RADIOSeptember 12, 2022

How this ‘OUTRAGEOUS’ online ban could get MUCH WORSE

In this clip, Glenn shares an OUTRAGEOUS story about how Google recently banned an innocent father, deleting both his account and associated documents and pictures. And this dad was SO innocent that not only did the San Francisco Police Department vouch for him, but so did the New York Times! But unfortunately, Glenn says, this story is not just about one dad. This story is about YOU. Because this kind of unjust, online ban has the potential to stretch far beyond Big Tech. Glenn explains possible scenarios where something very similar could happen to YOU…but even WORSE.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: All right. We have a really important story to share with you. It broke over the weekend. And it involves Google and a dad.

STU: Yes. So a dad in San Francisco, this is February 2021. If you know anything about San Francisco, this was like mid-lockdown. They were still in pull full fledge, right. Of lockdown. So the dad. Stay at home dad, had his son. And his son is having some issues in a sensitive area, if you would. And a rash of some sort, some redness, some swelling, breaking out.

GLENN: Monkey pox.

STU: Now, of course -- now, this wasn't monkey pox. This was pre-monkey pox era. This child is having some discomfort. You're of course not allowed to go outside for some reason. So they're doing a virtual doctor's visit. While they're doing this virtual doctor's visit. The doctor requests photos to understand what's going on.

GLENN: Look, I'm not going anywhere really dark with the doctor, is it?

STU: No.

GLENN: Good. I'm just asking for the listener.

STU: Well, if you survived the monkey pox update, I think you already are here.

GLENN: Right. This one is a lot more tame.

STU: Yes. This is more tame. So he takes some photos, to give to the doctor of his child's area. Sends the photos. The doctor recognizes what the rash is, what the issue is, sends antibiotics. Gets it knocked out immediately. Everybody is happy.

GLENN: Got it. So, I mean, want to recap this story. It's during covid lockdown. Dad is locked in the house. The doctor has these virtual visits. The doctor, a good guy. Asks the father, a good guy, to take a picture of the sensitive areas of the son who is a good guy. So the doctor can diagnosis and give the right prescription.

STU: Which he does, and it works. Everybody is happy. Apparently not. Not according to the people over at Google. Who have an algorithm, running over all his photos, that are in the cloud.

GLENN: Oh.

STU: And this photo that was apparently uploaded automatically to the cloud.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: Sends -- sets off some alerts, that say, this could be child porn. Now, of course --

GLENN: But it's not child porn.

STU: It's not child porn.

GLENN: Now, was Google monitoring this guy, because they suspected child porn?

STU: No. This is an automated algorithm, that is scanning the photos much every single person who uses Google cloud.

GLENN: Everyone. Uh-huh. Okay.

STU: Now, you might say, there's some utility to this. If it was child porn, it would probably be really good that this was alerted. And maybe some child could have been protected from some horrible, horrible incident.

GLENN: Sure. So they should have maybe reached out to some doctor. Well, but the doctor could have been -- he was on the receiving end, so to speak.

STU: Right. But what needs to happen here? The algorithm sets off these alarms. And then it goes to a human. And the human would have to determine at some level. So this happens, apparently. It's egregious enough for the people at Google, to alert the police. And shut down his entire account. Shutting down his access to his email. Deleting all of his photos from the beginning of his child's life all the way through. Deleting all of his documents.

GLENN: Okay. So wait a minute. Hang on just a second. If you were trying to catch somebody who was in child porn, the last thing you would want to do is tip them off that the authorities are on to them. So Google just -- they call the police. Then they just delete everything?

STU: At least from his access point. So he cannot access any of his stuff. Now, of course, this means he can't access the photos to prove he's innocent. Because now he no longer has excess to the photos that he took, that were his.

GLENN: What happened to the doctor's office that received the photos?

STU: Well, nothing at this point.

GLENN: Okay.

