RADIOJanuary 18, 2024

Does Biden's new SECRET COURT reveal a partnership to SPY ON YOU?!

Just when you thought the news couldn't get any crazier, Glenn reads a report from Politico on a new secret surveillance court that Biden's attorney general recently staffed. Included in the panel of judges ... former AG Eric Holder of all people. But the story gets more insane. At first, the "Data Protection Review Court" appears to be related to the "lucrative transatlantic data trade" between companies. But then, Politico starts mentioning intelligence agencies, surveillance practices, and visas being denied. Plus, apparently, the court's location is secret, its decisions are kept secret, and plaintiffs aren't even allowed to go to the court. Is this an admission of an international public-private partnership to spy on Americans via European agencies, and vice versa?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: This comes from politico today. In a deal to let companies, and I would like you to stop me, when you don't understand something, or you think you can explain it, Stu. Okay?

STU: Okay.

GLENN: All right.

This one is a wild one. In a deal to let companies keep trading transatlantic data, the White House built an opaque new forum, that could affect national security, and privacy rights, without any paper trail.

STU: I mean, there's a lot of questions in that paragraph. But usually the opening one, setting you up for the explanation.

So perhaps I should wait a second.

GLENN: At an undetermined date, in an undisclosed location, the Biden administration began operating a secretive new court, to protect European's privacy rights under US law.

Known officially as the data protection review court, it was authorized in an October 2022 executive order, to fix a collision of European and American law. That had been blocking the lucrative flow of consumer data, between American and European companies, for three years.

Now, this is because Europe has just put in a very strong privacy law.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And they're enforcing those things.

Well, we have a problem exchanging data now, because of their private laws.

The court's eight judges. Eight judges were named last November, including, oh. Attorney general Eric Holder. He's trustworthy.

STU: Oh, good.

GLENN: Its existence has allowed companies to resume the lucrative does with the blessing of EU officials.

STU: What is the lucrative transatlantic data trade?

GLENN: I don't know.

They say that it's companies. But then, it -- then -- just listen to the whole story. I mean, they say that's companies trading data.

Or like, for instance, Facebook having servers here. With European at that time on their servers.

STU: Okay. So you could argue, maybe that this needs to be sorted out, because there's nothing nefarious going on here.

It's just -- it's just --

GLENN: Why the secrecy.

STU: Very strange.

Also, did we have -- we cover the news every day. Did we have a new bill, that created this?

Was there a new discussion?

Was there a debate?

GLENN: No. Executive order. A dictate.

STU: A dictate from -- create new courts?

GLENN: New courts. New courts.

STU: Wow. Okay.

GLENN: The next sentence -- because you understand clearly what we're talking about, right?

The next sentence of this article is the details get blurry after that.

STU: Okay. So what we just had, was the in-focus part. Okay.

GLENN: Yes. That's crystal clear. It will get a little blurry now.

The court's location is a secret.

The Department of Justice will not say if it's taken a case yet.

STU: Why -- why would you hide the location of a court that is overseeing data transfers?

GLENN: Hmm.

STU: What on earth?

Why would that need to be a secretive location?

GLENN: No idea.

Though, the court has a clear mandate ensuring European's their privacy rights under US law. Its decisions will also be kept a secret from both the EU resident's petitioning the court, and the federal agencies tasked with following the law.

STU: Wait. Wait.

So someone in the EU comes to the American court, that the --

GLENN: The secret court.

STU: That they don't know where the location is.

GLENN: Right. I don't know how to contact them. Don't know anything.

STU: So when that happens. Which I assume it would be very infrequently.

When they don't, they go through some sort of case. And then they don't get to know the result of the case?

GLENN: Well, it's not only that. Plaintiffs are also not allowed to appear in person. And are represented --

STU: How could they. They don't know where it is?

GLENN: Right. And they're represented by a special advocate appointed by the US attorney general.

STU: Okay. So --

GLENN: Okay. So --

STU: I have a problem with my data. And I go to this court, that I don't know where it is.

GLENN: Right. And you can't actually go to the court.

STU: I can't actually -- not physically going.

I contact them. They create a case. They assign an advocate for me, to argue the case.

But I can't know where it is, when it's going on, and what the outcome is?

GLENN: Yes.

STU: Okay. Perfect.

GLENN: This is just to restore some trust. Critics worry, that it will tie the hands of intelligence agencies, with an unusual power.

