Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Witch Hunt: Bill O'Reilly Deserves the Benefit of the Doubt

April 06, 2017
Staff

WRITER

Glenn has spent a fair amount of time --- in studio and on tour --- with Bill O'Reilly, host of The O'Reilly Factor on Fox News. Not once did he or his staff see anything resembling the accusations being levied at the host of cable news' number one show.

"Not only did we not smell smoke, we never saw smoke. And, quite honestly, when you're out with somebody as famous as Bill O'Reilly, you watch. You want to see their character. Bill O'Reilly was always professional," Glenn said. "[He] deserves the benefit of the doubt."

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: Somebody that I have known for years and has -- and have really grown to really, truly respect is being raked over the coals in the press right now. People are trying to destroy him by getting his advertisers to run for the hills. Guess who is involved in this, Stu?

STU: I don't know.

GLENN: Color of Change.

STU: Oh, the same Van Jones organization.

GLENN: Yeah, how do we know about Color of Change?

STU: They were trying to lead a boycott against you.

GLENN: Yeah, and how did that boycott work?

STU: Well, they tried to intimidate -- you know, their 14 social media followers would continually tweet, call, and intimidate companies. Companies not wanting to deal with it would just make -- move their advertising from our show on to another show and still pay the same exact amount. And it wouldn't affect the business at all.

GLENN: But that really -- that really was the -- that was the worst of the worst. And there was very little of that, that actually went on.

STU: Yeah. A lot of it -- yeah, that was the most extreme part. Most of it was advertisers that never advertised on the program. They would try to make announcements that they had dropped our show, when they were never on the show.

GLENN: For instance, can you think of a cheese company?

STU: I can think of a cheese company.

GLENN: Would you like to talk about that cheese company?

STU: I can if you want me to talk about the cheese company.

GLENN: That's fine. I just know that Stu has harbored some very deep feelings about --

STU: A particular cheese company.

GLENN: -- a particular cheese company that never advertised on our show.

STU: Yeah. Because I could actually -- and these things are weird. Because companies don't want to be involved in controversies.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: Even if they don't believe the controversy is real, they just don't want to deal with it. They make cheese, for example. So I understand sometimes these companies will be like, just don't put me on that show right now. I don't want to be in the news. I get that.

To make public statements in which you are -- well, we cannot be associated with hate, or that type of stuff, which they were doing to us. Many companies are doing the same thing today. That's just infuriating, especially when they know it's not true.

You know, these --

GLENN: No, but -- you didn't know that it wasn't true. Some people still think that I am the reason for all of the hate in the country.

STU: You seem to be leading that brigade lately. But --

GLENN: No, no.

STU: Yeah, I know.

GLENN: So, anyway, what when I worked at Fox News -- when I worked at Fox News, this is what the left did to me. They tried really hard.

It actually didn't work. Unfortunately, Fox News tried to make the case after I left that it did. And that's going to come and bite them in the ass now.

But it actually didn't work. When I was there -- and I've said this many times. Bill O'Reilly was the -- it was the most honest, fair, most intelligent and intellectually curious guy in the media I have ever met.

I don't agree with everything that Bill O'Reilly says. I don't agree with some of his stances. He always seems to be behind because he's not willing to predict or project. He's willing to look at what's a fact today. That's what -- I mean, we've had this argument. I'm like, "Bill, come on, man. Look. Here's history. Here are the facts. Where do you think --

He's like, that's not my job, Glenn.

So I don't necessarily agree with him on things. And, quite honestly, I remember the first time I met him and I was on his show. I was just starting Fox. And, you know, he has quite the reputation of being a bulldog. And he is a -- I think he's 6-5 or 6-6. And he's at this little teeny desk. Those studios -- studios and television look a lot bigger. Objects in the mirror appear to be bigger than they are -- or bigger than they are. They're really small. And you're in O'Reilly's face sitting at that table.

And I remember they were counting him down, five, four -- and I reached over and I grabbed his hand and said, "Please don't kill me." Because you don't go into a room with Bill O'Reilly knowing.

And we became friends, but we became friends because we were both intellectually honest with each other. When we were flying on a plane -- and he probably -- well, no, I think he would be fine with this.

STU: These stories always work out well. I don't see why they would have any problem with this. This is a private story that was told in confidence, but let me just say it right now on the air.