STU: So this goes on. He goes to Google, and appeals it. And says, look, my kid was sick, the doctor asked for these photos. I sent them. They reject his appeal. Then months later, he gets a letter from the San Francisco police department. San Francisco police department has alerted him that they have begun an investigation. Have looked at all these photos. He gets in touch with them, and explains to the San Francisco Police Department, hey, look, this is what was the situation. The Police Department sees all the evidence, and agrees with them. And says, okay. Obviously, no crime here. He did not commit a crime here. This was not child porn. He was sending them to a doctor. So now you have the dad. You have the doctor. You have the police department, all saying the same thing.

GLENN: And the boy.

STU: And the boy. This is not a crime. There is no abuse here. Seems all appearances. All the evidence that we have. A good dad, trying it help his son, through a difficult moment in his life. The only standout here is Google. So now the story escalates to the New York Times. The Times comes in, documents all of this. Has actually, apparently looked at the photos now. And has also determined, this is not child porn. Right? So we're sure on this one, it seems. Every point of evidence.

GLENN: I think people at the New York Times might be able to know what child porn looks like.

STU: They may very well be able to do that.

GLENN: So he wanted -- so they've gone through all of this. The dad wanted to sue Google, because, you know --

GLENN: They've shut --

STU: They shut him out. They say no. Even with the word of the police department. They still said no. So he wanted to sue Google. He realized it was too expensive. He didn't have the money to do it. So he is just basically now in the constant state of trying to get them to change their mind, even with all of this. The Times contacts Google and gets a comment on the record where they say, yeah, we're not reversing it. After all of this. The police department is on the record saying, we have a copy of all of his data, but on a jump track. And they are saying, they want to work with the dad, to get him access to all his information back. But at this point, Google is still denying it.

GLENN: Now, imagine when Google and the United States are in bed with each other more than they already are. Imagine the ESG aspect of this. Dad is put on a list by Google. Google shares information by the government. The government shares information by the banks. Dad does not just lose all of his pictures. All of his contacts. And his Google phone. Dad would lose all phones. Dad would lose his banking. Dad would lose absolutely everything, because he would be too much of a risk. And who do you go to? Who do you go to? The New York Times? Who do you go to, to say, hey. I need to get my name off of this list. It doesn't -- now, let me add one additional thing to this. I told you last week, that the World Economic Forum, has said, that bullying and everything else, online and disinformation, misinformation, malinformation is too big of a problem globally. So they are now pushing for high-tech and governments to endorse a system that would look at your tweet or whatever in question, and the algorithm would decide whether or not that is good or bad. If it's bad, it then makes a tree of everything that you do. So it goes back, and it looks at, who is influencing you? And if those people -- it deletes you. Then it goes to all of the people with contacts. All of the people in your social media realm. And it looks for anyone else, that is spreading that information. And on each of those people, there's made a tree. And they lose their access. All the way down -- this is according to -- look it up at the WorldEconomicForum.com. Or org. Would you look it up, which one is it. But look it up at the main page of the World Economic Forum. It was there at least last week. Where they were talking about making a tree that would -- I mean, 7 degrees from Kevin Bacon. If this happened with this guy, I guarantee you, it's only a matter of time, before they get my name or your name. Because it trees out. And the World Economic Forum says that it's not enough to get the problem, that is manifesting itself on social media. They need to see where that idea originally came from. Because they now need to silence ideas, before they get into the bloodstream of the population. If that's not terrifying, especially coupled with this, that is actually happening. And you have a chance of stopping this. But you won't have that chance to stop these kinds of things. Look at how hard it is to get your name off of a No Fly List. You're on there -- you're on there by mistake. Look how long it took people to get their names off of no fly lists. You can't even find out from the government, if you're on it or off it. What the status is. Or why you're on it or off it.

STU: Yeah. In fact, one of the things that came up in this investigation. They said, well, we've also flagged a video from six months ago.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: And we thought that was problematic too. He's like, well, what video? They're like, well, we're not going to give you access to it. So he can't even defend the video that he supposedly had on his phone.

GLENN: You can't -- you have a right to face your accuser.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: But that's only in governmental law.