It can make binding decisions on surveillance practices, with federal agencies, which won't be able to challenge those decisions.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: Now, I thought this was about corporate data transfers.

STU: Yeah. What does this have to do with intelligence agencies?

GLENN: Until there's some clarity on how that will operate, I think you would expect the intelligence agency to be nervous about what it might mean, especially since it's not even clear what its caseload might even look like.

For the European citizens, it's supposed to help.

The picture is just as murky.

Private advocates argue that it will be nearly impossible for European residents to bring cases, given that they will have to know that they're being surveilled to file a complaint!

STU: Right.

GLENN: Quote, I don't think anyone sitting around in Spain, is unhappy about his visa being denied.

And is going to a -- is going to think that it could be based on data transfers to the US. And go through this process.

STU: Wait a minute. I thought --

GLENN: I know.

STU: I thought we were talking about corporations trading data.

What would that have to do with a Visa being denied from the government.

GLENN: It's weird, huh.

STU: It feels like, and you tell me if I'm wrong here.

It feels like, what's actually happening. That companies, let's say, in the United States, are capturing data and then EU governments are buying the data from the companies in the United States.

Or, the opposite. Right.

Where --

GLENN: It's illegal for us to spy on Europeans.

I mean, on Americans.

And it's illegal for them to spy on Europeans.

So we spy on the Europeans, they spy on the Americans.

STU: And it goes through companies, that are just in an international data trade?

Which is, quote, unquote, lucrative.

GLENN: Correct.

For the business community, however, the court has already done its first job.

Its very existence allowed EU regulators to finally bless the resumption of the cross border data transfers.

STU: Oh, good.

GLENN: Now. I'm not kidding.

Here's the next sentence. What happens next, or perhaps is already happening, is far less clear.

STU: So -- the part before this was the clear part.

GLENN: No. No.

STU: I thought two parts before --

GLENN: Two parts before, was the clear part. Then it got murky.

STU: Murky or blurry.

GLENN: Blurry. And now it gets even less clear.

STU: Got it. So now you can't even see light at this point.

GLENN: No. Uh-uh. Uh-uh.

The data protection review court is a solution to a transatlantic problem, that had deviled, much of corporate America, and big tech companies in particular.

The global trade in personal data, is large and growing up to $7.1 trillion, between the US and the EU alone.

But governed by legal regimes that differ sharply above borders.

The private data of Europeans. Now, again, we're back to the corporations.

Right.

Next paragraph, the private data of European citizens, can legally be surveilled by US intelligence agencies.

But unlike Americans. Europeans have no recourse, under American law.

If agencies overreach.

Again, I thought -- is this an example of a public private partnership.

STU: Yeah. That's what I'm wondering.

It seems like they're going around these rules. By creating, a -- an entity.

GLENN: Yep.

STU: Within some new industry. Where they can make these data transfers occur, without them going legally from government to government.

GLENN: As Europe began to implemented stringent 2018 data privacy law, that the imbalance set badly with EU authorities.

And in both a 2015 and 2020 ruling, a European court barred companies outright from transferring or processing EU citizen's data in the US, or at least until the citizens had a way to pursue their rights.

So they can now take the data out. They couldn't before.

But now that they've done this secret court, they can take the data out.

Because apparently, people in Europe. Will know when they're being surveilled.

When their at that time has been used against them.

And they'll have a secret court to go. And they -- they -- you know, that's their recourse.

They won't know if anything has been done.

STU: It seems like, in five years. When they find out, they've been doing it for a long time. Well, nobody asked in court. We got that court set up.

Nobody ever showed up. It's weird. We had like no cases for five years. It seems like no one had a problem with what's going on, I guess.

GLENN: So I don't know who appointed the judges. But the one who announced the judges is Merrick Garland.

STU: I think it said earlier in the article, at the age, he was the one who did it.

GLENN: Oh, good.

So it was Garland. Four of them have deep rooted experience with classified information.

From their previous careers, in the NSA, and national security council.

STU: Oh, good.

GLENN: Or the Department of Justice.

Oh!

STU: Perfect.

GLENN: Okay.

STU: I see no problems in those arenas at all, lately.

GLENN: No. When intelligence agencies are, you know, the watchdogs of themselves.

What could possibly go wrong?

STU: Yeah. What could go wrong? They're the experts in themselves.

