Blog
LatestArticlesVideosHands-On History
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcast
Show Prep
More
AboutBooksCharityEventsReal EstateSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2019 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Ryan Seacrest Was Investigated, Cleared After Harassment Claims – Why Is He Still Under Fire?

February 28, 2018
 Staff

WRITER

What’s going on?

Longtime TV personality Ryan Seacrest is set to host the E! News coverage of the 2018 Academy Awards this Sunday. Why is that controversial? Because old allegations about sexual harassment have resurfaced even though Seacrest was already cleared in an E! News investigation.

Glenn, Pat and Stu talked about this story on today’s show. What happens in a world where people are cleared after allegations, but we’re all still expected to believe the accusers?

Catch me up:

NBC Universal, which owns E! News, said that an independent counsel “interviewed more than two dozen people” following the harassment allegations by former stylist Suzie Hardy. She worked for Seacrest between 2007 and 2013 and accused him of touching her inappropriately, asking sexual questions and otherwise harassing her.

What are people saying?

“E!’s Ryan Seacrest Situation Is Getting Complicated,” Vanity Fair said in a headline, while a Daily Beast opinion piece demanded that “It’s Time for E! to Pull Ryan Seacrest From the Oscars Red Carpet.”

Hardy’s claims resurfaced this week after an anonymous source told NBC News that the stylist’s claims were accurate; however, a video clip of Seacrest and Hardy from the time contradicted that story.

“Over the course of a two-month process, our outside counsel interviewed more than two dozen people regarding the allegations, including multiple separate meetings with the claimant and all firsthand witnesses that she provided,” NBC Universal said in a statement. “Any claims that question the legitimacy of this investigation are completely baseless.”

 

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

Pat Gray, welcome to the program. On your mind today.

PAT: Many things. But maybe the top of my list right now is Ryan Seacrest.

First of all, Ryan Seacrest was accused by his hairstylist or the person that does his makeup at E!.

GLENN: For six years.

PAT: Yeah.

And she claimed that he sexually harassed her on a regular basis. So quietly, E! did an investigation. I think they handled it right. They didn't suspend him. They just waited to see what would happen. They found zero evidence that what she said was true.

GLENN: Zero.

PAT: And he kept going. And Seacrest talked about it. He put it on his Facebook post. Put out a story.

GLENN: And he said, this is not true, but I'm cooperating.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: Whatever the company wants to do, I'll cooperate.

PAT: And he did.

GLENN: He did.

PAT: And they found no evidence.

GLENN: Zero.

PAT: And now it's everywhere all of a sudden. And now they're talking about public relations people are advising their clients not to go anywhere near him at the Oscars because he has the red carpet thing. The interviews that he does.

STU: Oh, jeez.

PAT: And so the PR people are saying, why would you even take that chance? He's been accused. So go to the other person, or go to some other outlet.

GLENN: He's been accused.

PAT: And he's been cleared. And he's been cleared.

GLENN: He's been accused. Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party? My gosh.

PAT: If this isn't a worse McCarthyism than we had in the '50s -- I mean, it's getting as bad.

GLENN: It's getting as bad. Except that did have the power of the government to put you in jail.

PAT: Very true. So that's worse. That's true.

GLENN: This is just destroying your life.

PAT: And, I mean, witch hunt is appropriate on this. There's an ABC star. Bellamy Young. She's on Scandal. She said, I think this is the time for Ryan Seacrest to step aside and let someone with equal talent that is beyond reproach that is in charge. First of all, the guy has every job in the world. There is nobody of equal talent.

GLENN: I'm sincere about that. I think he's one of the most talented, smartest guys around.

PAT: He's really good. He just is really good.

GLENN: Yeah, he's really good.

PAT: And how -- aren't you above reproach if you've been cleared of any wrongdoing? That seems to be --

GLENN: No, you never get to go back.

PAT: I guess not. I mean, you're just totally tainted now forever because somebody accused you.

GLENN: It's wrong.

PAT: Anybody can accuse anybody else of wrongdoing. And then --

GLENN: I have a llama in the wings right now that will swear out of testimony about Pat. And you want me to bring the llama out, I will.

PAT: If you actually had a llama, I would be nervous.

GLENN: But once that llama does what llamas do.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Baas or barks or whatever they do. It can't be unbarked, Pat. It can't be unbarked.

PAT: Scary.

STU: You know what's interesting. You're talking about how people can be accused. And it's always -- they're always tainted with it. And it's over.

PAT: And it's over.

STU: We're in the me too era. Right? It's over. You know what's one accusation that has had no attention since the me too movement has started?

GLENN: I bet I'll say the same thing.