GLENN: So we were on a plane, and I said, "Bill, thank you for being so kind to me. There's no reason you need to be kind to me." And he looked at me and he said, "Stop it." And I said, "What?" And he said, "Glenn, you're jet fuel. You're hot right now. That helps me. By having you on the show, it helps me, you know, continue to expand and boost my ratings and expand my audience."

STU: Right. Makes for interesting, compelling content.

GLENN: Right. And he said, "And it's compelling. It's good stuff. I'm not doing you any favor." And I thought -- because I knew that to be true, but I didn't think anyone would ever admit that.

That's the kind of guy I know in Bill O'Reilly. I know he is intellectually honest. And so buttoned up.

PAT: Tough, but fair.

GLENN: Yeah. He does not --

PAT: That's Bill.

GLENN: He gets the reputation of being tough because if you're not cutting it, he is. He's writing every word he says.

PAT: Yeah. Yeah.

GLENN: He's doing all the hard lifting on his own show.

STU: It's almost when you talk to him, you're in a zone where there's not spin occurring.

GLENN: Shut up.

So he's doing all the hard work himself that he's supposed to do. If you are not bringing your full game, he's not a fan of yours.

PAT: And we've spent a lot of time with him. We went on tour with him several times. We toured the country with him. Bill O'Reilly never gave any indication that --

GLENN: That there's any of this stuff.

PAT: This kind of behavior.

GLENN: Never. Not only did we not smell smoke, we never saw smoke. And, quite honestly, when you're out with somebody as famous as Bill O'Reilly, you watch. You want to see their character. Bill O'Reilly was always professional.

We talked about this yesterday in a meeting. With everybody -- we have a large team. We did our tours. When Bill and I went out, it was my company that produced those tours. So it was everybody, from the people that took him to the airport, to the people that took him home, to the people that tucked him into bed at night. It was all my people.

Not one person said anything about Bill O'Reilly, other than, that guy is a professional.

STU: To be clear, none of our people tucked him into bed at night.

GLENN: That was probably a poor choice of words there. But we were with him. Somebody from my staff was with him the entire time.

STU: Well --

GLENN: And no one said anything, but, "Wow, he's buttoned up."

STU: And we've seen -- you hang out with -- we're doing business with a lot of different people. I mean, think of one recent example that we all dredged through of one particular person on a bus with Billy Bush. And that sort of commentary, that --

PAT: That kidding around kind of -- blue humor.

STU: Yeah, we never saw anything like that. Not even jokes. Not even passing comments.

PAT: No.

STU: Nothing like that at all.

PAT: Uh-uh.

GLENN: You notice that I never said anything in defense of Roger Ailes. I never made the statement about Roger Ailes.

STU: Roger Ailes, yeah.

GLENN: Because, A, I never saw it, but it did not surprise me. Let's just put it that way. Because there was enough joking and conversations that I thought, eh, that one kind of made me a little uncomfortable. It did not surprise me.

Bill O'Reilly, I will be shocked, of course, disappointed, but shocked if he was engaged in any of the kind of monstrous stuff that he is being accused of.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: I know what it's like to be attacked. And I am not doing this as a favor to him. I'm not doing this because I'm a friend of his. I believe he's a good man who is being attacked.

I could be wrong. But never an indication from us. Settling a lawsuit is not an admission of guilt. Let's make that one really clear.

Because you settle a lawsuit -- for instance, I can tell you I was in a lawsuit recently. How hard did I fight not to settle that, Stu?

STU: Very hard.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: Knowing everyone around you.

GLENN: And who was I fighting against?

STU: Your own companies and people that were associated with you. Because they all wanted to --

GLENN: Right. I have several contracts with several big companies, and they were like, just settle the damn thing. Make it go away. The main argument came from the insurance company.

JEFFY: Yeah.

GLENN: Just settle it. Just settle it. We can settle it for a fraction of the cost.

But it's wrong. Just settle it.

So because you settle does not make -- is not an admission of guilt. It's usually a way to just spend less time and money.

Just move on with your -- with your life.

Now, as a guy who drives about $100 million in revenue every year, that makes you a target. I know it. Because people do not understand that -- when they come to work for us at TheBlaze. They'll be like, oh, no. It's easy. You just do this. No, no. We call it jokingly the Glenn Beck tax. No, you don't understand. You're working with Glenn Beck. There's no -- there's no, like, oh, no, we can do this. No, no. Because we're a massive target.