When did Trump become COOL AGAIN?!

Glenn woke up after the weekend and suddenly, Donald Trump was cool again! Football players and MMA fighters were doing his dance. The hosts of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” wanted to meet with him! How did this happen so quickly? And should we be concerned? Glenn gives a warning that he hopes won’t come true: Have you ever had a friend who became “cool” and then acted like they didn’t know you? Especially since Trump is surrounded by former Democrats, what are the odds of that happening? And what should conservatives do to make sure it doesn’t?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Gang, I don't know what happened. But like Donald Trump is cool.

STU: I mean, he's -- Donald Trump has always been cool.

There was -- up until 2006 and '15. Like it was denied for many years.

And now it seems to be back.

Right. They like this guy.

GLENN: This is who he used to be.

I can't believe this guy turned this corner so hard. That he's back to the guy who is in home alone.

You know what I mean?

STU: No. Yeah. Makes sense.

GLENN: It's nuts.

It's so crazy, that Joe and Mika.

STU: Oh, yeah.

GLENN: Are flying down to meet with him. To try to restore --

STU: No. They're not. They're just calling him fascist every day for two years.

GLENN: I know. I know.

STU: Now they're going to try to repair the relationship. This is the type of stuff that Trump loves.

Like he loves people groveling like that. That will be adorable, I can't wait for that one.

Maybe some interesting tweets, I will say, afterward.

It is interesting.

Let me ask you this. I was tossing this around with a friend this weekend.

And we were talking about how like this sort of phenomenon. Right?

Where people in sports are doing this.

And it's become kind of cool, as you know.

And I was trying to understand.

Is it a Donald Trump thing, where people are like, you know, they maybe always thought he was cool.

And they were hiding it.

And now they're coming out of hiding it.

Which is a plausible explanation.

Now, generally the Trump movement. MAGA. Generally. Is just associated with, we don't want to ruin your fun life. Right?

The left is now associated with, you can't say this. Can you imagine being in college in this environment, Glenn? Where you're joking, you're busting on everyone.

You're calling them all these -- you're saying terrible things about them. You're laughing at it. Right?

You're -- you know, you're saying bad things about people, that you don't like.

And you think it's funny.

And you're making offensive jokes.

GLENN: You're a rebel. You're a rebel.

STU: All those things.

The left now says, if you do any of that stuff, you're cancelled. Right?

When we see a clip of a guy playing volleyball and spiking a ball in a woman's face and she's injured, you're now cancelled for criticizing that.

Like just generally associated with all of this has to be this idea that you're taking away, common sense.

GLENN: Oh, yeah.

STU: It's not even like, hey, I agree with his tax policy. Or his border policy.

I think it's involved in that.

GLENN: I think it's a step further than what you're saying, and it's one of my concerns.

So, Stu, we're talking about the cool kids table.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: You strike me as somebody who is a cool kid.

STU: No. Not at all.

GLENN: You weren't?

STU: Not even remotely close.

GLENN: Okay. So -- so -- now, maybe this is the loser table speaking here. Okay?

STU: Okay.

GLENN: But as somebody who was in the drama club.

STU: Okay. I wasn't that guy, though.

GLENN: And the choir.

STU: You know, I was a jock, I guess. But I was not like a cool kid.

But I was playing sports all the time.

GLENN: Yeah. But the cool kids wouldn't beat you up?

STU: That's true. That's true. That's true. That is accurate.

GLENN: All right. All right.

STU: And I saw like a horrible flashback over your head. Something dark.

GLENN: So for those of us who have ever been stuffed into a locker.

STU: Giant lockers are cool.
(laughter)

GLENN: So those who have us who have ever been stuffed in a locker.

Or currently thinking, where can I get a locker to stuff someone else in?

You're sitting at the cool kid's table. Have you ever -- you're sitting at the loser table. Have you ever had a friend who was a good friend, you thought.

And then they fell in the cool kids. And then they acted like they didn't know you.

STU: I've seen many '80s movies had this plot.

GLENN: So for a reason, it happens.

