CBS Ran ‘Propaganda’ to Cover for Al Franken After First Sexual Harassment Claim

CBS News had a report over the weekend about Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) that exposed not real news but their own bias.

The outlet published quotes from several women who had worked with Franken, a Democratic senator who has been accused of sexual harassment by commentator Leeann Tweeden. The women in the “report” from CBS News only had glowing things to say about their former boss.

“CBS, you should be ashamed of yourself,” Doc said on today’s show while standing in for Glenn. “That’s not news. That’s propaganda. How is something that didn’t happen news?”

Tweeden said that during a USO tour in 2006, Franken forcibly kissed her without permission and left a photograph of him groping her chest. She released the picture as proof along with a post about the incident.

Today, a new accuser came forward to say that Franken groped her during a photo op at the 2010 Minnesota State Fair. Lindsay Menz’s account is the first accusation dated during Franken’s time in office.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

DOC: Doc Thompson in for Glenn Beck. We're discussing the witch hunt that is accusations all over the place of inappropriate behavior. All kinds of different people.

And I say witch hunt because you can clearly see that people are trying to gin up things from the past, in order to punish people.

Are some of these legit? Absolutely. Should those people be punished if proven guilty? Absolutely. I have no problem against that. Of course, they should.

But you recognize most of this is being done for a political nature, or for agenda. Even if it's not a politician. It's the, huh. We've heard virtually nothing about Kevin Spacey. But a whole lot about Roy Moore, haven't we?

Al Franken over the weekend, they ran a story on CBS that basically said -- and I tweeted about it. I was stunned. CBS, you should be ashamed of yourself. They ran a story that basically said, here's a bunch of women who worked in Al Franken's office who said, he was always a perfect gentleman and one hell of a boss. That's not news. That's propaganda.

How is something that didn't happen news? Okay. So your argument is, well, this disputes what this woman claimed. Well, remember, there's photographic evidence of one of her allegations. So you don't have to prove it or disprove it, as CBS is trying to do. CBS was trying to take the heat on of Al Franken. They were -- they were helping him.

They were not the fourth estate. They were not the media holding people accountable and reporting facts as journalists. CBS, we're propagandists, helping or attempting to help Al Franken. Had they dug up a bunch of women from Roy Moore's past saying, he was always a perfect gentleman. I was 13, and he didn't sleep with me. No. They didn't do that. Did they dig up a bunch of women during the campaign saying, Donald Trump never grabbed me by the hoo-ha? No. It was, here's a bunch of women that said -- that never happened with Al Franken. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Let's go to the phone lines. 888-727-BECK. 888-727-BECK.

Let's go to line number 55 in Massachusetts. It's Steve. Welcome to the Glenn Beck Program, Steve. How are you?

CALLER: Hey, Glenn. How are you doing?

DOC: Doing well.

CALLER: My biggest pet peeve with this whole sexual harassment scandal is why hasn't Bill Clinton at least been condemned and ostracized by the Democrat Party? He should have been in jail for what he did while he was governor of Arkansas, never mind have a political career. To me, the whole Democrat Harvey fighting against sexual harassment is the biggest fraud, because Bill Clinton is still walking around free and loose. And until they clean that up, I think my vote is going to be a protest vote, against Bill Clinton, for his sexual harassment.

DOC: You know what, Steve, and I -- you're absolutely right. The hypocrisy is incredible. Now, there is hypocrisy from the right too. There's a lot of people who won't hold people accountable, and that's fine. But you're absolutely right when it comes to Bill Clinton.

Did you see what Chelsea Handler did last week with regard to that story, where she was talking about Juanita Broaddrick, or tweeted at her.

So Chelsea Handler -- and, by the way, Steve, thank you for the call. Chelsea Handler, who suffers from Trump derangement syndrome -- full disclosure, I didn't vote for Donald Trump. I didn't support him, because I vote on track record. I certainly didn't vote for Hillary, but I vote on track record as a conservative Libertarian. I think Trump has done a pretty good job with some things. I've criticized him on others.

Having said that -- got to do that disclaimer in today's world, unfortunately.

Chelsea Handler tweets out about, all women are to be believed, and a bunch of other propaganda as part of her Trump derangement symptom. And, of course, blasted Trump.

She put something like, imagine when speaking of Roy Moore -- imagine you're a young girl and an older man abuses you sexually. It was pretty close to that. I'm paraphrasing. But it's pretty close.

