Why Did NBC Pass on ‘the Biggest Story of the Year’?

Shortly after the New York Times broke the Harvey Weinstein story, Ronan Farrow published an in-depth piece with 10 months of research into horrifying allegations about the film mogul and how he treated women.

But why did Farrow’s devastating interviews with 13 women who say Weinstein harassed or assaulted them end up in The New Yorker when he works for NBC? Sources inside the network told the Huffington Post that Farrow was working on the Weinstein story on behalf of NBC as recently as August, but NBC had “concerns” and instead let him take it to The New Yorker.

Glenn and Stu talked about this bizarre facet of the Weinstein case on today’s show. (Skip to 3:53 in the Soundcloud clip embedded above to get straight to the NBC story.)

“This is a huge story,” Stu said. “[Farrow] took on everybody. And it’s interesting that a guy being paid by NBC News winds up releasing the biggest story of the year for The New Yorker.”

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: So I want to talk to you a little bit what MSNBC and NBC News has done. They have just released a story about President Trump.

Now, listen to this. President Donald Trump said he wanted to what amounted to a nearly ten-fold increase in the US nuclear arsenal during a gathering this past summer of the nation's highest-ranking national security leaders, according to three officials who were in the room.

Trump's comments, the officials say, came in response to a briefing slide he was shown that charted the steady reduction of US nuclear weapons since the late 1960s. Trump indicated he wanted a bigger stockpile, not the bottom position on the downward sloping curve.

According to the officials, President Trump's advisers, among them joint chiefs of staff and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson were surprised.

Officials briefly explained the legal and practical impediments to the nuclear build-up and how the currently military posture is stronger now than it was at the height of the buildup.

Did Trump's call to expand nuclear arsenal lead to Tillerson's moron remark? Revelation of Trump's comments that day come as the US is locked in high-stakes standoff with North Korea over its nuclear ambition, and it is poised to set off fresh confrontation with Iran, by not certifying to Congress that Tehran is in compliance.

Trump convened a meeting Tuesday with his national security team, which they discussed a range of options, to respond to any form of North Korean aggression. Or if necessary, to prevent North Korea from threatening the US and its Allies with nuclear weapons.

The president's comments during the Pentagon meeting in July came in response to a charge showing that in the meeting, on the history of the US in Russia's nuclear capabilities, that showed America's stockpiled had its peak in the 1960s. But his comments raised questions about his familiarity with the nuclear posture and other issues.

Two officials present said multiple points in the discussion, the president expressed a desire, not just for more nuclear weapons, but additional US troops and military equipment.

Any increase in America's nuclear arsenal would not only break with decades of nuclear doctrine. But it would also violate international disarmament treatments -- treaties signed by every president since Ronald Reagan. Non-proliferation experts warn that such a move could set off a global arms race. If you were to increase the numbers, the Russians were match him, and the Chinese. There hasn't been a military mission that required a nuclear weapon in 71 years.

Details of the meeting have not been previously reported. They shed additional light on the tensions among the commander-in-chief, members of his cabinet, and the uniformed leadership of the Pentagon, stemming from vastly different worldviews. Moreover, the president's comments reveal that Trump who suggested before his inauguration that the US must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability, voiced desire as commander-in-chief, directly to the military leadership in the heart of the Pentagon this summer.

Some officials in the Pentagon were rattled by the president's desire for more nuclear weapons. And his understanding of the other national security issues from the Korean peninsula to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Now, why am I reading this to you? Why am I giving you this story?

Well, what do you think that story does over in China? What does that story do in -- in Russia? What does that story mean to the North Koreans?

NBC has taken a position now to run a story about how the president said he wanted -- later came back and said, "No, they were right."

He can't do that. If he did, it would kick off an arms race. And if that happened, it would greatly destabilize the entire world.

If he was looking for additional nuclear weapons and you're Chinese, what do you think you do?

If you are in a country where everything is run by the state, what do you think their advisers are saying this story means?

As we found out after the fall of the Berlin wall, Russia took all of our -- our newspaper stories, and they believed that we're all CIA plants. They believed that we were planting that information in the news, to send them messages.

Now, has that made our life more secure or less secure? Has this helped us with national security, or hurt us with national security?

The story goes on to say, this is why the president's advisers are calling him a moron.

So not only did they put the rest of the world on alert, that the president may be doing things that are illegal, which there is no evidence of that. In fact, the story later points out exactly the opposite.

But he -- he wants to do this. He wants a big military buildup on the week that he said to North Korea, there's only one thing that's going to solve.

Well, what is that? That's war.

So NBC decides to release a story that puts us all in grave danger. They're willing to go out, and they're willing to blast President Trump for political reasons. And they're willing to possibly destabilize the entire world.

