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

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

A DIRE WARNING for independent content creatorsplay icon
RADIOFebruary 14, 2024

A DIRE WARNING for independent content creators

We have hit another Big Tech censorship mile marker. Glenn exposes the latest attempts by Facebook, Apple, AND YouTube to soft-censor conservative media during an election year. He warns that independent content creators who believe that they can rely on Big Tech platforms will soon find out the harsh truth: If they don’t fall in line with the narratives of the global elites, they will face the consequences. For political content creators on Facebook, that day has come, as it has made shadowbanning its company policy. And for those on YouTube, Glenn exposes how a shadowy “non-profit” connected to the White House may be pressuring the company to crack down on unapproved narratives.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I want to start with something you need to know about. You know, I feel like somebody who is just telling you the mile-markers as we go. We are hitting another mile-marker here that you really need to pay attention to. Because it is all about information.

We have been witnessing a very disturbing trend in social media lately.

The giants of social media are attempting to control the narrative and dictate what information you have access to, by punishing people like me, or perhaps people like you, for wrong think.

Now, this is a blatant assault on your freedom and my freedom of speech.

And what do you know, they've decided to do this, during an election year. I mean, what a coincidence.

So I have three updates for you. And the first one is actually a kind of win.

I shared last week, when my team discovered, that Apple had raided everything in my Apple podcast library, as explicit content.

That's over 2,000 episodes of my radio program. Which I am FCC regulated. So I can't have anything explicit on.

And also the Glenn Beck podcast.

Now, the key here is, why did Apple change the rating from clean, to explicit?

Well, my team uploads the -- the episodes to the Apple podcast platform. And they have to rate it either clean or explicit.

The vast majority of my episodes fall under the clean category. But our standards are a little higher than everyone else. Every so often, a guest on my podcast will use colorful language. They'll drop the F bomb. Occasionally. It's happened twice.

And my team, making sure that we understand our audience, have flagged that episodes as explicit. That shouldn't affect every episode. It should affect that episode. So we reached out to Apple for comment, and Apple got back to us right away, and claims this is due to four episodes, that we in the 2,000, have labeled explicit.

Now, Apple claimed, that we didn't say they were explicit. I know we did.

Apple wanted me to delete those episodes to get the label removed from all the rest of the 2000 episodes. Uh-huh.

So censorship, well, I don't know. There's people that use content settings to avoid podcasts that are entirely based around explicit content like pornography. What Apple did was group my shows with those kinds of shows to hide all of my shows from you.

We pushed back. Yesterday, we got a notification, that Apple will remove the explicit label, within a couple of business days. We've got a lot going on here. So it was a big misunderstanding, as it always is. And time and time again. And I just love the fact that they -- they will take a couple of days and correct this right away.

Now, this is called soft censorship.

And these attempts happen all the time.

Let me give you another example. Earlier this week, I got a notification, that Facebook is making shadow banning company policy.

Now, shadow banning, in case you don't know, is when a social media company allows you to post all the content that you want. But then it limits the reach that the content can hit.

So it's -- well, I call it the digital ghetto. You know, they're just rounding everybody up, that disagrees with the government. And they put them in this digital ghetto. There's a wall around it.

Well, they can speak all they want. But nobody will hear them. Unless you too, if into the get zero.

Now, this time, at least Facebook was kind enough to tell us about it.

They posted an article last week, called, our approach to political content. Now, Facebook admitted that they will shadow ban all political content.

But that's for you.

That has nothing to do with like the WEF saying, we've got to silence people. We have to make sure that people aren't misinformed with things that disagree with our policy, and our direction.

Now, Facebook argued that, quote, the people have told us, they just want to see less million content.

So we've spent the last few years, refining our approach on Facebook, to reduce the amount of political content. Including from politician accounts.

In feeds, reels, watch groups. You should join. And pages, you may like.

Okay. That's interesting. Because my team started noticing, oh, a 95 percent drop in our penetration on Facebook, about a year ago.

Which is weird. Which is weird.

But it will be better for our sanity, I guess.

I remember a time, when Facebook begged me to I didn't even their platform.

So what changed?

Well, an election year, where they're scared out of their mind.

And they have to silence anyone, that is telling you, a different opinion, than the overlords.

I would like to know what Facebook considers to be political content. Is advertising, LGBTQ issues to kids considered political?