And then you have to suffer through it the rest of your life, and then he gets elected to the Senate. And you have to witness that. And what does that show to other girls?

And Juanita Broaddrick, who has accused Bill Clinton of raping her, when he was governor, tweeted out, I don't have to imagine. Because it happened to me.

Said, that happened -- a governor did that to me, and then went on to be president. So on and so forth. And a bunch of people said, hey, what about that Chelsea, come on. And she was silent for a few days. And was forced to respond.

And she respond, Juanita, I didn't know about that. I'm just finding out about this. What? Bill Clinton. Allegations! Women! Rape, inappropriate, what? When did this happen -- what?

(laughter)

Really, Chelsea? Did you start reading the newspapers a week and a half ago? You really don't remember any of that stuff? You're lying. It's crap. How dare you.

Let's go back to the phone lines. Line 22 now. Rick in Missouri. Welcome to the Glenn Beck Program. How are you?

CALLER: Thank you, Doc. Pleasure to be on. What gets me besides everything that has already been stated as basically the facts of it is, we got to learn from our history. And here's one simple little history lesson that is from the recent past.

Mitt Romney didn't pay his taxes for ten years. Well, that's what I heard.

DOC: Yes.

CALLER: Two years later, Harry, you lied, on nationwide TV. Harry, you lied. And he smirks and says, well, he didn't win, did he? Ha, ha, ha.

I'm feeling exactly the same thing in Alabama, on a state-level, which will lead to a federal level. That's exactly what I'm feeling.

DOC: And, Rick, mind you, while he was saying that, while Harry Reid having no conscience was saying that, there were actually people in the current administration when he said that, that didn't pay their taxes. Do you remember?

Tim Geithner and Kathleen Sebelius, remember? They did not pay their taxes and only paid them once they were called out and it was discovered. Yet, he called out Mitt Romney.

CALLER: Yes. And supposedly -- yes, and supposedly, approximately, what? Ten percent of IRS, certain department of IRS didn't pay their federal taxes either.

DOC: Yes, they still haven't. Yeah, every year, the IG reports come out and they don't pay their taxes. I mean, look at -- we found out -- well, Rick, we just found out that Lois Lerner, they started settling some of those cases with the Tea Party and patriot groups when Lois Lerner conspired with other people, and I believe the Obama administration and other people therein, to use the power of the IRS to punish people for their different political opinions.

CALLER: Oh, yeah.

DOC: And they've started to admit that now. They've actually admitted that, wrongdoing, and said they won't let that happen again now.

Meanwhile, Lois Lerner still sits, collecting a government pension, that, by the way, they waited to fire her or retire her a couple of months, so she would reach another category and make more money.

CALLER: Isn't it amazing? Isn't it amazing?

DOC: And that's the hypocrisy, Rick. I don't care if it's Democrat or Republican. I'm tired of the DC game where it's them against us.

CALLER: Well, to me, Doc, to be quite honest with you, with regard to how the party goes, because I'm old enough to remember, Blue Dog Democrats. I'm old enough to remember real Republicans. The Republican Party today was the Democratic Party of 30 years ago. The Democratic Party today is the Socialist Party of today.

DOC: Wow.

CALLER: That's the way I look at it.

DOC: That's a great way to look at it, buddy. Thanks so much for the call. Appreciate it. Back to the phone lines. Let's go to New York now.

David from line 111. How are you, sir?

CALLER: Good. How are you?

DOC: Good. Well, sir.

CALLER: What I wanted to say was, you know, Judge Roy Moore is being slandered all over the news. You know, he might be guilty, he might not be. The lady may be telling the truth. But there's only -- there's no really way of finding out the truth, unless you ask him to take a polygraph test. Because he's being destroyed in the court of public opinion. So why not get some world-renowned polygraphist to give these guys tests, find out who is telling the truth?

DOC: Well, and I appreciate where you're heading with this. And I like the idea. If I were Roy Moore, I would take one. The problem is, polygraph tests aren't always accurate, as you know. But -- and, by the way, thank you so much for the call. But the bigger problem is you're asking Roy Moore to prove his innocence. That's not now how this is supposed to work.

Now, I know there are people like Mitt Romney even, who said, innocent until proven guilty is for a court of law, not public opinion. And all of this crap. And the bottom line is Mitt Romney doesn't like Roy Moore because Mitt Romney is the progressive Republican. We know that.