GLENN: Experts believe the intelligence community is cautiously waiting for the court's decisions, with the hopes that there won't be new restrictions imposed on its operations.

The judge's final authority, however, creates a degree of concern.

That finality, could create an unanticipated problem for the administration, according to some intelligence experts.

They believe the court could not just constrain the government's spying activity. In specific cases.

But set precedence that cut against the administration's policy.

Of what?

Of spying on you!

We're talking about a secret court. A secret agency.

Whose location, we don't know.

We know nothing about it.

We know -- we have no idea what court cases are going through.

And it could -- they're worried that it could set a precedent, to cut against the administration policy.

Of what?

I thought we were talking about corporate data transfers.

STU: And protecting Europeans.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: Why would this --

GLENN: The executive order's language, however, specified the court's ruling should apply only to the individual case, that they are hearing.

Which we won't know.

Nor will the people who brought the case.

STU: How could it apply to other cases, if no one knows what the result is?

GLENN: Though experts believe decisions could still create an unofficial precedence for other surveillance operations. Again, surveillance operations.

STU: I thought it was like, you know, corporations. Some handbag company. Is trading data. With some department stores from overseas. I thought that's -- we're not talking about it. Sounds lucrative.

GLENN: No, we're not.

A citizen compliant, first has to shuttle between an EU data protection official, and the US office of the Director of National Intelligence.

Which will decide whether there was a civil rights violation from the data collection.

So the national intelligence agency, is going to decide, whether or not that's even worth bringing up to the court.

Regardless of the results, the response to the initial complaint, will neither confirm nor did know that the EU resident was under US surveillance.

This is insanity. If you don't think our government is building -- a secret court on surveillance?

That you don't have access to?

If you don't think that we are living in a time where this administration, and past administrations, have been building a -- a cage for you, where they know absolutely everything about you.

You're -- you're fooling yourself.

And you don't have a way to stop it.

I mean, well, you could, of course, apply. You'll find that in the blue pages, I'm sure, in your -- in your phone book.

STU: But it sounds worrisome.

But at the end of the day, remember, Eric Holder is there to watch the process.

GLENN: Amen, brother.

Thank you for that ray of sunshine.

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.

From Anthony Weiner Intern to Media Royalty... The Scandal-Ridden Rise of "Reporter" Olivia Nuzzi

Reporter Olivia Nuzzi’s career is one of the strangest success stories in modern journalism. From volunteering on Anthony Weiner’s collapsing mayoral campaign to becoming a 24-year-old Washington correspondent with jobs created specifically for her... Nuzzi's rise through the media ranks defies every norm of the industry. Glenn Beck and Stu Burguiere explore how an unknown college student was elevated into a media celebrity overnight, why institutions continued to protect her even after major ethical scandals, and what her story reveals about how power truly works inside the press. Is this talent, luck, or something far more engineered?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

STU: Yes. And I will begin the story at the very, very start, Glenn. And I will start it with a question for you.

And this is a question that I think sets the scene for the entire journey we're about to go on.

GLENN: Okay.

STU: Journalist.

GLENN: Let me get my boots on.

STU: Let's do it. She starts her career, very first job, she volunteers as an intern for what campaign? Volunteers as an intern for what campaign?

GLENN: Just -- it just has to be Bill Clinton. Has to be.

STU: It's a good guess. However, timing wise --

GLENN: Oh, Anthony Wiener.

STU: Anthony Wiener is the answer.

GLENN: Yes. Yes! Yes!

STU: She volunteers for the failed mayoral campaign.

GLENN: Fascinating. Fascinating.

STU: Of Anthony Wiener. So this is how this story starts.

GLENN: Oh, Anthony Wiener. So she starts covering Wieners.

STU: Yes. She starts covering Wieners. And the whole story is her doing more of that. We'll get into that as we go.

GLENN: All right.

STU: She starts with the Wiener campaign. It's a disaster. It's kind of a legendary catastrophe. They have a documentary about to go. We talked about that at the time. You know, totally the whole thing flames apart.

GLENN: By the way. By the way. I'm just sitting here thinking, I don't think I was technically wrong when I said it was a Clinton campaign.

Because remember, Hillary Clinton is all over the Wiener.

STU: But that's -- please, don't say it like that.

But, yes. That is accurate.

GLENN: Yeah. Because if I say it like that. It leads you to believe. And that is absolutely not true.