STU: Right.

GLENN: Maybe this is just me. Okay?

It probably just is me.

But I'm seeing him now, being so cool.

And everything happening. But he's surrounded by Tulsi Gabbard.

She's not a conservative. Okay?

Elon Musk. Not a conservative. RFK. Not a conservative.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Vivek Ramaswamy, not a conservative.

Close.

STU: He was a Libertarian.

But he's not a -- he's more of a recent convert if you would.

GLENN: Okay. So that's the pack.

That's the Rat Pack. Okay? And that's cool and everything. And I want those kids at the table.

STU: Sure.

GLENN: With the cool kids.

But I want to make sure that the cool kid doesn't forget his friends at the other table.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: You know, the average American working person, that's like, yeah.

I -- I am not for you banning meat. If RFK wants you to do that.

You know what I mean? I'm -- I'm not -- I'm not for, you know, universal basic income.

I'm -- I'm not for some of the robots taking over the world.

Are we still -- we're still good, right? We're still good.

STU: I have concerns as well, on some of this.

Because, I mean, first of all, like it's a much better approach if you're a Democrat. To befriend Donald Trump. And, you know, support him. And then try to get these things through.

I will say, can we start here?

How about no more lifelong Democrats appointed to big positions?

I'm not saying these people are bad. They might be great. But let's just cap it. Can we cap it, at what are we now?

GLENN: I want to cap it. Just because you're a lifelong Republican, doesn't make me --

STU: You're right. I totally agree with you on that. I'm not saying every lifelong Republican is okay. What I'm saying is, you're looking for a little bit for a needle in a haystack, to find a person who for 50 years, supported far left ideology.

And changed last week? And now they have a major position?

I'm not saying you can't find the needle in a haystack. But I'm getting concerned, we're looking for too many needles.

GLENN: Now, wait a minute. Hang on just a second.

Now, let me flip this on you.

We're looking for disrupters. Okay?

Tulsi Gabbard was a disruptor in the Democratic Party.

She was the one. She didn't believe this stuff.

She was the one who went. You know what, you guys are crazy. And you're coming after me.

And you are you are using all the things against me, that the Republicans say, you use against them.

And I never believed them.

But I'm seeing you do it to me, right now.

Same thing with RFK.

They wanted to disrupt the party. They're disrupters first.

That's what we voted for. We voted for a advertise rupture of this am is.

STU: But you and I know, thousands of conservative disrupters.

We know thousands of them.

GLENN: Yeah. But not necessarily those that would -- you could get a group of them, walk into Madison Square Garden. And everybody go, wow!

STU: I agree with you.

No. You're right.

Mike Johnson is certainly no middle kid.

GLENN: No. He's not.

STU: He was like.

GLENN: He's the --

STU: Is that guy security.

GLENN: It makes me feel good.

STU: Is the security -- what's that guy doing?

GLENN: He's a complete nerd. But he's not on our side either.

STU: Yeah. But at least he -- at least he --

GLENN: At least he's what?

STU: At least he generally has a conservative voting record.

GLENN: Okay, yeah.

STU: Gavin and Musk, there's an arc there. RFK Jr was literally running for president against Donald Trump three months ago. Right?

A guy who has supported every left-wing policy under the sun, like maybe he has perfectly changed. I have very close microscope on that one.

Steve Baker explains GUILTY PLEA in Jan. 6 case

Blaze Media correspondent Steve Baker and his attorney Bill Shipley join The Glenn Beck Program to explain why Baker pleaded guilty to 4 misdemeanor counts connected to his presence at the Capitol during the Jan. 6 riot. Steve has argued the entire time that he was there as a journalist and did not act violently, and also that the government isn't going after the other 80 or so journalists who were there. He pled guilty, he explains, because he believes that the court wanted to make an example out of him: "The trial is nothing more than a shaming exercise if you're not going to be allowed to present your own case." Baker and Shipley also discuss the possibility of Donald Trump pardoning J6 defendants when he takes office.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Steve Baker and his attorney Bill Shipley joins us. Steve, I hate to do this to you. But we have about six, seven minutes.