The reason he put that out there is because of other things. Other reasons he doesn't want Roy Moore to have that gig.

But you're still asking him to prove himself innocent. It's not supposed to work that way. Even though that's an official standard when it comes to our legal system, we're all supposed to have that attitude ourselves as well. Why would you want to start with somebody is guilty? Why would you want to assume guilt? That's not good. It's not Christian either. All right. Back to the phone calls. Let's go to the Buckeye State. Pete in Ohio. How are you, sir? Welcome to the Glenn Beck Program.

VOICE: Hey, good morning, Doc. The spotlight on people in powerful positions has never been brighter. And we can vote with our dollars and our feet in business or in Hollywood. But I'd like to expand the institution of term limits, as we have for our -- our mayors. Term limits for the governors. Term limits for the president of the United States. Power in the Congress and the Senate is based on, you know, dictates of entrenched politicians. And I would like to see them, you know, 16 to 20 years, I think is reasonable. It would -- it's not partisan. It wouldn't help one party or the other. But it would clean up Congress.

DOC: Pete, I absolutely agree with you. That's one of the solutions in this thing. So let's talk solutions. If you're tired of all of this back and forth witch hunt, backbiting when you know so many people are guilty from various backgrounds, from Republicans, Democrats, conservative, liberal. Whatever. If you're tired of it, then you have to come up with solutions. And, Pete, you're right. That's one of the solutions, term limits. We have to find as much way to take away power from DC as possible. And that's something our liberal friends are missing here.

Rapper Kendrick Lamar brings white fan onstage to sing with him, but here’s the catch

Matt Winkelmeyer/Getty Images for American Express

Rapper Kendrick Lamar asked a fan to come onstage and sing with him, only to condemn her when she failed to censor all of the song's frequent mentions of the “n-word" while singing along.

RELATED: You'll Never Guess Who Wrote the Racist Message Targeting Black Air Force Cadets

“I am so sorry," she apologized when Lamar pointed out that she needed to “bleep" that word. “I'm used to singing it like you wrote it." She was booed at by the crowd of people, many screaming “f*** you" after her mistake.

On Tuesday's show, Pat and Jeffy watched the clip and talked about some of the Twitter reactions.

“This is ridiculous," Pat said. “The situation with this word has become so ludicrous."

What happened?

MSNBC's Katy Tur didn't bother to hide her pro-gun control bias in an interview with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in the wake of the Santa Fe High School killings.

RELATED: Media Are Pushing Inflated '18 School Shootings' Statistic. Here Are the Facts.

What did she ask?

As Pat pointed out while sitting in for Glenn on today's show, Tur tried to “badger" Paxton into vowing that he would push for a magical fix that will make schools “100 percent safe." She found it “just wild" that the Texas attorney general couldn't promise that schools will ever be completely, totally safe.

“Can you promise kids in Texas today that they're safe to go to school?" Tur pressured Paxton.

“I don't think there's any way to say that we're ever 100 percent safe," the attorney general responded.

What solutions did the AG offer?

“We've got a long way to go," Paxton said. He listed potential solutions to improve school safety, including installing security officers and training administrators and teachers to carry a gun.

Pat's take:

“Unbelievable," Pat said on today's show. “Nobody can promise [100 percent safety]."

Every president from George Washington to Donald Trump has issued at least one executive order (with the exception of William Harrison who died just 31 days into his presidency) and yet the U.S. Constitution doesn't even mention executive orders. So how did the use of this legislative loophole become such an accepted part of the job? Well, we can thank Franklin Roosevelt for that.

Back at the chalkboard, Glenn Beck broke down the progression of the executive order over the years and discussed which US Presidents have been the “worst offenders."

RELATED: POWER GRAB: Here's how US presidents use 'moments of crisis' to override Constitutional law

“It's hard to judge our worst presidential overreachers on sheer numbers alone," said Glenn. “However, it's not a shock that FDR issued by far the most of any president."

Our first 15 presidents issued a combined total of 143. By comparison, Franklin D. Roosevelt issued 3721, more than twice the next runner up, Woodrow Wilson, at 1803.

“Next to FDR, no other president in our history attempted to reshape so much of American life by decree, until we get to this guy: President Obama," Glenn explained. “He didn't issue 3000, or even 1800; he did 276 executive orders, but it was the power of those orders. He instituted 560 major regulations classified by the Congressional Budget Office as having 'significant economic or social impacts.' That's 50 percent more regulations than George W. Bush's presidency — and remember, everybody thought he was a fascist."

