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

BLOGAugust 10, 2017

Stephen Crowder: Google Clearly Doesn’t ‘Want to Discuss Issues Anymore’

A Google software engineer lost his job this week after writing a 10-page internal memo critiquing the company’s diversity efforts.

In the memo, the engineer gathered some general observations based on research about men and women and what they can both offer to a company, suggesting some ways that tech jobs could become more friendly to women. He also objected to company programs that are only offered to employees based on race and gender.

“Of course, men and women experience bias, tech, and the workplace differently and we should be cognizant of this, but it’s far from the whole story,” he wrote in the memo.

Google CEO Sundar Pichai said in a statement that “portions of the memo violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace.”

Stephen Crowder of LouderWithCrowder.com joined Glenn on radio Thursday to share his take on Google’s decision to fire the engineer.

“Is that still hate speech?” Crowder sarcastically said of the memo. “When you read the entire memo in context … I go ‘OK, this is a guy who’s a classical liberal … and he’s writing something genuinely trying to be productive.’”

 

GLENN: Steven Crowder, welcome to the program. I was talking to a millennial yesterday, a very smart, well-thought out millennial who said, "You know, I don't agree with this, but I have to tell you what my feelings were when I first heard about this memo." She said, "I don't like people telling me what I can and can't do because of my genetics.

And she said, you know, "I heard the quotes, that he was saying that I can't do these things because I'm genetically predisposed to X, Y or Z." And she had a big problem with this.

Now, the good thing about this millennial is she moved past her feelings into thought, but that's not really happening, especially even in the press.

STEVEN: Yeah, well, thanks for having me, Glenn.

You're absolutely right. You know, a couple of points about the memo. I hate to use the fake news hashtag, but when CNN goes out and says, anti-diversity manifestos, they call it, like it's The Count of Monte Cristo writing on the stone wall, next to days in prison. Manifesto. Anti-diversity. And then it says anti-woman. Well, the quotes they take are where this guy essentially says, listen, Google is essentially pushing diversity, hiring for diversity's sake. And it hasn't really been that successful. We may want to -- and, by the way, I'm not saying that all men and women are the same. There's a significant overlap. Of course, there are people who would fall on both signs of the spectrum when it comes to attributes and perhaps some shortcomings.

But as a general rule, this may be why we don't have as many women in tech, and he talks about how women generally value work-life balance over status, whereas men will drive themselves into the -- they'll work themselves into the ground for status. It does say, "Yeah, you know, listen, women tend to handle stress more emotionally. It does list some characteristics that might not lend themselves well to high-stress tech situations."

But then, and here's what the media doesn't cover: On the flip side, he says, "No, I strongly believe in diversity." And I think if we want to hire more women, we might want to place emphasis on the -- on the issues where women perhaps are more valuable to the company.

For example, they're more cooperative. In general, they're more agreeable than their male counterparts. In general, they're more people-oriented. They're more empathetic.

We don't really place a strong value on those attributes that Google in these positions -- we might do better to do so.

So, listen, is that still hate speech? Do you lock this guy up with the Nazis? I don't know. Leave it up to people to decide. But when you read the entire memo in context, I can't see -- you know, Glenn, this is one of those issues where I read it, I go, okay. This is a guy who is a classical liberal. He even gets some digs in at conservatives in this memo. People read it. He's certainly not a right-winger. And he's writing something genuinely trying to be productive. Generally writing out points as to where Google may be able to improve.

And Google says, we can't -- this is hate speech. We have to fire this guy. Which tells me, if this guy can't do it, you know, you and I haven't got a shot. They're not interested in a dialogue. For the same reason we couldn't have anyone from Google or anyone on Google's side come on my program to argue this issue. They don't want to discuss issues anymore. They've gone too far around the back.

GLENN: So a couple of things: I would agree with you. And I have not been able to find somebody that can make a cogent argument on how this isn't the beginning of fascism in the Google world. The institutionalization of fascism in the Google world.

I really want to understand how silencing somebody who is really, truly making valid points. You don't have to agree with them. But bringing out a valid argument. How the best way to deal with that is to silence them and to shun them and to name-call. That's fascism.

And why this is concerning -- you know, if they were just making ashtrays, I wouldn't really care. But they're not.

STEVEN: Yeah.

GLENN: These are the people who are the gateway to information. And if they are saying, "This information isn't worthy to even be discussed at the levels in Google," are they really going to allow us schlubs who don't know anything to access that information in an equal and fair way? I don't think so. It wouldn't -- it wouldn't make any sense at all. It would be completely inconsistent.

