Conspiracy theories don’t need “evidence”
Absence of evidence is evidence of the proof of the crime itself. They’re that good. Just ask.
Isn’t Beck the one who made fun of Sheriff Joe and those who questioned the eligibility of the current pResident who has spent millions to cover up his past?
I don't personally know whether what Glen has been saying is true, or whether what Bret has been saying is true, or both, or neither. (The words of both men could be true at the same time, if Bret's sources are just part of a cover-up. After all, Bret does not re-state and personally stand behind his sources' claims as Glen does, Bret only reports the claims of his sources--though he does say the sources are believed to be credible.)
What I do know is that this article, and apparently this CS Monitor reporter, cannot be trusted. The reporter either does not know what Glen has actually said (and when), and what Bret actually said, and is just writing what he was told to write, or he is intentionally getting the facts wrong. Both what Glen has been saying and what Bret said in his video blog are falsely represented and seriously mischaracterized in the article.
Don't take my word for it. Watch or read what Glen has said. Watch Bret's video blog. Read the CS Monitor article. You can see it for yourself. It is not that hard.
Oh, scary “quotation marks”, that does it for me. And well, if Bret Baier says it, it must be true. Er, what percentage of Fox News does that Saudi Prince own again? Just wondering.