And people don't understand that until they work here for a while. As a guy who has been number one for 20 years on cable news, do you think some people are going to try to take him down? Especially on the Fox News network. Especially that he is viewed as if he leaves, Fox is destroyed? Without Roger Ailes, who was the bulldog at the door -- like him, hate him, whatever. He was effective. And he kept the vampires at the door, sucking the blood out of -- the lifeblood out of Fox News. How it survives without Roger Ailes is beyond me. How it survives without Bill O'Reilly -- and you don't think the left understands this? The media is never going to give Bill O'Reilly or anyone with his effectiveness and his point of view a fair shake.

I would like one from time to time. I am being accused now that I am stomping on people's freedom of speech. That is so far out of every reality, and my -- and some, very few, claim -- listeners, people that claim to be my listeners believe that. Well, you were never my listener if you believe that. Because you cannot doubt -- you knew nothing about me.

PAT: Why don't you ask Amy Holmes about that?

GLENN: Yeah. But that's the way the world works. That's the way this press works. That's the way the left works. And, quite frankly, that's the way the right works when they want to destroy somebody, but the left is very, very good at it.

STU: And you're not -- this is not you taking -- you know, going after people who are making accusations.

GLENN: No.

STU: This is -- this is just you talking about someone you know. You don't know everything about every person and every interaction obviously. And it's not to -- it's not to go out --

GLENN: Bill O'Reilly deserves the benefit of the doubt.

STU: He gets it from me, surely.

PAT: Yeah, innocent until proven guilty.

GLENN: Yes. Until it has been proven guilty.

PAT: That's certainly not the assumption here by many.

GLENN: No.

STU: Well, and to be fair, it's because --

PAT: Maxine Waters said last night he should go to jail.

GLENN: To go to jail.

PAT: Are you kidding me?

GLENN: To go to jail.

STU: And a lot of this has to do with the stuff that happened with Roger. Because people now see Fox as anything you say about them and that atmosphere will be believed. And that's not fair. You have to look at it honestly.

GLENN: There are things that I saw and I witnessed. And things that happened at Fox that truly turned my stomach. Truly almost destroyed my hope in people. But I will tell you, if it wasn't for Bill O'Reilly, I think it would have been destroyed.

I walked in hearing all these stories about Bill O'Reilly. Bill O'Reilly is none of those things. Bill O'Reilly was buttoned up and professional every step of the way. He is uber, uber smart. Now, maybe again -- I don't know. I'm not with him every second of the day. I have no idea. But, boy, the Bill O'Reilly that I know and that I saw working, side by side for a long time, there is no doubt in my mind that he's just smarter than that.

And I would hope that even though I disagree with Bill O'Reilly, particularly on Donald Trump -- and he has said things about, you know, Never Trumpers, or whatever the category he might put me in, and he has not even had me on his show since the Trump thing began. I don't care. I don't care. I know who he is.

He did not ask me. I did not engage with him. So, Bill -- it doesn't matter.

We have to stand up for what we believe is right, and we have to stand up for people who are coming under fire, until they prove otherwise.

By the way, for the record, there are far more facts and witnesses and issues about Bill Clinton, who seems to get the benefit of the doubt all the time.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: Good luck, Bill. Stay strong.

Top THREE reasons we NEED the Panama Canal

Justin Sullivan / Staff | Getty Images

Is Trump seriously planning a military conquest of the Panama Canal?

In the weeks leading up to the inauguration, Donald Trump launched the Panama Canal into the national spotlight. The canal is one of the most important passages in the world, and its continued operation has been critical for both the U.S. military and economy since its construction.

Since America relinquished sovereignty of the canal, China has asserted its authority in the region. The Chinese Communist Party has been growing its influence in Panama and neighboring Latin American countries, convincing them to join their "Belt and Road Initiative," an effort to poise China as the main economic power in developing nations across the world. Panama in particular is quickly becoming a Chinese puppet state. There are currently over 200,000 Chinese living in Panama, a Chinese company runs two of the canal's five major ports, and another Chinese company provides telecommunication service for a large portion of the canal. The government of Panama has even gone as far as cutting diplomatic ties with Taiwan.

It's clear that the Panama Canal is under serious threat of falling into Chinese hands, but President Trump doesn't intend to let them move in. Here are the top three reasons we need the Panama Canal:

1. The canal was built by the U.S.

Hulton Archive / Stringer | Getty Images

Without the United States, neither Panama nor the Panama Canal would exist. In 1903, after Colombia refused to allow the U.S. to build a canal across the isthmus of Panama, President Teddy Roosevelt devised a controversial plan. He supported a Panamanian independence movement, which swiftly overthrew the local Colombian government. Meanwhile, he stationed a U.S. warship off the coast, preventing Colombia from sending military forces to retake Panama.