So why did you plead guilty?

STEVE: Yeah. It was no more complicated than this. Last Wednesday was my pretrial hearing. And the government basically went into lockstep. Deny, deny, deny mode, that was in lockstep with the court itself.

The last minute hoax that they had, that they would either grant us a dismissal of my case, based on -- or they would at least grant a continuance, which would mean, that during that time, they would also give us the discovery that we had requested on to some 80 to 100 other journalist, media influencers.

Podcasters. Bloggers of all types of media, that passed through those restricted spaces and into the Capitol that day. Why they weren't charging them.

And when the judge laid down the law. And said, no. He was going to -- just basically show his inflexible flexibility.

And I thought, you know what, after that, then the trial is nothing more than a shaming exercise.

If you're not going to be allowed to present your own case.

So I think Bill can speak to that a little bit more clearly.

GLENN: Bill.

BILL: Well, Steve and I had a conversation.

And the head of that hearing.

And I said, Steve, based purely on the facts, I think we can defend this case. But at the end of the day, particularly during that pretrial conference hearing, it became clear, that the government was going to use four comments that Steven made over the course of the day, to in effect, show that Steve had in the government's word, joined the mob.

In other words, Steve was in some respects, taking the government's interpretation of his word.

He was applauding the conduct of the crowd that day. And the government said, that sets him apart from the other 80 journalists. Well, either you think about that. That basically says, any opinion journalist, whose opinion is on the wrong side of what the government deems to be the line of acceptability is, therefore, subject to prosecution.

GLENN: Correct.

BILL: As long as your opinions are on the right side of the line of acceptability, you're fine.

GLENN: So that's a First Amendment right.

BILL: Exactly. But we could not get the court to accept that. I think part of what we were up against was, these were only misdemeanor charges. The court was simply not going to give us the evidence that we were entitled to.

But the difficulty of that particularly kind of defenses. It's almost a concession, that you've actually committed the crime.

And what you're saying is why aren't other people similarly situated being charged with the same crime.

It's a double-edged sword.

And after the election, it was just a matter of, you know, Steve, we can get out of this in such a way, where we write the facts. We decide what we tell the judge, are the facts of the case. Unlike a plea agreement, when you have an agreement with the government, they write the facts. And you're stuck with them. Because the alternative is to go to trial.

GLENN: I will tell you, I pled -- I don't know if I pled guilty, I might have. Pled guilty in a case. Had to surrender and just acquiesce on a case years ago. Involving terrorists. To have.

And somebody -- I had them dead to rights.

Dead to rights. But the government is controlling all of the strings and all of the information. And if you can't get the information, from the government, that they have, and that you know exists. Because you have copies of it.

But the judge says, no. I need to seat official copy. And the government says, well, we're not going to give you the official copy.

You have no place to go. They win every time, if you -- you know, can't get them to cooperate in any way. And give you the information, that they only have.

That's what you're fighting. Right?

BILL: Yeah. And our alternative here would have been to go to the appellate court.

But we could only do that after the district court, the trial court after that case was over. We could go to the appellate court. But, again, we're talking about four misdemeanors.

How much effort are you willing to put in, to go to the appellate court. To try to get this information, that the trial judge has denied you.

GLENN: So what is your sentence going to be, Steve? Do you know?

STEVE: Well, they set my sentencing hearing for March the 6th. We don't know. But the judge himself acknowledged in the court date on Tuesday, that we likely would never see each other again.

How about that? He actually acknowledged that. He actually said it twice, in reference to the fact that there is probably going to be pardons going down.

And, therefore, I wouldn't be sentenced. But in that moment, I think the judge made a really critical and unforced error.

Because he decided to go and dress me down, as he would normally do during a sentencing hearing. And since he decided that we probably wouldn't be able to have that hearing in March, he was going to go ahead and take that opportunity to chastise me. What he did, Glenn, is incredible.

And we will have the transcript of this, and we will certainly release it through the Blaze.

