RADIOMarch 12, 2025

ATF Whistleblower Reveals Where Cartel Weapons REALLY Come From

The Mexican government is suing US gun manufacturers for allegedly arming the Mexican drug cartels. But former ATF agent and whistleblower John Dodson tells Glenn that this is a complete lie! Dodson makes the data-driven case that it’s the Mexican government, not the US government or US manufacturers, that’s really responsible for arming the cartels. So, what can President Trump do to stop this? Dodson gives his plan …

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: John Dodson is with us. He's been with us before. He's the whistle-blower on -- on Fast and Furious. He's blown a lot of whistles.

This one, now, he's a former ATF agent. And he's far enough away from things, to where he can legally say everything that he knows. I think, everything he knows.

But right now, the Mexican government is suing our gun makers. I believe this started, and the seeds were planted by the Obama administration, on this one.

But I could be wrong. But they're suing US gun makers. And they're blaming us now. The tariffs are going up.

Why? Because unfair trade.

Let's just have regular trade with each other.

When you charge us, we'll charge you. But in the case of Mexico, it is also mainly about the border, at this point.

You have got to declare those drug cartels, enemies of the state. And terrorist organizations. And you've got to stop them!

If not, we will! But you've got to stop what's happening on our border. What have they done?

They're blaming us for the drug cartel violence.

I'm sorry. They're blaming our gun manufacturers for this. John is here to tell us the whole story.

The author of The Unarmed Truth. Hello, John. How are you?

JOHN: Hey, I'm fine, sir. Thank you so much for having me on.

GLENN: Oh, yeah. I appreciate it. So tell me what's really going on.

JOHN: Well, what's really going on is actually complicated. But the just of it is, the Mexican government is far and away, responsible for arming the cartels.

The data that I have seen. And the way that the eTrace system works. So ATF has eTrace, which is where firearms tracing is conducted. And if I can give you a brief backup on it, if you don't mind --

GLENN: Yeah.

JOHN: So the only way we can successfully trade -- I say we, I mean ATF. I'm retired now. But the only way you can successfully trace a firearm is if it has a US nexus. It was either manufactured here or imported into the US at some point. Either way, it's stamped and manufactured in the US. Or imported into the US by the company that gets them. So to say that all the crime guns successfully traced in Mexico are US-sourced firearms, it's kind of a rigged ball game. Because the only ones we can successfully trace are US firearms anyway. If a firearm was made in the former Soviet bloc or China or --

GLENN: We wouldn't have access to that. We're not tracking that.

JOHN: Exactly. We can't trace that. So it doesn't come back. The numbers are skewed from the very beginning.

Now, put on top of that, of the US-sourced firearms. And this is where it comes into, what's the motive behind it?

Is it ignorance, or is it deception?

So to say that the vast majority of crime guns recovered in Mexico are traced back to US sources. Okay. Again, we can only successfully trace those that are US-sourced anyway.

But you are not discounting those ones that were purchased directly by the Mexican government.

Now, I have worked on the border for the past 12 years of my career.

Especially in firearms trafficking. In Fast and Furious, I was in a firearms trafficking unit. Like, that is all that we were supposed to do.
And if you look at the data, from eTrace, it's -- like it's clear.

It's so clear. And by the numbers. The reports that I ran before I retired, every year, any 12-month period since 2010, until the day that I retired in 2023, whatever 12-month period you want to run, the Mexican government accounts for about 70 to 75 percent of the prime guns recovered in Mexico.

And these are direct purchases by the Mexican government, or government-to-government sales. From the US government to Mexico.

The problem is, those weapons are considered US-sourced. An ATF doesn't delineate, doesn't take those out of the numbers when they speak to Congress. Or when they release the information. They count them as US sourced firearms. So the American civilians firearms market is left holding the bag and blamed for the cartel violence in Mexico.

GLENN: So wait. Wait. Wait.

So Mexico is buying this from us. And I assume that that -- those -- those guns are supposed to go to the Mexican government to fight cartels, et cetera.

Are these guns -- are these guns going into the hands of the cartels?

JOHN: Yes. 100 percent.

And I think on the take is, most of the money that they use to purchase these firearms is provided by the US government.

The Mexican government says, well, we need help fighting the cartels.

So we give them money to purchase equipment and weapons. They buy these weapons directly from manufacturers. And I'll just say coal just as an example. Just because everybody is recommending. They'll buy two boxes of -- you know, error variance from coal. These are military grade weapons.

Two -- one goes to the Mexican military, one is diverted in the black market. Those ones in the black market are recovered in crime scenes, and substantively traced, and then that's counted as a US-sourced firearm.

When they released the data about all the guns in Mexico, they count that as a US-sourced firearm.

GLENN: So do we have the serial numbers to prove that they were purchased by the -- by the Mexican federal government.

JOHN: 100 percent.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

JOHN: If you look at the E-Trade data. One of two ways, it will come back. And there are several different ways that this happens. So the Mexican government, the ATF has issued different entities of the Mexican government FFL numbers. They all begin with a Z. It has a Z as a first character. So they can purchase directly from manufacturers. Right?