I'll bet not. How about content on the benefits of abortion?

Is that April?

Does Joe Biden get a pass since he's the president?

Despite the fact that he's running for reelection. Or is it just the right-wing candidates and issues, that are from the right-wing that are considered political?

Don't worry. Facebook isn't banning all political content.

Instead, it's just hiding it by default.

If you want to see the political content. Then you can customize your feed preference, and turn. Back on.
Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

You can also add people like me, to your favorites list, so you can add content to your feed.

Sounds great and easy, doesn't it?

Now, my team stumbled across a new form of shadow banning, and it could be tied directly to the global censorship regime that I exposed just a few weeks ago.

Just a few weeks ago, on the TV program.
I had exposed the shadowy nonprofit targeting Glenn Beck and other conservative media.

And I laid out how a small British nonprofit, with only one employee, has become one of the White House's go-to censorship experts.

I'm going to tell you what we found just happening, and how it ties to what I said was coming two weeks ago.

And how all of this affects you.

Because it is going to affect what you perceive.

Because it's just taking things away. It's not necessarily adding. It's just kind of falling off. And you don't see it anymore.

This is a way to control the way people think.

Okay. So in the episode I did a couple of weeks ago, I introduced you to the center of countering digital hate.

When I say they are the ones behind the infamous dozen report that the White House peddled back in 2021.

That report targeted so-called COVID disinformation. All the things that we now know are true.

Well, they now have a new report out, about climate disinformation. But not the kind that you may be thinking of. Now, when I say they, I really mean him.

Because there's only one employee, at this nonprofit. Earlier this year, British outlet called the independent, highlighted this new report. Apparently, it's the center for countering digital hate. And they are furious that social media companies, are allowing a new form of climate change denial to spread to their platforms.

It's no longer good enough for companies like YouTube to censor people who believe in climate change. Or believe it is fake.

They've been doing that. But that's not enough. That's the old kind of denial. The center for digital hate defines the new denial as anything that claims global heating is beneficial or harmless. That global elite's climate solution may not work.

Or that so-called climate science or the climate movement can't be trusted.

Now, I'm not sure how questioning the global elites is a form of digital hate. But apparently now it is.

Because that guy at the CCDH has spoken. And the White House will partner with him.

So now, people like me, who have never denied the climate is changing.

In fact, I say, the climate has always been changing. We're considered spreaders of hateful disinformation because we think, things like reimagining farming, might kill millions of people.

You know, like it has every time, it has ever been attempted in the past.

Now, the CCDH, made sure to specifically call me or Blaze TV out as spreaders of this new denial.

Now, this isn't just pointing the finger. This is a threat. Because the CCDH then demanded that YouTube demonetize any content that spreads new denial.

But, remember, this is one of the White House's go-to experts on disinformation.

It's a good thing the White House doesn't have a track record of telling social media companies who to censor. Right?

Oh, wait. We have just learned the Twitter files, that's exactly what they have been doing for years. So let's take a step back here.

Because it's more important for you to understand, what the CCDH's demand actually means.

Stu, do I still have your attention? Because this is really complex. But I just want to make sure that people understand it.

Can you -- I don't know. Do something that would bring in, the people that don't have a real big attention span.

STU: Taylor Swift. She's in the luxury box, watching the radio today. Look at her.

GLENN: Thank you.

So here it is. They want YouTube to limit the monetization of any content that goes against the global elite's narrative. And if I in general, are against the global elite's narrative, then you wouldn't want any of my content monetized.

The truth is, it's not really cheap or easy to produce content and maintain a team to keep all of the trainings running on time.

A subscription model is the best way for us to function.

And that's something that we pioneered here at the Blaze.

I knew working at CNN, and then at Fox. We could not rely on other companies. We couldn't rely on advertisers.

We had to rely on you.

Now, we take advertisers, because it's wildly expensive to do what we do.

But in the end, we'll continue to do it, as long as you are a subscriber.

That's why I ask you, all the time. Please, subscribe to TheBlaze.

Because I know what is coming.

In fact, it's already here.

We only answer to you.

So this -- I'm going to show you some of this. So you understand what it is.

But anyone who is -- is relying on making their money, from social media, is going to be over soon.

So they want you to limit the monetization of anybody that is going against the globally elite's narratives.

It is important for a people to be able to reach new viewers through platforms like YouTube and Facebook. Otherwise, we're only speaking to the choir.