STEVEN: Well, you're talking about a company -- my friend Owen Benjamin talked about this on the program. You're talking about a company where when you Google how to be a better man, it shows you articles written from lesbians. So they can't help you be a better man, nor do they have any interest in doing so.

As a matter of fact, you mentioned fascism. You know, if you Google fascism, it says far-right ideology. You know, and then description. Description. But if you Google communism or socialism, there's no mention of the left. There's no mention of the left side of the political spectrum.

It really is -- and here's the deal: They have the right to do what they want. They have the right to fire this guy. I think we all agree on that.

GLENN: Yep.

STEVEN: What they can't do is say, we believe in diversity. We believe in difference of opinions and then fire somebody for a difference of opinion. That's the issue here, is the dishonesty. When like you've said, I've read anywhere from between 60 to 80 percent of our online interactions occur either somewhere between Google, Facebook, Twitter, or Amazon.

So when you think of how much information is controlled, it really is -- and there are a few. Listen, what's so offensive, are we really going to start firing people because someone says men and women are different? Are we at that point where it's offensive to say, hey -- and anyone who is married knows that it's true.

And, by the way, hey -- hey, men -- you can't say men and women are different. Men and women are exactly the same. Men can do everything women can do, and women can do everything men can do with the exact same results.

By the way, let's celebrate diversity.

Did I step into a time? What happened? What world did I fall into?

GLENN: And the fact that women and men are exactly the same, except they can't play the same sport. That's unfair. You're going to put women. Really? Women are going to have to compete with men on the basketball.

Well, wait. You were just saying that there wasn't a biological difference. What are you talking about?

STEVEN: Yeah. Unless it's a transgender, then just let him into the octagon to beat the living daylights out of women. That's progress.

I think, Glenn, I think that this is a real opportunity -- the pendulum swing states both ways. We've talked about that. You kind of saw that with Bush. Then the sort of anti-establishment sentiment from young people. Then it swung the other way with Barack Obama.

But the pendulum is swinging so quickly now. And I think the left has gone too far for it to swing back. I think you're seeing too many liberals. And we see this with our content, a lot of people who used to be liberal going, I just can't get on board with this. Once they read the memo, people go, "You know, it's offensive to say that men are more task-oriented. It's offensive to say women are more emotional."

It really is at a point -- and, by the way, really, what hurts people here is that they don't feel good about it. The women took a sick day at Google. They were so offended at the notion that they might find work too stressful, that they read this memo and took a sick day.

By the way, not all women are this weak, just the feminists at Google. That's important to note. I'm sure -- I'm sure your wife isn't.

My wife's reaction was so earnest. And it just hit me like a Mack Truck. She just said, "Do you have to talk about it? It makes me just so ashamed. Ugh, women who complain like that. They're just so weak. They're so obnoxious. Most women don't like to be around them. They're just draining." That's what my wife said. Isn't it ironic that a non-feminist, conservative, Christian woman finds feminists to be obnoxious in their weakness? And that's where we are.

GLENN: That's really -- but that is the progressive mantra, is weakness. Celebrate -- not celebrate diversity. Celebrate your weakness, and we will compensate. We will be your defender.

I think your -- this -- this millennial who said this, you know, I -- you know, this is the way I felt. I don't like people telling me one thing.

Well, wait. The other side is telling you that, oh, yes, you can do it, but only with special exemptions. Only with special protections. Only with special training.

No. I'm telling you if that's what you want to do, go do it. Go do it. How is that offensive to say, you don't need somebody in between you. That's just somebody sucking you dry of all of your power.

STEVEN: Right. A couple of things: You know, they say, I don't like being told what I can and can't do. And conservatives are saying, well, listen, we're not really telling you what you can and can't do. But we can all find common ground on one issue: Pullups. Right? Liberals want to lower the PT requirements in the military with pullups so that women can join more easily. And we say, hey, women biologically can do fewer pullups. So there's a great litmus test.

As far as what's offensive -- you know, offensive now isn't about intent. And we've talked about this with the Google algorithms. You know, for the most advanced tech company in the world, right? On my videos, Muslim singles and gay cruise ads are playing.

Well, we're trying to fix the algorithms. You're Google. If you can't associate proper advertisers with my -- who can?

So, I mean, we're talking about people's feelings. That is what it comes down to Google. It's not about intent. It's not about context. Leftists don't really understand context. Or they don't value context, I should say. Certainly, as a whole. Anyone can feel bad about anything. I'm feeling miserable this morning. You know why? It's stupid. But I have some nagging injuries.

So I haven't been able to go to the gym. So I've been doing these -- these water weight exercises. You know, those foam dumbbells in the pool. And I was thinking, you know, hey, good for me. I'm going out. I'm doing something.