And so when one of those firearms are traced. The trace comes back and says, this firearm was traced on a foreign government or law enforcement agency. Then the other way of doing is if they fight the government, the government fails.

So the firearms trace comes back and says, quote, the firearm is a US military weapon, end quote.

So those are weapons purchased by the US government. And then sold to the Mexican government, in order to support their effort to see the fight the cartels.

But, in fact, the vast majority of the guns that are being recovered in Mexico. Are stemming from these direct purchases by the Mexican government. And I'm not just -- it's at least 70 percent.

Every year that I ran it. And I've run it religiously, until the day I turned my computer in, and retired. I ran it. And it was 72 percent on that day. And it's always been 70 to 75 percent.

GLENN: So we're talking to John Dodson.

He is a former ATF agent. He was a whistle-blower on Fast and Furious. He's the author of The Unarmed Truth.

And we -- I think you were on the air. And we talked about this, and we talked about how the ATF was targeting and harassing whistle-blowers who were testifying in front of Congress.

And I think you made a slight reference to this.

But you couldn't talk about it. Or wouldn't talk about it. What's ranged?

JOHN: Well, if you remember, there was a different administration at the time.
(laughter)

GLENN: Okay.

JOHN: I was definitely worried about being prosecuted. For describing this information.

GLENN: All right. All right. So who is -- when they were doing this, is this because the Mexican government is the drug cartel?

The Mexican government is afraid of the government cartel?

Who is really afraid of pushing the government to sue our gun manufacturers here.

JOHN: Well, and those questions are what I refer to as echelons above Dodson.

Okay. So best-case scenario, the Mexican government doesn't know.

The current president of Mexico. The former president.

And the one before that, doesn't know.

They only know the data, that the ATF has released, that all these firearms are US-sourced firearms. And, therefore, they blame the US and firearms market. That's the best-case scenario. Then you have to make the argument. Or at least ask the questions of, well, why don't they know the freaking truth?

If they're buying all these guns. They're not getting them all. It's variations of the black market.

Why aren't they afraid of that?

GLENN: Well, you have to ask that of the Ukrainians too. I digress.

JOHN: That's a whole other issue. I can only imagine.

GLENN: Oh, my -- oh, my --

JOHN: So the Mexicans, either they're willfully ignorant. All right?

Or it's entirely corrupt. Either way, but what frustrates me the most, is especially now, during these current negotiations with the Mexican government over these tariffs and things like that.

Every time, you -- you hold them to account for something, the first response is, well, you have to stop the, quote, flow of firearms, end quote. You have to stop it.

And it's so hard. When we're negotiating. When we're negotiating with facts that aren't true. That aren't accurate. Or at least are disguised in a way, where they don't have the true story.

It's not fair to the American government. It's not fair to the American people. And it's not fair to the Mexican people at all.

GLENN: Okay. So then why don't we do this?

Because you can buy guns elsewhere, Mexico. Why don't we do this. If Trump knows this, and I don't know if he see, if Trump knows this, why doesn't he say, you know what, you're right.

We will stop all guns from crossing the border. You can no longer buy American arms. I know that would hurt the arms companies here's in America.

For maybe a year.

JOHN: Right. Right.

GLENN: But then things change, and the truth is out.

And Mexico doesn't want that. Why wouldn't he just say, okay. We'll stop all the guns coming across the border.

Buy your guns elsewhere. For the next 12 months. And let's see what happens.

JOHN: Well, I will be honest with you, because I don't think they know. That's part of the reason, I'm talking to you.

There's no way to tell them. They'll call ATF. And ATF will say, oh, yeah, 80 percent of the firearms are US-sourced firearms, but they don't take into account the direct purchases by the American government, or the government fails.

So whoever is handling negotiations with Mexico. If they would sit down at the table, and say, hey, we need you to work on fentanyl. And border crossings and border security and things like that. Then Mexico will do what they always do. Which will say, well, you have to stop the flow of firearms. Okay. Give me one second.

I just rescinded all the export licenses for your government, to purchase firearms directly. I have revoked the foreign FFLs of ATF, and I have cease and had desisted all government to government sales from the Department of Defense and the State Department there. Instantaneously, I have cut over 70 percent of the crime being supplied in Mexico.

So now, Madam President, it's your turn. What are you going to do? Put up or shut up.

GLENN: That's brilliant. Have you talked to anybody in the administration about this?

JOHN: No, sir. How does anyone talk to the administration?

GLENN: All right. Do me a favor. Give me a white paper on this, and you tell me who it needs to go.

JOHN: Okay. I have been pounding this for years. I have brought this to the attention of my ATF supervisors, as far up the chain as I could go. I even physically handed the printouts, the documents, the data to the highest-ranking DOJ official in Mexico City at the time, and nothing ever happened on it. And, again, this is the previous administration.