President Obama blamed an obstructionist Congress for forcing him to bypass the legislative process. By executive order, President Obama decreed the U.S. join the Paris Climate Accord, DACA, the Clean Power Plan and transgender restrooms. He also authorized spying in US citizens through section 702 of FISA, used the IRS to target political opponents and ordered military action in Libya without Congressional permission.

All of these changes were accepted by the very people who now condemn President Trump for his use of executive orders — many of which were issued to annul President Obama's executive orders, just as President Obama annulled President Bush's executive orders when he took office … and therein lies the rub with executive orders.

“That's not the way it's supposed to work, nor would we ever want it to be," said Glenn. “We have to have the Constitution and laws need to originate in Congress."

Watch the video above to find out more.

Six months ago, I alerted readers to the very attractive benefits that the TreasuryDirect program offers to investors who are defensively sitting on cash right now.

Since then, those benefits have continued to improve. Substantially.

Back in November, by holding extremely conservative short-term (i.e., 6-months or less) Treasury bills, TreasuryDirect participants were receiving over 16x more in interest payments vs keeping their cash in a standard bank savings account.

Today, they're now receiving over 30 times more. Without having to worry about the risk of a bank "bail-in" or failure.

So if you're holding cash right now and NOT participating in the TreasuryDirect program, do yourself a favor and read on. If you're going to pass on this opportunity, at least make it an 'eyes-wide-open' decision.

Holding Cash (In Treasurys) Now Beats The Market

There are many prudent reasons to hold cash in today's dangerously overvalued financial markets, as we've frequently touted here at PeakProsperity.com.

Well, there's now one more good reason to add to the list: holding cash in short-term Treasurys is now meeting/beating the dividend returns offered by the stock market:

"Cash Is King" Again - 3-Month Bills Yield More Than Stocks (Zero Hedge)
'Reaching for yield' just got a lot easier...
For the first time since February 2008, three-month Treasury bills now have a yield advantage over the S&P; 500 dividend yield (and dramatically lower risk).
Investors can earn a guaranteed 1.90% by holding the 3-month bills or a risky 1.89% holding the S&P; 500...

The longest period of financial repression in history is coming to an end...

And it would appear TINA is dead as there is now an alternative.

And when you look at the total return (dividends + appreciation) of the market since the start of 2018, stocks have returned only marginally better than 3-month Treasurys. Plus, those scant few extra S&P; points have come with a LOT more risk.

Why take it under such dangerously overvalued conditions?

If You Can't Beat 'Em, Join 'Em

In my June report Less Than Zero: How The Fed Killed Saving, I explained how the Federal Reserve's policy of holding interest rates at record lows has decimated savers. Those who simply want to park money somewhere "safe" can't do so without losing money in real terms.

To drive this point home: back in November, the average interest rate being offered in a US bank savings account was an insutling 0.06%. Six months later, nothing has changed:

(Source

That's virtually the same as getting paid 0%. But it's actually worse than that, because once you take inflation into account, the real return on your savings is markedly negative.

And to really get your blood boiling, note that the Federal Reserve has rasied the federal funds rate it pays banks from 1.16% in November to 1.69% in April. Banks are now making nearly 50% more money on the excess reserves they park at the Fed -- but are they passing any of that free profit along to their depositors? No....

This is why knowing about the TreasuryDirect program is so important. It's a way for individual investors savvy enough to understand the game being played to bend some of its rules to their favor and limit the damage they suffer.

Below is an updated version (using today's rates) of my recap of TreasuryDirect, which enables you to get over 30x more interest on your cash savings than your bank will pay you, with lower risk.

TreasuryDirect

For those not already familiar with it, TreasuryDirect is a service offered by the United States Department of the Treasury that allows individual investors to purchase Treasury securities such as T-Bills, notes and bonds directly from the U.S. government.

You purchase these Treasury securities by linking a TreasuryDirect account to your personal bank account. Once linked, you use your cash savings to purchase T-bills, etc from the US Treasury. When the Treasury securities you've purchased mature or are sold, the proceeds are deposited back into your bank account.