So I go on Amazon to look to buy some, as opposed to the public pool where I've been going. And then I read the reviews, and it's nothing but 77-year-olds talking about their aquatic aerobic classes. And then all of a sudden, Amazon is tracking with advertisements and the ads, every time I'm in my browser of reverse mortgages. Or Wilford Brimley with diabetes. And I feel bad. I feel bad. It's my own doing.

STU: I believe it's pronounced diabetes.

It's interesting, Steven, it's a great point on the physical part of it. Because it's exactly the point he made in the memo, which is: If you look at the top 100 meter times of all time, the world record holder for women is slower than the yearly best times for high school men. I mean, there's a clear difference here. Right?

However, what that does not mean is that the all-time world record holder is not going to be a hell of a lot faster than me trying to run 100-meter. Point being, yes, on average, there are differences. But there are women in Google all the time that are outperforming men all the time. It's just a commentary on averages, and nobody is going to bother to take a look at that.

STEVEN: Sure.

GLENN: And who is it that is devaluing the basic intrinsic worth of the sexes? I'm not.

I believe that Women Are From Mars, Men Are From venus, or whichever planet it is. I believe that we are different for many different reasons. But it's important that we -- oh, my gosh -- celebrate that diversity. That we look and say, "This trait in a woman of being less about stuff is good." It's a good thing.

STEVEN: Right.

GLENN: And at the same time, the man is worried about stuff or thinking about stuff. When you put those two together, you have a nice balance. Why are we trying to destroy -- first, say that what men are is -- has no value. And what women are naturally also has no value. You have to be this thing that is not -- neither male nor female.

STEVEN: Right. And that's kind of -- you know, I want to go back to Stu real quick. I want to answer that. But I'll throw another one into the mix. We talked about 100-meter dash. You want to know something else?

Chess. There's a women's division for chess. Think about that for a second. It's not even close, if you look at the top players of all time. There is no female Bobby Fischer.

Now, women can enter the men's division in chess, and there have been some outliers. Maybe a couple cracked the top ranks throughout time, but then they have an exclusively women's division in chess, which is just significantly further behind.

Now, that does not mean that women are less intelligent. Chess is not an indicator of intelligence. But it is -- let's remove the physical. It is absolutely an indicator of how someone's brains work, how it processes information.

We can see the difference between standard people and ADHD people. We can see the difference between, you know, people who simply read differently, who have different faster reading comprehensions. It doesn't mean they're smarter. Some people are wired differently biologically.

To what you said, Glenn, you know, Christians, we have used this term for a long time, complimentarianism. You know, it goes back to Christ. Really, the first diversity celebrationist, I guess you'd say, where he said, hey, husbands, be good to your wives.

That was kind of new, the way he really placed emphasis on treating the women as the best among you. And then, women, submit to your husbands. And submit in the Biblical sense. Not submit like Muhammad. You're going to get a fresh one if you don't do exactly what I say, but submit meaning respect the authority in the household and love your husband. So this is what we've known for a long time, the truth we believe to be self-evident.

And I do think -- and you guys can tell me if you've noticed this or if you think I'm wrong, I think it's forced a lot of people to reexamine issues. They thought they were liberalized. You know, people -- I've had people go back to the same-sex marriage issue and say, "You know, I really just thought conservatives were just a bunch of anti-gay bigots." But now when I go back and I see some of the arguments, whether I agree with them or not, but I see some of the arguments where people said, "You know what, I just don't believe men and women are interchangeable. I do believe that a father is of intrinsic value and a mother is of intrinsic value. And that they are unique and not interchangeable." You know, once we said that's not the case culturally, we kind of opened the floodgates. And I've had people say, you know, I have to look back and see where we went around the bend.

GLENN: Steven Crowder from Louder with Crowder. I think you're exactly right. And I'm seeing it in not just this, but in many things. Sitting in Los Angeles with, you know, liberals who would have just thought that we were all just racist bigots for the last ten years. Actually sitting around a table and them saying, you know what, I'm actually for the Tenth Amendment. And I thought that was all racist. And now, suddenly, I find myself going, "Yeah, you know what, maybe we should have that Tenth Amendment." And then realizing, "Holy cow, wait a minute. I may have been wrong on this. I have to reevaluate a lot." That is happening.

And if we can open our arms and not say, "Yeah, told you so," and just be decent human beings with -- with the -- with the open mind and honest arguments, I think we will welcome a lot of people into the fold.

Steven Crowder, LouderwithCrowder.com. Thank you so much. We'll talk to you again, Steven. Appreciate it.

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.