GLENN: Well, you don't expect anything from that, but I expect something from this.

So give me the names of who it should go to, and give me the best, sharpest white paper on it. Don't overwhelm with facts. Give me the, you know, executive summary on the front. So it could be understood and explained.

And then give me all the facts after that. I'll have it delivered to the right people. And then I'll -- I'll give them time to read it and digest it, or their people to digest it, and then I'll ask for an answer. What happened here? Why aren't you doing it?

JOHN: I have no problem with that, and I will work on this immediately, this afternoon.

In the meantime, sir. And I want to tell you, I know there are a lot of ATF agents that listen to your show. And people probably in the administration don't have to take my word for it. You can call any ATF agent. Someone in the administration calls the field office. Don't call headquarters. Call the field office. Call any ATF agent that has a trace account. And say, hey, I want you to run a report for me. Log on to e- trace, on the right-hand side, to generate a statistical report. Click on that. It will automatically go to your work code.

Change that default to recovery location. Put in Mexico, and put in any 12-month time period that you want. And you will see. The data is clear on this issue.

All right? The Mexican military is the number one source of supplying crime guns to Mexican cartels, hands down. And I mean, exponentially so. When you see the data, it will -- like, it -- it's -- it's flabbergasting.

GLENN: John, give me the data and get me those -- that white paper on it.

An executive summary. And I will -- I will get it -- I will get it to them. As soon as you give it to me. I will turn it right around, to all the leadership.

GLENN: Thanks, John, I appreciate it.

God bless.

John Dodson.

The unarmed truth.

If you're an ATF agent, if you can do that. You can verify what he's saying. Call us.

I would love to hear from you.

Mexico, is suing us. They're suing all our gun makers here in America for $10 million. No. I don't think so.

It's going to the Supreme Court. I think the Supreme Court will say, you don't have a leg to stand on.

Again, it's the same kind of corrupt mentality, of the last administration.

You know, of not actually addressing the issue. But going after little pet peeves.

And going after our guns. And our rights to guns.

Witnessing a SpaceX Launch & Predicting Elon Musk's Legacy in 50 Years

Glenn Beck recently witnessed a SpaceX rocket launch from hours away, and the raw power of it sent him into a passionate breakdown about the wonder of space travel, the brilliance of Elon Musk, and the insanity of a culture that’s turning on its greatest innovators. From the days of the Space Shuttle to Musk’s Starship and self-driving Tesla vehicles, Glenn argues that Elon isn’t just a tech founder, but rather a once-in-history mind, a modern Edison who revived an American spirit we had forgotten.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Last night, here in Florida, Tania said SpaceX is going to launch another missile. About 15 minutes. Let's go outside and see if we can see it. And we live right on the coast. And all of a sudden, you know, we're watching it, ten, nine, eight, seven, six. And about 45 seconds after the launch. We're like, oh, but we can't see it. Then all of a sudden, over the top of the trees, we just see this flame coming up. And it was absolutely. I posted it on the Instagram last night. On my Instagram page. It was absolutely one of the most amazing things I've seen.

From a distance. I've seen it once before. I've seen the last space shuttle lift off in the middle of the night. And I really close. I was across the water. I was just right across from -- what is it?

Cape Kennedy.

And I could not believe, it was a wonder of the world. 3 o'clock in the morning. All of a sudden, it was just day light.

And now, I'm -- oh, I don't even know.

Three hours away. Two, three hours away?

And it's one of the most incredible things I've ever seen.

It just starts coming up. And then, you know, you see the rocket. The boosters detach.

The -- the first stage rockets go out. They turn blue. Then they go out.

And then you see them. And it just picks up so much speed. And just racing through the sky.

It is incredible. It's incredible.

If you've never seen a rocket launch, I can't wait to see his -- what is the -- that was a falcon.

What's the big, big heavy one that he's working on.

Nobody knows.

VOICE: Falcon Heavy, isn't it?

VOICE: Is it the Falcon Heavy?

I don't know.

I don't think so.

I think -- somebody look this up.

Starship. That's it.

I think it's based on the original Soviet design. The Soviets, the reason why we beat the Soviets up in space, is they had this great design of like 24 rockets.

Where we had like four, big, huge ones for lift.

They had like 24, 25 rockets, at the bottom of it.

But they couldn't synchronize them.

You know, this was when computing was really, really bad.

They couldn't synchronize them.

So they couldn't keep it level.

So it would take off. And spiral out of control and blow up.

That's the reason why we beat them into space.

I saw the bottom end of one of these rockets in a video. And I think -- I think it's the original Soviet design. I'm not sure. Because now we have the ability to synchronize everything. But I can't wait to see that thing. Because it's bigger than a Saturn rocket. Bigger the ones that we send to the moon.

JASON: At some point, I don't know if the wonder of space travel left.

JASON: We get bored with things.

JASON: It's so weird. But Elon Musk just brought it back. I mean, we're doing just amazing stuff.

GLENN: It's like everything.