The moment Panama declared its independence, the U.S. recognized it and struck a deal with the new government: the U.S. would control the Canal Zone, while Panama would receive $10 million and an annual payment of $250,000. Construction of the canal took over a decade, cost $375 million, and resulted in thousands of American casualties, making it the most expensive U.S. construction project of its time.

Fast forward to 1964 when tensions between the U.S. and Panama over the canal erupted into a riot. President Lyndon B. Johnson decided it was time to transfer control of the canal to Panama. However, this proved more complicated than expected. In 1968, General Omar Torrijos, a known ally of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, seized control of Panama in a coup. Negotiations over the Canal stalled, as many Americans opposed giving such an important asset to a controversial figure. It wasn’t until 1999, following the deployment of 27,000 U.S. troops to facilitate yet another change in power, that the Canal was officially handed over to Panama.

2. The canal is vital for the U.S. economy

IVAN PISARENKO / Contributor | Getty Images

The U.S. relies heavily on the Panama Canal for commercial shipping. Between 13 and 14 thousand ships use the Panama Canal every year, which is roughly 40 percent of the global cargo ship traffic. Additionally, 72 percent of ships traversing the canal are either heading toward or leaving a U.S. port.

The time ships save using the Panama Canal reduces shipping costs massively. For example, when the canal first opened in 1922, it was estimated that a ship’s journey from Oregon to the UK, was shortened by 42 percent, reducing costs by 31 percent. If the Panama Canal was blocked or destroyed, or if American merchant vessels were denied passage, the effects on the U.S. economy would be tremendous.

3. The canal is a key defense point for the U.S. military

Historical / Contributor | Getty Images

Similarly, the canal is key to the U.S. military and national security. The canal shaves off approximately 8,000 miles of the voyage between the Pacific and the Atlantic. If U.S. Navy ships were denied access in a time of crisis, the extra time required to bypass the canal would be disastrous. Conversely, if the U.S. can keep the Panama Canal from being used by foreign aggressors, it would provide a massive advantage in future conflicts.

A foreign enemy could easily exploit the canal's current vulnerability. This was proven in 2021 when a cargo ship accidentally blocked the Suez Canal for a week, paralyzing global trade. Imagine China intentionally sabotaging the Panama Canal, considering it controls ports on both ends, owns a bridge that spans the Canal, provides its telecom services, and has the second-largest fleet of ships using the route.

TOP 5 takeaways from JD Vance's 'Face the Nation' interview

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

After an eventful first week in office, JD Vance wrapped the week up with a bang of an interview on "Face the Nation."

Last weekend, Vice President Vance joined "Face the Nation" host Margaret Brennan, who drilled Vance on everything from the economy to immigration. Vance clapped back with polite yet cutting responses, and he defended Trump against some of her more accusatory queries.

If there was any lingering doubt that JD Vance wasn't vice presidential (or presidential) material, they have just been blown away. Here are the major takeaways from his electricinterview on Sunday:

1. J.D. Vance defends Trump's cabinet picks

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Brennan opened the interview with a barrage of questions that brought up concerns surrounding some of Trump's cabinet picks, specifically Pete Hegseth and Tulsi Gabbard.

Brennan began by questioning how effective Pete Hegseth could be as Secretary of Defence, given that he was confirmed with a tie in the Senate that VP Vance broke. Vance responded with a quick breakdown of all of the issues the military is currently facing. Vance argued that Hegseth's unpopularity in the Senate results from his being a disruptor.

Brennan also attacked Tulsi Gabbard, calling her unfit for the title of "Director of National Intelligence." Vance defended Gabbard, citing her formidable resume and strong character. Vance also discussed the corruption of our intelligence services, which out-of-control bureaucrats have weaponized against the interests of the American people. He expressed his belief that Gabbard would be the right person to reign in the corruption and return the National Intelligence Service to its intended purpose.

2. J.D. Vance explains how Trump's economic policies will lower consumer prices

Brandon Bell / Staff | Getty Images

Brennan pushed Vance on the economy, specifically questioning when prices for consumer goods would begin to fall. Vance explained that within the plethora of executive orders issued by Trump during his first week in office, many were aimed at bringing more jobs back into America, which will raise wages and lower prices. Other orders will boost energy production, which will reduce energy costs and decrease the costs of goods.