In a completely unrelated story, Stu, can you give me the update from Ronan Farrow

STU: Yeah, Ronan Farrow, of course, was reporting on the Weinstein case. He was working on it for ten months. Ten months of research.

GLENN: This is Mia Farrow, Woody Allen's son.

STU: Yes. So another thing you might know about Ronan Farrow is he's an employee of NBC News.

GLENN: Hang on just a second. He's a respected journalist. I don't know for what for.

STU: He has won awards.

GLENN: But, yes, he's won huge news awards. He's a respected journalist at NBC.

STU: And by and far, the most accomplished thing he's ever done is the story about Harvey Weinstein. This is going to upset his career for -- I mean, this is a huge story. By all accounts, he did a great job reporting it. Was diligent. Was threatened personally by Harvey Weinstein with a lawsuit during this process. Really, did -- he took on everybody. And it's interesting that a guy being paid by NBC News winds up releasing the biggest story of the year for the New Yorker.

GLENN: Now, hang on just a second. It's not that he just went out. NBC told him to go find another outlet to publish this.

STU: Yep.

GLENN: Now, this on the heels of Saturday Night Live, on Saturday, having whole bunches of Weinstein jokes. And shockingly, cutting all of them and not making any reference to Harvey Weinstein at all.

STU: And there's an interesting -- I guess a side-by-side there. Because you might say -- and I have no problem with them reporting the NBC thing. Or the nuclear arsenal thing.

You could argue it's just a leak. But if it's a news organization, I think they have a legitimate stance to say, "You know what, damn the consequences. Damn the torpedoes. If we have a big news story that's important to the people, we're going to bring it. We're going to bring it out." You just can't make that point when you just gave the biggest story of the year to the New Yorker because you were afraid of the consequences from Harvey Weinstein. You can make the point about the nuclear story being legitimate. But it is obviously an actual danger to our national security.

Now, that doesn't mean you don't print it. I mean, if it's a real story, and it's really important, you could still do it.

But, I mean, they were not worried about the consequences of actual nuclear world war. But they were worried about the consequences of Harvey Weinstein.

That is an incredible statement. And, I mean, you want to talk about priorities. I don't mind you saying damn the torpedoes. But if you're going to take one of these things into account to not report a news story, maybe the one about the ten times nuclear arsenal increase is the one you skip.

GLENN: See, I didn't see those two stories connected at all.

STU: Oh.

GLENN: And I'm sure neither do the people at NBC.

(laughter)

STU: Really? Because I thought there was a pretty direct --

GLENN: I think -- it's just happenstance that I brought them up side by side.

STU: Oh.

I'm going to introduce you to what is by far the most annoying trend on social media involving a particular emoji. The annoying online trend features the clapping emoji 👏 in 👏 between 👏 each 👏 word.

The technique is most often used — unironically — by the social justice types to express indignation or condescension.

RELATED: De Niro at da Tony's gets obscenely political

It's meant to imply that the person who is writing the message is so much more "woke" than you that they are righteously allowed to clap in your face. Just looking at it is enough to test your blood pressure. Among the most recent standouts is the controversy surrounding Scarlett Johansson's decision to play a transgender character, which LGBTQ advocates would view as a good thing, right? You know, her being an ally to their cause and all. Here's one of the myriad tweets that sums up the feeling:

For weeks, the social justice types had been raging about Johansson, who was slated to portray a crime kingpin who was born a woman but identified as male in the film Rub & Tug.

In an interview with NPR — naturally — a trans activist had this to say about it:

Casting male actors to play trans women and female actors to play trans men really reinforces the idea that trans men are really women who are pretending to be men and tricking people into thinking they're men as opposed to the truth, which is that transgender men are living authentically as themselves. And we look like men and we feel like men, and we are perceived as men, and there's no reason, like, women should be playing us.

Listen to the full interview here:

Boy, if it weren't already confusing enough…

In response to this so-called backlash, Scarlett Johansson released a statement to her critics, noting to "tell them that they can be directed to Jeffrey Tambor, Jared Leto and Felicity Huffman's reps for comment."

But, finally — as most people do these days — she buckled. She released the following statement:

In light of recent ethical questions raised surrounding my casting as Dante Tex Gill, I have decided to respectfully withdraw my participation in the project. Our cultural understanding of transgender people continues to advance, and I've learned a lot from the community since making my first statement about my casting and realize it was insensitive.

What's the source of all this outrage? Because, we all know that the small but vocal mob — who the mainstream media has for some reason given a platform, and whose voice is louder than the rest of ours — is able to bully until they get what they want.