We did it. We mastered it. We put people on the moon. Everybody was crazed about it. I remember sitting in class and seeing the astronauts, you know, on the moon. We would go in. They would bring in an old TV.

And they would sit the TV. Before these things were even on the little -- you know, wheel, you know, AV kind of things.

It was just a big old TV.

And we all went into the regular -- you know, the gym, and we watched it on a regular TV.

And them walking around, on the moon. And that must have been in the early '70s.

And then after that, everybody was like, yeah. So we've been to the moon. Now, nobody believes we've gone to the moon ever.

Now we're going back up. And, I mean, it's amazing. It's amazing to watch. Because you just think, I just watched it last night. I'm like, my gosh. Look at the power of that thing.

I could -- how far are we away?

Three hours?

Two hours?

You could hear it. You could hear it. It got to a certain place. Where my wife said, you can see it on the tape on Instagram. My wife at one point said, can you hear that?

You could! You could hear the crackle of it. It is -- I mean, it's incredible. Just incredible.

I really want to go see a liftoff in person, again. Just amazing.

STU: Yeah. We should. To be clear, we should excommunicate him out of our society. Because you wore a red hat a few times. That, I think is a smart -- it's a smart move.

GLENN: I know. What a dummy.

STU: Yeah. He's an idiot. And obviously, we don't need him helping our country, right now.

Why?

Because he voted for lower taxes or something.

We -- that's a good way to run our society.

GLENN: Hate that guy. Hate that guy.

STU: Amazing.

GLENN: What a dope.

We have just -- we have just become morons.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: We really -- really have.

History will look back and go, at what point, they just became morons. You know.

STU: Do you find it interesting, Glenn. He was at this turn with the Saudi Arabian, you know, delegation, I guess.

Trump did a turn and invited a bunch of VIPs to it.

I thought a good sign from the perspective of the relationship between Trump and Elon Musk, that he was invited in, was there.

Right?

Remember, they had a total falling out. It was over the Epstein files. If you --

GLENN: No. They made nice at Charlie Kirk's funeral.

STU: Yeah. So that's what you think earlier repaired. Somewhat repaired at this point?

GLENN: Yeah. Somewhat repaired. And, you know, if you're trying to showcase the best of America. Who better to have at the table than Elon Musk?

I mean, he is the Tesla or the Edison of our day. There's nobody -- is there anybody in the world that everybody, with an exception of those who are just so politically, you know -- I don't know.

Pilled. That they just can't stand anybody that votes differently than them.

I mean, be even when he was -- we thought he was a real big lefty.

I still wanted to meet the guy.

I still wanted to be, man, I would give my right arm to sit and listen to that guy in the same room.

You know what I mean?

It would be great.

This is a guy who will be remembered for hundreds of years.

After Jesus comes.

Well, we may not have history books at that point.

But he's going to be remembered for hundreds of years, as one of the greatest human beings ever. When they were still human beings.

So, I mean, who doesn't want to meet that guy?

How is it that we have half of our -- we have half of our country now just hating on that guy?

It's genius. Would you be happier if he was Chinese.

STU: Thank God, he's here.

GLENN: Thank God.

STU: And wants to be here.

And wants to be in this environment.

I think that, you know, you look at everything.

And it's going to be a great biopic.

The movie on Elon Musk's life. Is going to be absolutely incredible. Because he is a somewhat complicated figure at times.

There's a lot to discuss on the Elon Musk front.

GLENN: Oh.

STU: Just think of the fact that this guy has put, I don't know.

You know, hundreds of thousands. Millions of cars on the road right now.

That are, you know, capable and are driving themselves.

Think of -- that's like -- an incredible accomplishment!

This is a guy who is putting cars that are -- you know, have full self-driving. You can sit in there.

The thing will drive itself from point A to point B. Without you touching really anything.

And that is -- think about the fact that that's just being said. That even people are allowed. You know, that governments are just like. Yeah. We trust this guy. To let all these cars drive themselves.

It's an amazing accomplishment. That's just one of many.

It's really an amazing life.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

Cracker Barrel CEO Finally Addresses ‘Woke’ Rebrand Controversy | The Glenn Beck Podcast | Ep 275

“I feel like I’ve been fired by America,” says Cracker Barrel CEO Julie Masino, in a vulnerable tell-all that goes behind the scenes into the explosive Cracker Barrel rebrand which Glenn describes as “stupid from start to finish.” In August 2025, Cracker Barrel unveiled a minimal new logo with modern fonts, cozy colors....no nice old man....and no BARREL for him to lean on. But it wasn’t just the logo; the restaurant chain was also getting a “modern” remodel. In short: We hated it. Social media erupted with brutal reviews, calling it “minimalist,” “soulless” and “downright ugly.” Cracker Barrel stock tanked, their attempt to tamp down the pushback backfired, and it looked like this was their “Bud Light moment.” But then, Cracker Barrel surprised us. They listened. Within weeks, they scrapped the new logo, reinstated the original, and hit pause on every remodel. “Covid even made Cracker Barrel start drinking,” says Doug Hisel, Senior Vice President of Store operations, as he takes Glenn behind the scenes as to what REALLY led to moment that brought Cracker Barrel to its knees. In Julie’s first interview since her time on “Good Morning America” when she said the response to the new logo, “was overwhelmingly positive,” she is here to say to America: “I’m sorry....I regret it.” Now the question is: will America forgive her?