That he dressed me down, not for my behavior. But he criticized my actual work as a journalist, because I had used the terms "weaponized DOJ" and I had been critical of the biased court.

GLENN: Wow! Wow!

What a violation of your First Amendment.

All right, Steve, thanks for explaining this. Bill, best of luck. Keep us up to speed. I think you are right. I think Donald Trump is going to come in, and I hope not for everybody.

I mean, there were some people that were really bad actors in this. But most people weren't. And that should be erased from their record entirely.

Thank you, Steve. Appreciate it. God bless. You bet.

Will Donald Trump embrace Bitcoin in 2025?

Bitcoin has seen a major rise after the re-election of Donald Trump. Just a year ago, a Bitcoin was worse under $40,000. Now, that has more than doubled, passing $80k and even $90k. But is this just the beginning. Donald Trump has promised to end the government's plans to release a FedCoin or Central Bank Digital Currency. Will he go as far as instructing the U.S. Treasury to invest in Bitcoin? Glenn and Stu discuss.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Let's see. Have we seen Bitcoin this morning? What is Bitcoin up to?

STU: Last I saw was 82,000. My apologies.

83,000.

GLENN: Wow!

STU: 83,000.

I mean, that is amazing.

By the way, you could have bought it for about three or 4,000, during the beginning of COVID.

So I remember Glenn, a time when this office was buzzing constantly with the -- what wound up being a, quote, unquote, bubble of 19,000.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: And that was in 2017.

GLENN: Yeah. That's not going to come back. It will never get higher than that.

STU: You look at the entire chart of Bitcoin.

That bubble that was end -- that was the game-ender. This is it. It's going to zero.

Every freaking media institution had 100 articles about how it was over. And now -- and then it rose again. And you have the FTX situation happen. And, again, it was all over, and we had to read article after article after article. Now 83,000.

Every single person in history, that bought Bitcoin and has held on to it, is now in the green.

GLENN: By the way, January 23rd of this year, it was $38,505.

STU: Gosh, this year.

GLENN: This year. 38,505.

STU: Incredible.

GLENN: I mean, it has -- I mean -- and, you know what -- you know what this is? The government of the United States, under Donald Trump, him saying, I'm not going to be hostile to you.

I won't be hostile. I'm not -- I'm not going to try to put you out of business. In fact, the government is going to now get hostile, on the idea of a Fed coin. We're not going to let the Federal Reserve do a currency.

No! No more. No more.

There's no Fed coin that will happen. And he wants a Constitutional amendment, but he'll at least pass laws that say, they cannot do that.

That's what -- that's what's giving people confidence. It's not the free market. It's the fact that the free market is just -- there's hope, that it actually works now!

That people can buy what they want to buy. And not fear the government coming in and shutting it all down.

STU: Yeah. And Trump has talked about when the US government comes in contact with Bitcoin. It doesn't just pump it out to the market.

They have about 200,000.

GLENN: Why would they do that?

STU: Hold it. Have a Bitcoin reserve. Certainly, El Salvador has done this. To great effect.

GLENN: We should take -- we spend billions of dollars.

And we -- we just hand out, hey. I mean, found the 6 billion-dollar check, in my -- I left it 234 my suit. I set it out to try cleaning.

They just pinned it to my suit, so I didn't forget I had six billion dollars here. Why don't you take that for your little war. What?

Okay. We find that money. Why haven't we taken $10 billion, and just funneled it all into bitcoin and put it in the Treasury?

Why haven't we taken $50 billion, and then hold it?

STU: Right. We have $12 billion. Actually I should say, with the new prices, $16 billion of Bitcoin. Currently, in US possession from various investigations. Silk Road being one of the big ones. But various investigations. And we come into contact with it often.

Where there's an investigation, some drug dealer has some bitcoin. Comes into the US possession.

GLENN: We should buy it.

STU: Trump is just saying, hold it.

When -- don't -- the current policy of the US, is when the investigation is finally wrapped up, to just dump it into the market. There's no reason to do that. Why not hold it?

