get away with it because no one...

Look, if the New York Times didn't publish it, it didn't happen.

Really?

Because there were other papers and there were other institutions that did publish that and all of them Ukrainian.

And yes, you do have to take the extra step and have it translated.

We had to have it translated ourselves.

We found it on the front page of the Ukrainian papers.

But we had to have it all translated because no one in the U.S.

had done that.

How is that possible?

And how is it possible for this woman to say say that, well, I know, I've heard rumors of that, but nothing, no facts,

nothing tangible, really?

Because Ukraine convicted the guy you keep touting as running the great anti-corruption league.

They convicted him.

Just those two things.

It's done.

Just those two things.

And you can subpoena most of that information.

Like for the do not prosecute list, we know for a fact that Lutsenko claimed that there were multiple U.S.

State Department people in the room.

There were multiple Ukrainian prosecutors and assistants in the room.

You can subpoena them all.

Have the people come over from Ukraine.

Have the U.S.

diplomats.

They're not like every, I don't think every single U.S.

diplomat is going to be in agreement with what Yovanovich is saying here.

No, but you know what?

Here's the thing.

Here's the thing.

If you are asking me to believe

that this person didn't mean,

didn't mean this okay didn't mean to to give you a quid pro quo okay if you're asking me to to to believe her when she says i didn't give him any list

well i've got one hurdle the guy who was the first time meeting the new ambassador first time

and These are the people that just got his boss removed.

He goes in and he just flies off the handle and says, no, I'm used to this.

I'm used to this.

You know, we used to get the cram downs all the time, but I didn't expect it from America.

Really?

He said that?

And

your response was, no, you misunderstand.

And he says, no, I didn't misunderstand.

And then after, when asked about it again later to make sure it was all clear in the press, he said, no, she didn't give me a list.

She verbally gave me that list and I wrote it down.

If you're asking me to believe her, I'm having a hard time because of all of the other evidence.

But if I'm forced to believe that,

wait,

how come

I have to believe the opposite of Donald Trump?

When the president of Ukraine, when the people who they were talking to didn't say, they all said, I didn't think that was going on.

I didn't think that's what was going on.

It was only the State Department that felt that that was going on.

How is that?

Why do I have to believe the State Department both times, but for the opposite outcome?

Doesn't make any sense.

There is no logic and no reason behind this.

The Republicans are going to pick this up soon.

Those are the questions that they should stand on.

The Blaze Radio Network.

On demand.