Jasmine Crockett just DEFENDED this Jeffrey Epstein claim?!

Democrat Rep. Jasmine Crockett recently claimed on the House floor that Republicans, including EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, had taken money from “somebody named Jeffrey Epstein.” But it wasn’t THE Jeffrey Epstein. Glenn and Stu review this incredibly dumb attempt to smear Republicans and the even more insane excuses she gave to CNN.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Let's start with Jasmine Crockett. Yesterday, she came out, and she said that Lee Zeldin was receiving money from Jeffrey Epstein!

And Lee Zeldin is like, what?

No, I didn't!

Now, he knows that he did get money from Jeffrey Epstein. Just not the Jeffrey Epstein. Another Jeffrey Epstein.

Here is -- here is Jasmine Crockett trying to spin her mistake, on CNN last night.

Listen to this.

VOICE: Senate Democrat, who has been on defense over Jeffrey Epstein is Stacey Plaskett. She represents the Virgin Islands. She was texting with Jeffrey Epstein the day of Michael Cohen's hearing. Her questions pretty closely followed the text messages between the two of them to ask about Rhona Graff, Trump's long-time assistant. You were defending her today and in recent days, yesterday. And you talked about Republicans taking money from a Jeffrey Epstein. Here's what you said.

VOICE: Who also took money from somebody named Jeffrey Epstein, as I had my team dig in very quickly. Mitt Romney, the NRCC. Lee Zeldin. George Bush. When (inaudible). McCain/Palin. Rick Lazio.

VOICE: You mentioned Lee Zeldin there. He's now a cabinet secretary. He responded and said, it was actually Dr. Jeffrey Epstein, who is a doctor that doesn't have any relation to the convicted sex trafficker. Unfortunate for that doctor. But that is who donated to a prior campaign of his.

And do you want to correct the record on --

VOICE: I never said that it was that Jeffrey Epstein. Just so the people understand when you make a donation, your future is not there. And because they decided to spring this on us, in real time. I wanted the Republicans to think about what could potentially happen.

Because I knew that they didn't even try to go through FEC. So my team, what they did was they Googled. And that is specifically why I said agent, because unlike Republicans, I at least don't go out and just tell lies.

Because it was -- when Lee Zeldin had something to say, all he had to say was it was a different Jeffrey Epstein. He knew he did receive donations from a Jeffrey Epstein. So at least I wasn't trying to mislead people. To find out who this doctor was --

GLENN: Can we stop for a second. There's so much to digest.

We have to stop for just a second.

You weren't misleading people. Because you didn't see it was the Jeffrey Epstein.

You said it was a Jeffrey Epstein. What is the problem with getting money from Jeffrey Epstein?

There's no problem. That would be like, and Stu Burguiere has been taking money from Bob Stevenson. And?

What's the problem?

He's been working for Bob Stevenson for years. He was delivering papers as a kid to Bob Stevenson's front door! Who is Bob Stevenson?

There's not a problem with that. Why would you go out and say -- if she had come out and said, you know what, Lee Zeldin was also taking money from Bob Stevenson and Jim Furstenbergersteinberg.

I mean, then it would be fine.

You clearly were smearing. Not misleading? Not misleading?

STU: Oh. I --

GLENN: What's the problem from taking it from -- other than poor Dr. Jeffrey Epstein. Oh, my gosh.

STU: First of all.

GLENN: I feel bad for that guy.

STU: That life sucks.

If you're Dr. Jeffrey Epstein, you got to think about a name-change.

But there's hundreds of Dr. -- not doctor, but hundreds of Jeffrey Epsteins across the country.

GLENN: Hundreds.

STU: And I -- I mean, she was designed in a lab to make me happy. Jasmine Crockett.

I -- I love her so much.

GLENN: True. I do too. I do too.

STU: If you could formulate the perfect Democrat. I think I would just have to put her out there.

She just says the dumbest.

Like, she can't even get her bad defense right over this.

Like, she's trying to say, well, I didn't lie. Like, that's your defense in theory. I threw this in here. I noticed it, at the time. We talked about it, I think yesterday.

That she said -- yeah. She did.

She knew -- which actually makes it worse. She knew she was lying. She knew there was a good chance this wasn't Jeffrey Epstein.

But the last thing in the world --

GLENN: It's not a problem if you would have said -- it wouldn't be a problem if you would say, look!

All of these people have taken money from a Jeffrey Epstein.

Doubt that it's the same Jeffrey Epstein. Might be.

Might not be.

STU: I mean -- what value would be that?

GLENN: I know. I know.