How do you offset the cost for content, when you're putting it out for free?

Well, YouTube shares the revenue, that they take to run ads in our content.

The better the video does. The more ad are sold. The more money both YouTube and let's say somebody like me, makes.

That's how it works.

But late last week, one of my producers was looking through the YouTube analytics on a podcast with the rancher Shad Sullivan. The episode is called millions will starve.

Rancher sounds the alarm on the global food Jeopardy.

It was performing extraordinarily well. In just, I think a day, it had 320,000 views.

It had amassed, a watch time of over 88,000 hours.

Okay. That, if we cared about the money, should have made tons of money for TheBlaze, or for the Glenn Beck Program.

The -- the podcast had 14 YouTube ad breaks.

So they were selling advertisers. But we weren't making any money.

So we don't know what happened to the money, there.

We were searching for a potential problem.

We found a few things. First of all, YouTube had limited ads on this video. Which can take it to, you know, every thousand people, or I don't even know the numbers.

But it -- you get a certain amount for every -- everybody who is watching all of this. And then you split it.

But if you are banned in any way, then that number goes down.

Well, YouTube had limited ads on this video.

They claimed that it had firearms-related content. That wasn't friendly to some advertisers. We double-checked. We -- we didn't talk at all, about firearms. Nothing would have triggered this restriction.

Oh. But there is a catch to this.

And we did. And we made something more powerful than mainstream media.

Now, they want mainstream media and control of the internet, and they've been doing this, with the government, as we knew from the Twitter files.

They've been doing it in league with the government. Shadow banning people.

Well, we're about to go into shadow banning hell.

I called it a digital ghetto. I got in trouble for that.

Because they say, you just hate Jewish people. By saying, no. There's such a thing as a ghetto. The Germans did it. Now you can do it digitally and shut people up, and put them behind a digital wall, that you don't want to be heard.

Well, there's a few things that are going on.

First of all, the shadow banning has now become official policy of Facebook.

And they're a private company, they can decide to do this.

But they're saying, no politics anymore.

I'll be interested to see if that applies to ABC News. I'll be interested to see if they are shadow banning everybody consistently.

If so, then we're all in the same boat.

I think it's a mistake. But we're all in the same boat. Now, there's something else that I told you about two weeks ago.

It's called the CCDH. It's the Center for Digital Hate. In America, it started over in England. And then this guy moved it over to are America. So they have an office here. And it is now the go-to NGO for the White House, on what digital hate is. And how to stop it.

It has quite an -- an incredible roster of people behind it.

It has one employee.

Hmm. That doesn't seem like they could get a lot done with one employee. But, boy, are they doing it.

Okay. So I told you, that we are doing an episode, a couple of weeks ago.

About the -- what's happening to our farmers, and our -- and our meat. We told you, that this is a real problem.

What is -- what is being done in our -- in our ranching and food industry, is going to make a lot of people very, very hungry.

It was called, let's see, I can't remember. Where is the name.

But they were talking about a couple of weeks ago. This group, talking to the White House, about banning people that deny problems with global warming. Also, anybody who is denying the elite solutions. Et cetera, et cetera.

So we have never denied climate change. But they are targeting the spreaders of, quote, hateful disinformation. And that -- we are labeled that, because we believe reimagining farming is a very bad deal.

This is what they call the new denial.

Now, they're not just pointing the finger. They're making a threat. The CCDH demanded that YouTube demonetize any content that spreads new denial.

One of the White House experts remember, on disinformation, is this little -- this one guy, in Washington. So by limiting the amount of monetization, that content can make, it goes against the global elite's narrative. They say they're all for free speech, except for hate. But that hate is now anything that disagrees with them.

It is not cheap to produce content. And I'm telling you, right now, we developed this model of subscriptions for our content.

It is why you have noticed, maybe, TheBlaze has just doubled and quadrupled down, on all of our stories and everything else.

I have two huge breaking news from Blaze investigations today.

These things take weeks to do. They take lawyers and everything else lots of research and man-hours, go into these things.

We're doubling down on that, because we need you to understand, A, we do our homework. We know what we're talking about. We are trustworthy.

B, we need you to subscribe. And we will give you the information, you need.

So this -- this rancher, millions will starve. Rancher sounds the alarm. On global food agencies. It has tons and tons of views.