I don't think she's ever --
(laughter)

STU: I think, yes. Because if you remember Huma Abedin, at this time is married to Anthony Wiener.

GLENN: Can you use air quotes? Air quotes on that?

STU: Yes. On her wonderful path to marry a Soros. She's at that time, married to Wiener. And she is helping out Hillary Clinton as her top dog main assistant.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: That's ongoing. That's the first thing. Almost has nothing to do with the story.

GLENN: Did you use air quotes for the word assistant there, as well.

STU: I did not. So how does Olivia Nuzzi get into our lives? She goes to -- she goes from the Wiener campaign and leaves, and writes basically a tell-all, you know, scandal log of what was going on during the Wiener campaign. Basically, this thing was a catastrophe. She tells the inside story. And releases it to the Daily News. Who prints this column, from at this point a 20-year-old aspiring journalist. And, you know, she's pretty. She's glamorous. She's kind of like the New York elite journalist that you would exactly picture in this situation.

So she gets this, and turns that one column into a job, while she's still in college. She's at Fordham. She's still at college.

GLENN: Oh, she's in Fordham.

STU: Fordham, of course. I thought you would like that detail.

GLENN: Yeah, sorry.

STU: For multiple reasons.

GLENN: My daughter went to Fordham. They actually -- they actually had the balls to -- they held rallies against me on the Fordham campus, and then they had the balls to come and ask my wife and I to come in to meet with the dean, because they wanted to know if we would help them build a library.

STU: No.

GLENN: There were words that started with F that were not fruit!

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: As we left that meeting.

STU: Was it Fordham? Was the F-word Fordham? You Fordham!

GLENN: No. Fordham you!

STU: Yeah. That's the university.

GLENN: That's what I mean. Fordham University. Fordham you! Anyway, go ahead.

STU: Okay. So she gets hired from one that column, as one of the main presidential campaign correspondence for the Daily Beast, which tells you yet again, something about the standards of the Daily Beast when it comes to journalism, which are exactly zero. They have higher standards at Fordham.
(laughter)

GLENN: And those are pretty low.

STU: Those are low.

She is going to cover the Chris Christie campaign. The Rand Paul campaign. And some of the early bubbling beginnings of the Donald Trump campaign. This is back in 2014, '15, and there. She -- in 2015, as you note, as she's in this job. She does that tweet about House of Cards. And how women should not -- or Hollywood should not misportray the journalists that are females. Because they're always saying that they sleep with their sources. And that's a terrible thing -- point that out.

Which is an amazing thing for multiple reasons, Glenn. Because, well, I'll get into that here in a second.

GLENN: Yeah. Okay.

STU: So she see that. She then gets named by Politico one of the 16 breakout media stars of the presidential election. This is November 2016.

GLENN: Wow.

STU: She then in February 2017 parlays that into a job, as the Washington correspondent of New York magazine.

She's 24 years old. Twenty-four years old, Washington correspondent, at New York magazine. You're saying, wow. That's a prestigious position. Who held it before her?

No one. They literally create this job for her, which is incredible. Again, she's 24 years old.

GLENN: Again, it's probably not the only position created for her.

STU: She may have several that she's documented in -- in a book or two, that we could go over later. Okay. So -- and you wonder. And this is a time to pause.

GLENN: Jesus would not be doing this segment, I just want to let you know, right here and now.

STU: Right. That's true. That's true.

GLENN: Go ahead.

STU: You think about what a meteoric rise this is.

Glenn, you know this. This is not how media operates. You don't do what she's done here.

Like, incredible. It's like, she -- someone who never played basketball before, and is in the NBA three years later. It's legitimately an incredible rise. You wonder how that rise occurred. Those questions may be answered later on.

GLENN: Stop using the word "rise." You're making me uncomfortable.
(laughter)

STU: 2018, she's included in the Forbes 30 under 30 list.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: Which is a very prestigious list. October 2018, as a member of -- working for the New York magazine. She's invited for an exclusive interview in the Oval Office to interview Donald Trump. Again, she's 25 at this point.

Very prestigious. She's awarded a next award by the American Society of Magazine editors. She gets a documentary on MSNBC. She portrays herself on the show time show Billions. In 2022.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

STU: Again, this is someone who is a massive celebrity in that world. You may not know her name. But she is a massive celebrity.

GLENN: Okay.