It would be no value. But at least you can say, I'm not trying to mislead people.

STU: Right.

GLENN: I am trying to create doubt in people's minds.

But I'm not saying he's taking money from Jeffrey Epstein.

You know, when she just lists all of these people.

I mean, let's look at her donation. Let's see if she's ever taken money from a Charlie Manson.
(laughter)

You know what I mean? She's taken money from a John Wayne Gacy.

Hello!

A Ted Bundy has been seen around her house.

I mean, it's crazy! It's crazy!

And she knew exactly what she was doing.

And I hope that she continues. I hope that she continues to gain power.

STU: Yes!

GLENN: And love and respect from the Democrats. Because she is insane.

She's insane? She's so reckless. She's insane.

STU: She is. And, by the way, this is the person that we are told that should be the face of the party, that they should lean into the way she talks.

Because she's such a good communicator.

And she gets on all these shows, Glenn. This is a massive problem in our politics. And it affects the left more than the right.

It affects both sides to some degree. We're incentivized. The entire system is set up to reward people like her.

Who just say the dumbest things possible. And the most irresponsible and reckless things possible. And get all the clicks.

This woman has been on Colbert. Why?

She has been a complete nobody who is wrong all the time. She's getting on all these massive shows. She's getting booked everywhere. She's living the ultimate life of today's modern congressman.

And what is going to stop her?

The incentives are right there for her to continue.

GLENN: Do you think she doesn't know that she's dead.

Because didn't a Crockett die at the Alamo. Is that her?

I think that's her.

I know a Crockett died at the Alamo.

I'm not really sure. I'm not really sure.

I mean, just, what a dope.

JASON: Can I just point out? It's like, I'm a part of her research team, because she put her team on this.

GLENN: But quickly. But quickly.

JASON: Yeah. I always thought, especially Congress research would have these amazing tools.

GLENN: No, they don't.

JASON: And we, like -- our team struggles over this. We're constantly trying to stay ahead of the curve.

GLENN: And the last thing we do is Google. Google.

JASON: Google searches. That's what you do in Congress.

GLENN: Yes. Yes. That is what you do. That is what you do.

STU: Don't you have to fire your whole team after this.

GLENN: I would. I would. No. But she -- I don't think.

I have a feeling that her team briefed her.

It's why she did say, A, Jeffrey Epstein.

They briefed her, and said, this is probably not the same guy.

It might have even said, if you're Googling, it might have said, Dr. Jeffrey Epstein.

Why wouldn't it?

If that's who gave that money, it most likely said, Dr. Jeffrey Epstein.

And so they would say, it's not the Jeffrey Epstein. Yes, but that's okay.

I mean, she clearly knew. So who is she going to fire? This is what she wanted. Just the smear.

STU: Do we have time to play the rest of this clip? Because there's more to this. It's amazing.

GLENN: Yeah. Go ahead.

VOICE: So I will trust and take what he says. Is that it wasn't that Jeffrey Epstein. But I wasn't attempting to mislead anybody. I literally had maybe 20 minutes before I had to do that debate.

STU: So good.

GLENN: Okay. Stop. Stop. Stop.

So you don't say it!

I literally had 20 minutes. So I -- I didn't know, that the sky wasn't on fire, that that was actually the sun.

I only had 20 minutes before I said, my God, the whole sky is on fire!

STU: This is why I love her.

GLENN: What were you thinking?

STU: She had no idea whether the accusations she was making was true.

And she didn't even consider not saying it. The only thing that she could come up with in her brain, whatever information that comes in, in this rushed time period, just go with it.

And it's like --

GLENN: Do you know why?

STU: Why?

GLENN: Do you know why?

And I don't know if she's smart enough to know this. But you can say whatever you want as a congressman on the floor of Congress, and you cannot be held liable.

STU: That's true.

GLENN: You could say the worst thing. You could say, he was having sex with 4-year-old with his Jeffrey Epstein.

And it could be a complete lie. And you could not be held responsible because you said it, on the floor of the house.

That's why the standards are so low.

The standards are absolutely so low for these Congress -- she could say whatever she wants. If she would have said, not on the floor of the house. Lee Zeldin would sue her.

You could say, you knew what were you doing. You were smearing me and my reputation, intentionally. You knew exactly what you were doing so you couldn't sue.

She could have said, and he was having sex with a 4-year-old.

As long as he said it on the floor of the House, not a problem.

STU: This is the --

GLENN: Yeah. That is how bad our Congress is out of control.

They've you written all these laws for themselves to protect them. So they can be completely irresponsible, and it's fine.

STU: Yeah. I mean, I don't know if it's that, or if she's just a dunce.

It's hard to know with her.

GLENN: She's just dishonest. She's just dishonest.

STU: Yeah. She's dishonest and bad at it. And that's one of the things that I love about it.

There's no wool being pulled over anyone's eyes. It's just pathetic.
GLENN: No. No.

Is there more to this?

Play the rest of it out.