And they said, it was -- it was shadow banned and demonetized, because it was said by YouTube, that it had firearms-related content.

We went back. We looked at the texts. There was nothing. However, there was a read in there, for Byrna, which makes non-lethal firearm alternatives.

That's nothing that violates YouTube ad policy.

Byrna is, in fact, a verified advertiser on YouTube.

So we reached out to YouTube, to get the limited ads rating removed.

We're waiting for a response on this.

However, what happened to the revenue, that they sold?

Because we didn't make any of it. Now, this is the way. And this is why we are bringing this to you. And to all content creators.

If you rely on YouTube, Google, Facebook.

Any of those things.

That revenue is soon going to be gone.

According to the independent, the CCDH.

The Center for Digital Hate, uses an AI tool to discover YouTube has allegedly made up to $13.4 million in revenue, on videos that espouse new types of climate crisis denial. Remember, that's just a video that disagrees with the elites.

In the response, CCDH demanded that YouTube and other social media platforms update their policies to remove the financial incentive for content, that falls under this umbrella of new denial.

If you limit the ability to monetize, you also limit the content's ability to reach a broader audience, and you also limit the new content, because people can't afford to do it.

So does my podcast, with Rancher Shad Sullivan fall under this umbrella?

Yeah. Because in that episode, Shad told us very clearly, what the global elites are doing. They're waging a war on beef, in the name of saving the climate. And their solutions will cause millions to starve.

Now, how many millions of viewers could we have received, and reached, had YouTube not attempted to put a ceiling on all of our views?

So I guess guilty as charged. I'm a super spreader of the new denial, I guess.

And I imagine, anyone who told Stalin or Mao, that they're reimagining of farming would kill millions, was also branded a denier. Or how about anybody who spoke out about Sri Lanka's reimagining. Remember that?

The World Economic Forum held that up as the model for the future. Until 2022. When their model led to a massive food crisis that is still going on.

Are all the Irish farmers who have been warning, that they will have to slaughter their cows, to meet climate goals, disinformation spreaders?

What about the people who point out, while elites want to limit your beef consumption, Mark Zuckerberg is feeding his cows macadamia nuts and beer, so not only can the elites have their beef, you have a cricket patty. Or maybe lab-grown meat.

But they get beef that has been raised on beer and macadamia nuts.

Shadow banning. This is the new shadow banning. And its outcome is the same. Wrong think.

It's punished. This isn't the free market. They will pile these ideas on, one after another. I am telling you, TheBlaze is fine right now, because we built an entirely different model.

This is the time that I built TheBlaze for. We started in 2011. When Netflix and even Amazon wasn't streaming video. We were the first to stream a network.

And it was insane to do it. And I almost went broke doing it.

But it was the right thing to do. And it's the right thing to put all of our eggs in one basket. And that is you.

But you are going to have to start searching. I've told you this in the last year. All of a sudden, you're just -- unless you're looking for it. You won't notice that you're getting less and less from people like me.

So you have to seek us out.

We would really appreciate, we hope that you understand, we're on a mission. We're not here to make money.

We're on a mission.

We're on a mission to tell you the truth. Keep you informed. And show you the mile-markers. We just went through a very frightening mile-marker, this week, on shadow banning.

If you don't know the mile-marker, you're not going to know where you are. And where you are, is heading deeper and deeper into a place where your navigation system is being fiddled with.

I urge you, if you are not a member of TheBlaze, please support us.

Join us, at BlazeTV.com.

Use the -- the promo code free speech.

And you can get $30 off, of your subscription. That includes everything Blaze media is doing now.

Not only in video content, and opinion content.

But also, there are two big stories, that I want to get to.

The -- TheBlaze has just investigated how many people actually died of COVID-19. In the Michigan long-term care facilities. That's a breaking story.

Also, Capitol Police, we've just found. And we are showing you now, footage that has never been seen before.

Capitol Police diverted all of the CCTV cameras away from the DNC pipe bomb investigation. Except one.

And we will show you that video, that has been like pulling teeth to get it. In just a few. Stand by.

Witnessing a SpaceX Launch & Predicting Elon Musk's Legacy in 50 Yearsplay icon
RADIO

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.

Jasmine Crockett just DEFENDED this Jeffrey Epstein claim?!play icon
RADIO

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 Nuzziplay icon
RADIO

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.