So why buy Treasuries rather than keep your cash savings in a bank? Two main reasons:

  • Much higher return: T-Bills are currently offering an annualized return rate between 1.66-2.04%. Notes and bonds, depending on their duration, are currently offering between 2.6% - 3.1%
  • Extremely low risk: Your bank can change the interest rate on your savings account at any time -- with Treasury bills, your rate of return is locked in at purchase. Funds in a bank are subject to risks such as a bank bail-in or the insolvency of the FDIC depositor protection program -- while at TreasuryDirect, your funds are being held with the US Treasury, the institution with the lowest default risk in the country for reasons I'll explain more in a moment.

Let's look at a quick example. If you parked $100,000 in the average bank savings account for a full year, you would earn $60 in interest. Let's compare this to the current lowest-yielding TreasuryDirect option: continuously rolling that same $100,000 into 4-week T-Bills for a year:

  1. Day 1: Funds are transferred from your bank account to TreasuryDirect to purchase $100,000 face value of 4-week T-Bills at auction yielding 1.68%
  2. Day 28: the T-Bills mature and the Treasury holds the full $100,000 proceeds in your TreasuryDirect account. Since you've set up the auto-reinvestment option, TreasuryDirect then purchases another $100,000 face value of 4-week T-Bills at the next auction.
  3. Days 29-364: the process repeats every 4 weeks
  4. Day 365: assuming the average yield for T-Bills remained at 1.68%, you will have received $1,680 in interest in total throughout the year from the US Treasury.

$1,680 vs $60. That's a 27x difference in return.

And the comparison only improves if you decide to purchase longer duration (13-week or 26-week) bills instead of the 4-week ones:

Repeating the above example for a year using 13-week bills would yield $1,925. Using 26-week bills would yield $2,085. A lot better (34x better!) than $60.

Opportunity Cost & Default Risk

So what are the downsides to using TreasuryDirect? There aren't many.

The biggest one is opportunity cost. While your money is being held in a T-Bill, it's tied up at the US Treasury. If you suddenly need access to those funds, you have to wait until the bill matures.

But T-Bill durations are short. 4 weeks is not a lot of time to have to wait. (If you think the probability is high you may to need to pull money out of savings sooner than that, you shouldn't be considering the TreasuryDirect program.)

Other than that, TreasuryDirect offers an appealing reduction in risk.

If your bank suddenly closes due to a failure, any funds invested in TreasuryDirect are not in your bank account, so are not subject to being confiscated in a bail-in.

Instead, your money is held as a T-Bill, note or bond, which is essentially an obligation of the US Treasury to pay you in full for the face amount. The US Treasury is the single last entity in the country (and quite possibly, the world) that will ever default on its obligations. Why? Because Treasurys are the mechanism by which money is created in the US. Chapter 8 from The Crash Course explains:

As a result, to preserve its ability to print the money it needs to function, the US government will bring its full force and backing to bear in order to ensure confidence in the market for Treasurys.

Meaning: the US government won't squelch on paying you back the money you lent it. If required, it will just print the money it needs to repay you.

So, How To Get Started?

Usage of TreasuryDirect is quite low among investors today. Many are unaware of the program. Others simply haven't tried it out.

And let's be real: it's crazy that we live in a world where a 1.68-2.09% return now qualifies as an exceptionally high yield on savings. A lot of folks just can't get motivated to take action by rates that low. But that doesn't mean that they shouldn't -- money left on the table is money forfeited.

So, if you're interested in learning more about the TreasuryDirect program, start by visiting their website. Like everything operated by the government, it's pretty 'no frills'; but their FAQ page addresses investors' most common questions.

Before you decide whether or not to fund an account there, be sure to discuss the decision with your professional financial advisor to make sure it fits well with your personal financial situation and goals. (If you're having difficulty finding a good one, consider scheduling a free discussion with PeakProsperity.com's endorsed financial advisor -- who has considerable experience managing TreasuryDirect purchases for many of its clients).

In Part 2: A Primer On How To Use TreasuryDirect, we lay out the step-by-step process for opening, funding and transacting within a TreasuryDirect account. We've created it to be a helpful resource for those self-directed individuals potentially interested in increasing their return on their cash savings in this manner.

Yes, we savers are getting completely abused by our government's policies. So there's some poetic justice in using the government's own financing instruments to slightly lessen the sting of the whip.

Click here to read Part 2 of this report (free executive summary, enrollment required for full access)

NOTE: PeakProsperity.com does not have any business relationship with the TreasuryDirect program. Nor is anything in the article above to be taken as an offer of personal financial advice. As mentioned, discuss any decision to participate in TreasuryDirect with your professional financial advisor before taking action.