VOICE: Make it sound like he took money --
VOICE: I did not know. I just heard registered sex offender.
VOICE: I literally did not know.

When you search FEC files, and that's what I had my team to do. I texted my team and said, listen. We're going up. They're saying the sheets --
VOICE: Similar to saying, well, your team should have done the homework to make sure it wasn't the convicted sex trafficker.

VOICE: Within 20 minutes, you couldn't find that out. The search on FEC. So number one, I made sure that I was clear, that it was a Jeffrey Epstein.

But I never said it was specifically that Jeffrey Epstein. Because I knew that we would need more time to dig in.

VOICE: Well, Stacey Plaskett was texting the Jeffrey Epstein, talking about -- you voted against the censure for her, to remove her from her committees. You know, we pressed the -- the minority leader, Hakeem Jeffries on this last night.

Maybe you don't think she should be removed from her committees. Why do so many Democrats seem unwilling to say, it's inappropriate to be texting with a registered sex offender about what you're going to ask a witness at a Congressional hearing?

VOICE: So I'm not going to say that was necessarily the case. Now, this was someone who was a former prosecutor. Now, I haven't sat down and talked about all the specifics of why Stacey was doing what she was doing.

I know that when she got up, and she spoke. She talked about the fact that this is one of her constituents. At the end of the day, what I know with prosectors, is that they are typically talking to codefendants. They're typically talking to the people who had the best information.

What you had was the former attorney for the president that was sitting there. And honestly, we knew. Or she knew or at least Jeffrey Epstein presented that he was very cozy with the president.

He had more information, registered sex offend or not. The bigger question is why is it that the president was so cozy with a sex offender. Even if he after ultimately ended up with some of his convictions.

And seemingly he absolutely was on the plane with him. We know about the birthday card. The bigger question is why is the president of the United States not the one in the hot seat for his relationship instead of us saying, oh, you know what, we're going to take her off of her committee.

Because he decided to text her.

GLENN: Stop. Stop.

I can't take this. I can't.

STU: Literally, none of the stuff she said was true.

GLENN: None of it is true. And she's presenting it as absolute fact.

CNN is presenting it as absolute fact. And the latest is the smear last week on the Epstein stuff.

It shows that Epstein that the reason he was going to jail or going through all of the problem is because Donald Trump was the whistle-blower!

I mean, it's -- it's incredible, what they can get away with.

It's absolutely incredible.

STU: All of those happened before this conviction happened. I don't know that she doesn't know that happened. It's so fascinating to watch CNN's response to that.

GLENN: Which is nothing.

STU: How many times they said, Donald Trump said this without evidence.

Where is that on the Jasmine Crockett allegations here?

GLENN: Right.

STU: How about the situation with Caitlin Collins, who at least -- I would say at least kind of asks questions here.

But she can't even take responsibility for them. She's like, oh, well, some people are saying, you shouldn't blurt out obvious lies in the middle of a House session.

Like, what do you mean some people are saying? You never say that when it's the president of the United States.

How a Scandalous Political "Reporter" REALLY Got Her Juicy Stories | Olivia Nuzzi Exposed

Washington’s media bubble is imploding after explosive revelations that reporter Olivia Nuzzi carried on an emotional affair with RFK Jr. while covering him during the presidential race. The scandal has spiraled into leaked love letters, a derailed engagement, allegations of multiple political affairs, and a sudden firing that exposes the collapse of journalistic ethics in D.C. As new details surface involving Mark Sanford and Keith Olbermann, the story reveals a deeper truth about how power, access, and media influence really work behind the scenes.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

STU: Okay. Olivia Nuzzi. Do you know who she is?

GLENN: She's a reporter, right?
STU: Okay. Yes. Reporter. Very famous, inside DC, New York circles famous reporter.

GLENN: Lover, intellectual lover of RFK, if I'm not mistaken. Intellectual lover.

STU: Okay. Exactly. Yeah. So you remember the story.

GLENN: Not a lover lover.

STU: The story you don't know -- if you don't remember this, Glenn is referring to, is she was engaged to another reporter, Ryan Lizza, and it was revealed during this most recent presidential campaign that she was having an emotional affair of sorts with RFK Jr. Who as we -- you know, certainly has meant much to him during his life, but he is also married.

So he is -- so, I mean, he's a Kennedy. What do you expect here?

GLENN: He's a Kennedy. Yeah. Yes.

STU: He apparently, they were going back and forth, they had some sort of emotional affair going on.

And this is after she had written a profile about him.

So obviously, journalistically, there are ethical problems. As if they cared about ethical problems in journalism anymore.

This one rose to the level where she was fired. She's canned from her job.

She had this stratospheric rise in the media. She was -- remembering the time line right. She was hired. She wrote -- she was working for a campaign at one point.

She then wrote kind of an exposé of that campaign, that she worked for. And it got published in the New York Daily News.

Based off of just that, she was elevated to the main, like, political reporter at the Daily Beast, which shows you their particular standards.