There's no winning.

Let's say that Scarlett Johansson had refused the role to begin with, on the grounds that she will not play a transgender character. You can guarantee the same crowd that's outraged now would be in fits. There's no winning. The best we can do is treat those around us with respect, live humbly and, for heaven's sake, don't clap between every damn word.

We should all be praying for success at the Trump/Putin sit-down

ALEKSEY NIKOLSKYI/AFP/Getty Images

92 percent of the world's nuclear weapons are in TWO countries: the U.S. and Russia. And as I'm speaking right now, the leaders of both countries are sitting down at a table to try and figure out how to coexist with one another. Sounds kind of important right? And even though the media will slap-fight each other to death today in an attempt to turn the Trump/Putin summit partisan, what's happening right now in Helsinki is probably the least most partisan thing happening right now… like anywhere. As in, the entire planet.

If there was ever a time to be partisan… this isn't it. To any Democrat, Republican or mainstream media pundit looking to turn this into some gotcha political narrative… what the hell is wrong with you? The last time the U.S. and Russian presidents sat down for a summit was in 2010… eight years ago! Here's a small rundown of how "cold" our relationship has been since then.

RELATED: Putin to Megyn Kelly: Jews are to blame for US election interference

Russia still has troops in Georgia after their invasion during Obama's first term. Keep in mind, Georgia was a country considering joining NATO. That invasion was Russia's coming out party. It was a warning to the world that things were about to change, and they were just getting started. They would then invade, steal and annex Crimea from Ukraine. They'd also invade, destabilize and wage war in Eastern Ukraine. That war is still going on to this day, but rarely does the media talk about it anymore. And the backdrop to that invasion and silent war was an accusation from the Russians that the United States deliberately encouraged the fall of the Ukrainian president and government.

Meanwhile, Russia continues supplying troops and equipment to their side, and we are now providing military training and anti-tank missiles to ours.

And Ukraine is just one of the proxy wars currently being fought between the two nuclear powers. Syria is the other. In April, we admitted to killing nearly 200 Russians in that conflict.

Over the past four years, over 700 Russian citizens and companies have been sanctioned, 35 diplomats have been declared persona non grata, 2 Russian diplomatic compounds have been closed, one consulate and two diplomatic annexes. Oh… and Russia has ejected over 700 U.S. diplomatic staff.

Between cyber attacks and indictments on Russian intelligence personnel, tensions have never been higher.

Between cyber attacks and indictments on Russian intelligence personnel, tensions have never been higher. Russia currently maintains an arsenal of 6,600 nuclear weapons. We have 6,450. The next closest nuke holders are France with 300 and China with 280. It's not even close. Between Washington and Moscow, there are over 13,000 nuclear weapons pointed at one another.

Forget partisan politics. The two toughest kids on the block just met for a sit-down, and we should all be praying for their success.

It's not just the Twitter mobs, the Leftist extremists and the flagrant fourth-wave feminists who want ICE abolished. As we've seen, there's a growing number of politicians who want to see it as well.

Cue Alejandro Alvarez, who in his 32 years has managed to cultivate his brand as a "serial immigration violator." Alejandro has been deported 11 times. Well, he's facing deportation once again, after allegedly "slashing his wife with a chainsaw." His wife is in recovery and is expected to survive.

RELATED: The cost of unchecked illegal immigration is very real, and very high

Around 3:00 pm last Wednesday, police arrived at Alejandro's. When they arrived, they found Alvarez's wife suffering from "traumatic physical injuries, believed to have been inflicted by a chainsaw." The couple's three children were huddled in fear inside the home. Alejandro's wife was rushed to a nearby trauma center for an emergency surgery.

Alejandro fled the scene of the crime, but was eventually hauled in by police and booked under "suspicion of attempted murder, child endangerment, hit and run, and grand theft auto."

Sounds like the kind of guy who should be in our country illegally, right?

ICE spokeswoman Lori Haley noted that "Immigration officers have lodged a detainer against Alvarez, requesting that local authorities notify Immigration and Customs Enforcement before his release to allow them to take the man into custody."

This is the new reality.

This is the new reality. The immigration agency has to ask for permission, to file requests, to have illegal immigrants who are guilty of crimes dealt with. Luckily for Alejandro, Los Angeles is a sanctuary city, so maybe he'll get another pass and be back on the streets in no time.

UPDATE: Here's how the discussion went on radio. Watch the video below.

Why is nobody talking about this?

Alabama law enforcement officials say that an illegal immigrant and an immigrant in the United States on a green card are responsible for the brutal murders of a grandmother and her 13-year-old special needs granddaughter in what investigators say is violence related to Mexican drug cartels.