3. J.D. Vance sheds light on needed FEMA reforms

ROBYN BECK / Staff | Getty Images

Brennan drilled Vance on President Trump's proposed FEMA reforms, specifically regarding Trump's suggestion to send states a percentage of federal disaster relief funds so that they can quickly distribute aid rather than wait on federal action. While Brennen argued that FEMA has specialists and resources that states would not have access to, leaving people without aid, Vance argued that recent disasters, like Hurricane Helene, have proven that FEMA's current bureaucratic red tape deprived Americans of immediate aid when they needed it most.

4. J.D. Vance defends Trump's mass deportations

PIERRE-PHILIPPE MARCOU / Contributor | Getty Images

Vance defended Trump's decision to allow ICE to conduct raids into churches and schools against Brennen's criticisms, arguing that law enforcement should remove a dangerous criminal from a school or church, regardless of their immigration status. He also advocated for Trump's proposed changes to birthright citizenship to prevent illegal immigrants from abusing the constitutional amendment by having "anchor babies" on U.S. soil.

Vance also took a hard stance supporting Trump suspension of admitting Afghan refugees. Brennan argued that Afghan refugees were going through a thorough vetting process and were now being abandoned by the U.S. However, Vance cited the foiled terrorist attack in Oklahoma City during Trump's 2024 campaign that was orchestrated by an Afghan refugee, who was allegedly vetted by federal agents. The vetting process is clearly flawed, and it was a prudent decision to halt the admission of these refugees until further notice.

5. J.D. Vance insists that Trump will still reign in Big Tech

PIERRE-PHILIPPE MARCOU / Contributor | Getty Images

To wrap up the interview, Brennan questioned the Trump administration's stance on Big Tech given the attendance of the industry's biggest names at Trump's inauguration, including Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, Google CEO Sundar Pichai, Apple CEO Tim Cook, and TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew. Vance assured Brennan that Trump is still resolved to curb the power and influence of Big Tech.

Top THREE reasons the U.S. NEEDS Greenland

EMIL STACH / Contributor | Getty Images

Are Trump's repeated promises to claim Greenland for the U.S. just belligerent imperialism or a deft move to secure the future of America?

During his patriotic inaugural address, President Trump reiterated his campaign promise to expand American territories, including securing U.S. control over Greenland. This is not a new idea despite what the mainstream media may claim.

The idea of buying Greenland was originally introduced by progressive hero Woodrow Wilson in 1917 as an attempt to secure the homeland as America was gearing up to enter the First World War. The second attempt came after World War II when President Truman tried to buy the island from Denmark in another attempt to shore up national security, this time against the Soviets. Since then, Trump floated the idea in 2019, which was met with much the same ridicule as now.

The truth is that the acquisition of Greenland represents far more than just an outlet for repressed imperialist desires. It would be one of America's best investments in a long time, which is why we've been eyeballing it for so long. Here are three reasons the U.S. needs Greenland:

Strategic Military Position

THOMAS TRAASDAHL / Contributor | Getty Images

For the majority of the 20th century, Europe was the region from which a foreign attack on American soil could be launched: the Germans for the first half of the century, and the Russians for the second half. On both occasions, Greenland stood between our foreign enemies and the United States.

After the World War II, America was the official military defender of Greenland, per an agreement with Denmark. Under this agreement, the U.S. built Pituffik Air Force Base, a remote base 750 miles north of the Arctic Circle. Due to its location, approximately halfway between D.C. and Moscow, the Pentagon still views Pituffik as a vital component of America's nuclear defense.

The U.S. also built a secret base within the ice cap known as Camp Century. Camp Century was part scientific outpost, part nuclear-tipped ballistic missile silo built in the ice to withstand a direct atomic strike. The nearly two miles of icy tunnels were powered by a nuclear reactor and were designed to survive a nuclear first strike, and return fire. Although abandoned in 1967, Camp Century still symbolizes the strategic importance of Greenland for U.S. security.

Untapped Resources

OLIVIER MORIN / Contributor | Getty Images

While Greenland's population is a mere 56,000, the island has a total landmass nearly three times the size of Texas. According to a 2009 geological assessment, a whopping 30 percent of the Earth's undiscovered natural gas, and 13 percent of its undiscovered oil is locked away beneath Greenland's icy ground. There are also untapped deposits of valuable rare earth metals including copper, graphite, and lithium.