She was 22, at the time, Glenn. Like, super young. This does not happen.

She wrote for a while there. People kind of like her writing. She also has the sort of throwback style. Very pretty. Kind of -- she has that mystique about her. And it was to the extent that they brought her to, I think, it was New York magazine. She wound up getting the lead political reporter job at that -- or, lead political columnist. A job they created for her. A position that did not exist previously.

And she's like 24 years old.

How has this happened?

GLENN: I think RFK has probably came up with other positions for 24-year-olds that didn't exist as well.

STU: Certainly, factually, accurate. Whether you want to say it or not, is another story, I suppose.

So, anyway, she goes through, and she breaks a lot of big stories. She's always getting odd amount of access to politicians, that you don't understand. You know, all across the spectrum.

She breaks big stories. She always has these big details about it. She writes very colorfully about all these interactions with these politicians. Anyway, this whole scandal blows up with RFK Jr.

Her -- her engagement breaks off. She kind of goes into hiding. For a year.

In that year, she's apparently writing a book. And the book comes out today.

Now, all of this could be just already an amazing salacious story. However, on the day before her book release, her ex-fiancé, also a reporter, releases a story about how he found out about all of -- all of the nonsense. Okay?

GLENN: Oh, good.

STU: And he writes that she comes back from a trip. And he uncovers some napkins from a hotel with a bunch of writing on it. Which turn out to be a love letter to the politician.

Which, again, in her book.

GLENN: Written by her.

STU: Written by her. In her book, she never says RFK Jr's name. She describes his relationship in detail. Never says the name. Just calls him "the politician."

Because I assume, because he might sue or whatever. Who knows?

You know, she doesn't want to be -- she doesn't -- she doesn't want to call him out by name. Every detail is quite clear in the book. It's quite clear it's about him.

GLENN: Yeah. She might find him in the bottom of a river.
(laughter)

GLENN: I'm just -- I'm just saying. I don't know what else could happen.

STU: The thing I love about this particular segment is that I would love to give you this story at any time.

The fact that you're deep on back medication right now is the perfect time for you to --

GLENN: I'm not on medication. I'm actually not on medication.

I'm just in so much pain, I just don't care.

STU: Whatever is making you delirious, I love it.

GLENN: Right. Got it.

STU: So the Ryna Lizza piece comes out. It's called How I Found Out. He goes through the whole details. He finds the napkins, finds the love letter, written on the napkins.

Okay. And in the love letter, it says, if I swallowed every drop of water from the tower above your house, I would still thirst for you.

Now -- I just love it.

Now, they live in DC, Glenn.

As you may know, not a lot of water towers in their home in DC. She realized, this is not a love letter to me, but someone else.

Finally, she starts going in and realizing, this is about a famous politician.

We go through the same -- goes through the whole story and finds out, there's a lot of detail about everything.

This is going to blow up their life. He realizes, it's going to be a problem. He calls his publicist, of course. This is what you do when you're one of these DC insider reporters, you call your publicist. And he says, we have a big problem.

Olivia is sleeping with Mark Sanford, a totally different politician.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

STU: This is a totally different affair.

GLENN: Mark Sanford. Wasn't he -- he was in Virginia, wasn't he?

STU: No, South Carolina.

GLENN: South Carolina, that's right. That's right. Who went for a walk one day, and just never showed up.

STU: Yes! And remember, he was like, oh, he's out on the Appalachian Trail, and then they found out he was actually.

GLENN: That's right.

STU: He was actually hooking up --

GLENN: Yeah. Under a water tower.

STU: Right. With a person he called his soul mate. Which I guess that was true for a time. They got together after that old relationship got broken up. Then they got back together.

And he got together with the soul mate. Then that broke up. And then he's rerunning for president if you remember, Glenn, in 2020, against Donald Trump. And making the pitch that, you know, I'm -- I've turned my life around. At that time, apparently, allegedly, sleeping with this reporter who profiled him, same exact thing that happened with RFK Jr. Except that, you know, we don't know. At least, there's no allegations that they actually wound up consummating the RFK Jr relationship.

In the story, however, in addition to all of this, we also get additional details of a relationship that Olivia Nuzzi had when she was 21 years old with Keith Olbermann.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. Oh, my gosh.

STU: I mean, the story is almost too good to tell.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. So she's like -- what was the spy's name, you know, that was sleeping with everybody -- like Whory Harriet or something like that. I mean, is that how she gets the stories? She just sleeps with these people?

STU: I don't know. Seemingly, this does occur on a pretty regular basis in this situation.

GLENN: Wow.

STU: And, you know, we ran out of time. Tomorrow, we should do the Olbermann's part of the saga, which is absolutely fascinating.

GLENN: Oh, we must.

STU: They seem to be accusing him of something in this piece. Which is above and beyond just hooking up. So that's something we should talk about tomorrow as well.

GLENN: Oh, I will -- I'll just write it down now. I'm scheduling -- scheduling the Keith Olbermann segment for tomorrow.