STU: She gets a six-part interview from Bloomberg. And then she does a profile of RFK Jr, the candidate who you may remember running for president as a Democrat.

Okay. I can't remember if the profile happened when he was running as a Democrat, or he had kind of flipped to an independent. But it's before he's endorsing Trump, or there's MAHA or any of that stuff. Right? It's in that period.

GLENN: Sure. Sure. Sure.

STU: And she does this profile of him that I guess goes pretty well. And it comes out much more favorable, I would say than many of the other previews. Profiles of RFK Jr in this period.

But, again, has some criticism. And some quirkiness in it. And her style of writing has all sorts of weird details. You know, sometimes it's kind of -- I think it's actually pretty good. I think her reporting was regulated. She did have some really fascinating stories that she wrote over this period.

But like, the celebrities seemed to overextend past maybe what she had achieved in her career so far. So she writes this profile of RFK Jr.

And then it is -- the news breaks that RFK Jr and Olivia Nuzzi are having what they call an emotional affair, which seems to be lots of very detailed loving text messages back and forth. Promises about --

GLENN: When you say loving. Is it like, you know, you are a child of God. And I just love you and want to help you in any way. Is that what you mean by loving? Or do you know do you mean like Barry White loving?

STU: Well, to put it in another word, we're talking about a Kennedy. So I'm talking about Kennedy style loving.

GLENN: Okay. Ding-dong, pizza delivery.

STU: It's important to note that Olivia Nuzzi is engaged to another journalist, Ryan Lizza at this time. And so she's engaged to somebody. RFK Jr.

Not that this makes seemingly any difference to him whatsoever, is married at the time, and is still currently married to an actress in Hollywood. So he's doing this. She's doing this.

This is suboptimal not only for a marriage, but also a presidential campaign. This goes on, the news finally breaks this is happening. This is a problem for a bunch of reasons. Number one, you're -- you have a fiancé. Number two, the person you're texting with is married.

Number three, though, a really serious journalist problem, right?

Like, you're profiling someone and having an affair with them at the same time. That's frowned upon, at least in theory, in the world of journalism.

Now, in practice, God only knows. But in theory, you're not supposed to do that, Glenn. This is something they tell you relatively early on in journalism school, I assume.

And so he --

GLENN: I've got to apologize to all those people that I've been sleeping with that I've been on the show.

STU: How many people have you profiled, Glenn? You just profiled the Great Mufti. Have you ever had any relations --

GLENN: Yeah, have you ever had the relations with the Mufti? I've got to tell you the truth, Stu. Yep. Yep. Back in 1942.

STU: Oh, no.

So all of this comes out in the -- in the media. And she sort of goes -- she gets fired from the New York magazine because of this journalistic lapse. And she sort of goes into hiding.

Okay? She goes into hiding. She moves. She is -- not saying word one about this. And, you know, she talks a lot.

So that's notable.

In this period, Ryan Lizza, her ex-fiancé now, they broke up. Ex-fiancé and her are -- are negotiating according to him, a do not -- what is it?

A non-disclosure. Don't talk about this. Don't talk about this. Don't disparage. Let's just let this be over.

He also gets a message, according to him, from an intermediate friend that says, "Hey. She never wants to talk about this again. She hopes you'll never talk about this again. Can we just move past this?" And he according to him says, "You know what, I'm on board with that. Let's just never let this go."

So a little bit of time goes on. What we learn is, her time in exile has actually been spent writing a book, which is called American Canto. It's coming out in a couple of weeks from today, or from yesterday.

Two weeks from yesterday.

And it's a book --

GLENN: Is this one -- does the book include her time with governor Mark Sanford?

STU: Well, we're getting to that.

GLENN: 2019, 2020.

I mean, was she sleeping with him, too, before the JFK thing.

STU: That's a big part of the story we're getting to. At this point in the story, we have no idea about that. We only know about the RFK Jr. thing. So she releases this book, and in it, is all these details about the RFK Jr thing.

Now, you would think the way the media would handle this woman who they've just ejected from their society for massive journalistic and immoral lapses would be hammering her over her activity here.

GLENN: No.

STU: Instead, she gets a glowing profile in the New York Times with, like, her -- with an incredible -- you have to seat footage, Glenn. You would love it. It's her, she's driving in a convertible. Hair in the wind. Like, Chanel glasses. She looks spectacular, as she's going down. This is how the New York Times rolls this out for her.