And, you know, this is the type of thing, one of the reasons why we're -- we talked about this so long ago, Glenn?

Was because, it undermines the ability for the US government to constantly print cash forever. Right?

It undermines that. And if you are -- if you were worried about that in the future. Having a policy where you can offset it a little bit.

Is a positive thing.

You want to keep that out of -- you don't want to constantly weaken yourself. This is a way to strengthen your foundations. And, of course, so far, people like Elizabeth Warren have been influencing that policy. Now, the Democrats did come around a little bit to this.

They really -- I guess, I don't know if they wanted crypto money. They actually --

GLENN: I think they wanted all the money.

STU: They wanted all the money, and there's a lot in crypto.

But can you imagine how annoyed Elizabeth Warren is today?

That makes me feel just so good. It makes me feel so good.

GLENN: Oh, you know what also makes me happy? Is the fact that they spent a billion dollars, and now they're 20 million in debt. Her campaign. How is that possible?

STU: How is it possible?

GLENN: How is it possible?

STU: My favorite part of this, Glenn. My favorite part of this is picturing the maxed out Kamala Harris donor.

Someone is like, you know what, democracy is on the line. Hitler is coming into office. I'm putting my full 3500 dollars behind Kamala Harris, taking that step.

You're a maxed-out donor. You will get campaign literature to the end of time, from every candidate from now on. But you are taking that stand! And you know what you accomplished?

You paid for 1/100th of the set that she used to film a sex podcast appearance. That was what your -- your big moment of becoming a maxed out donor paid for like one letter in the sign behind her, as she filmed a sex podcast.

GLENN: Why would she --

STU: Oh, I love it.

GLENN: Why did they build the set for this sex podcast? Why would they do that?

STU: Because she wanted to do it in a hotel, apparently.

Now, this is something that people do, as you know. Like sometimes they don't -- you want to go get a separate studio. You don't want to go across town with all your people.

GLENN: You don't ever spend that kind of money. Ever! Nobody does that.

STU: No.

GLENN: Even -- they gave Harpo a million dollars. Did you know that?

STU: Yes, a million dollars to Harpo.

The -- that's Oprah's production company, because she produced for some of these events, apparently.

GLENN: Yeah, for what?

You know, I've produced interviews with him. With Trump, we didn't get paid. In fact, I would feel dirty, if I had gotten paid for that happen.

STU: Especially if it was something important to you.

GLENN: Right. Yeah, yeah.

STU: If you were saying democracy from Hitler. You would say, actually, we're donating all of our time.

GLENN: If I'm endorsing a candidate, like Donald Trump.

I mean, this -- I didn't make a financial contribution.

The money that this damn election cost me, is eye-bleed.

It's eye-bleed.

STU: Oh, yeah.

GLENN: But that was my -- and it was my choice.

I was like, well. If I want it done, I will have to pay for it. Let's go. Let's do it.

None of these people did. Beyonce.

STU: Yeah. I know. I love it. I love it. They all made a million dollars for walked on the stage.

STU: I love it so much.

I can't even describe how much I love the fact that these celebrities built the campaign out of all this money. I love it. Keep doing it.

There was a clip going around, which was, I don't know. A seven or eight-minute synopsis edited down of MSNBC's election night.

Which is very fun to watch, because there's this incredible optimism. Incredible optimism at the beginning. By the way, Rachel Maddow is the anchor of their election coverage apparently. It's incredible!

Like, she is an obvious conspiracy theorist. At the at least, you could say, she's a hard-core liberal nutjob.

Like, that is -- and no journalist.

GLENN: Imagine me, if I would have anchored the election night for Fox.

STU: Right. They would go crazy. They put Bret Baier in that role.

So, anyway, they are doing this thing.

And at one point, Joy Reid goes on this rant, that it was a perfect, flawless campaign.

And her evidence for this. She has Beyonce. She has the Swifties and the Beehive.

Like that's it! She stops.

Like that's a perfect campaign. The Swifties and the Beehive.