Neither Greenland nor Denmark have any real plans to tap into this immense wealth trapped beneath the ice, but it could prove crucial for ending the West's dependency on China. China has the global market cornered on rare earth minerals- including America. We acquire 72 percent of our rare earth mineral imports from China, making us entirely dependent on them for the manufacturing of many essential goods. Tapping Greenland's natural resources would help free America, and the West, from China's yolk.

Polar Silk Road

mark peterson / Contributor | Getty Images

In 2018 China launched an ambitious project that aimed to cut the travel time of cargo vessels between its ports and European markets in half. China, in collaboration with Russia, plans on developing new shipping routes through the Arctic Ocean. This bold new strategy, dubbed the "Polar Silk Road," has been made possible thanks to new tech, including a fleet of Russian, nuclear-powered icebreakers, the latest of which is capable of breaking through nearly 10 feet of ice.

With clear waterways from eastern China and Northern Europe, it won't be long before the first cargo ships brave the frigid sea and China looks to the next leg of the journey: the Northwest Passage. The Northwest Passage is the area of sea between Canada and the North Pole that would be an optimal shipping route between America's East Coast and Asia if it wasn't frozen over most of the year. But with new technology, we may be able to overcome the challenges of the ice and open the passage to commercial traffic, and Greenland is positioned directly on the passage's easternmost mouth.

Greenland would quickly become a key location along the Northwestern Passage, acting as a sentinel of the east, with the ability to control traffic through the trade route. If China or Russia were to take control of Greenland, they would dominate the Northwestern Passage, along with the rest of the new northern trade routes.

Is Romania squashing its own 'Trump' candidate?

DANIEL MIHAILESCU / Contributor | Getty Images

This week the streets of Bucharest, the capital of Romania, erupted in protest after the Constitutional Courts annulled the recent first round of the presidential election after the "far-right" candidate won.

The government is lying to you. If you have been listening to Glenn for a long time you already know that, and you also know that if you try to call attention to the lies you get labeled a conspiracy theorist or "far-right." This is not only true in America but across the world. Politicians cheat, steal, and grab power, then lie about all of it. This is the root of countless issues across every government on the planet, and recently Romania has become the latest example of this unfortunate phenomenon.

But what is really happening in Romania? Was this an actual attempt to stamp out someone who would shed light on lies and corruption? Or did the Romanian government put a stop to a genuine bad actor?

The Election

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

On December 6th, 2024, the Romanian Constitutional Court canceled the second round of the presidential election amid claims of Russian interference. The second round of the election would have seen right-wing candidate, Calin Georgescu face off against pro-European centrist Elena Lasconi.

The trouble surrounds Georgescu, who stands accused of using Russian aid to run an unprecedented social media campaign that helped him win an election pollsters claimed he stood no chance of winning. Georgescu's rapid rise in popularity on social media does raise some eyebrows, and to add to the suspicion he declared he had zero campaign spending. On the other hand, Georgescu's supporters claim that his quick rise to stardom and underdog victory is due to the growing resentment for the ever-out-of-touch political elite.

Georgescu's Platform

Andrei Pungovschi / Stringer | Getty Images

Georgescu rose to prominence on a platform many of his detractors have labeled "far-right," "pro-Russian," and "populist" (sound familiar?). His positions include supporting Romanian farmers, increasing Romanian self-reliance, and increasing local energy production. Georgescu has been lauded for his message of hope and vision for the future and his dedication to truth, freedom, and sovereignty.

Georgescu is also a vocal Christian and a supporter of the Romanian Orthodox Church. He has questioned the climate change and COVID-19 narrative as well as NATO and the war in Ukraine, which is how he earned his "Pro-Russian" monicker. Georgescu promised to respect and honor its obligations to the EU and NATO, but only to the extent that they respect Romania and its interests.

What Happens Next?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

After Georgescu's unexpected victory, the Romanian Constitutional Courts annulled the election's first round and scheduled it to restart on May 4th. As of now, it is unclear whether Georgescu will be allowed to participate in the new election. This act by the Constitutional Courts triggered mass protests in the capital, Bucharest, and has caused many Romainians to question the state of democracy within their country.

Many of the protesters are calling what happened a coup and are demanding the election be allowed to continue to the second round. They are also calling for the resignation of current President Klaus Iohannis, who has maintained power thanks to the incomplete elections. Georgescu has officially challenged the court's decision and even made a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights, but it is unclear if his appeal will make any difference.