STU: Are you really? I was going to say Al Gore's second chakra. Remember?

PAT: Oh, wow. That's a good callback.

GLENN: Oh, wow.

STU: Remember the accusation by the masseuse who said that Al Gore was constantly trying to get him to touch her.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: To --

PAT: I want you to adjust my second chakra.

STU: Right. Remember this?

PAT: Because of our SUVs that my chakra is out of place. So, yeah, he was trying to get her to do things to him in regions she didn't want to touch.

STU: And she complained about it. And it was brushed off by the media completely. He has not faced word one of a second thought on this over that time. And Bill Clinton has. Right? There have been a lot of people on the left, who said, okay. We handled that Clinton thing wrongly. But one accusation has been enough for almost everybody.

PAT: And that wasn't 30 years ago. That was eight years ago. That was in 2010.

STU: Was it 2010? I knew it was late 2000s.

PAT: Yeah. Yep.

GLENN: Let me go where I was going to go.

Jimmy Kimmel. Jimmy Kimmel is hosting the Oscars. Not outside like Ryan Seacrest. He's hosting the Oscars.

PAT: Has he been accused?

GLENN: Have you seen any of the videotapes of what he's done?

STU: He used to host a show called The Man Show.

PAT: Oh, man. Wow.

GLENN: Yeah, he did a, I'm going to put something in my pants, and you can feel around to see what it is. You might want to use your mouth.

Okay?

PAT: Oh, yeah. Wow.

GLENN: He's on video doing that.

STU: Yep. Over and over. It was part -- that show -- look, and I defend that show at that time. And, you know, they did things --

PAT: No way.

STU: It was funny, right? It was funny. And it was totally fine --

PAT: Sorry. It's retroactively inappropriate.

STU: It's retroactively inappropriate, however.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: Remember, this is the show that ended every episode with girls jumping on trampolines in their underwear. Every episode end the same way. That was literally --

GLENN: And he's --

STU: Now girls jumping on trampolines.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: And he's the guy that's totally okay to host the Oscars.

PAT: Yeah. Nobody said a thing.

The FEC is broken – H.R. 1 will break it differently

FLICKR/DonkeyHotey

The FEC is bad. The House of Representatives isn't doing anything to make it better.

When it passed H.R. 1 by a vote of 234-193 on Monday, Congress attempted to address a laundry list of nationwide problems: rampant gerrymandering, voting rights, and the vulnerability of elections to foreign interference, among other concerns. But H.R. 1, billed as the "For the People Act," also takes a shot at reforming the Federal Election Commission (FEC). It fails.

The FEC isn't good at enforcing the nation's campaign finance laws, and, when it is does, it's often an entire election cycle after the given offense. As it is, candidates don't have much difficulty circumventing campaign finance laws, undermining the fairness of elections and opening the door to further corruption.

RELATED: Lawmakers are putting the death penalty on trial

The FEC was created by the Federal Election Campaign Act following the Watergate scandal, as Congress sought a better way to police federal campaign laws and prevent future presidents from interfering with investigations as Nixon had. The FEC has six commissioners, and no more than three can be of the same party. Four votes are required for most actions taken by the agency, and that hasn't been an issue for most of its history. But since 2008, the frequency of 3-3 tie votes has increased dramatically. It's why the FEC is slow to investigate cases and even slower to prosecute offenses. Supporters of H.R. 1 complain, with good reason, that the FEC has become toothless. But H.R. 1's reforms introduce new and potentially volatile problems.

FEC's rampant dysfunction won't be fixed by H.R. 1— the bill doesn't get at what actually went wrong. Since its inception, the FEC has been able to operate without excessive gridlock, and, for the most part, it still does. At the height of FEC turmoil in 2014, the FEC only had a tied vote 14 percent of the time (historically, it has been closer to one to four percent of the time) on substantive matters, although many of these tie votes occur on matters that are particularly contentious. The greater problem afflicting the FEC is touched upon by NBC Washington's findings that the Republican and Democratic commissioners of the FEC almost always vote as blocs. At various times, both Republican and Democratic commissioners have put party interests ahead of their agency's responsibilities.

At various times, both Republican and Democratic commissioners have put party interests ahead of their agency's responsibilities.

H.R. 1's Democratic supporters instead believe the FEC's six-commissioner structure makes it dysfunctional. H.R. 1 introduces a new system of five commissioners —two from each party and one independent, eliminating tie votes. But that independent commissioner's de facto role as a tiebreaker would grant them far too much power. Save for Senate approval, there's nothing preventing a president from appointing an "independent" like Bernie Sanders or Angus King.

The bill's proponents are aware of this problem, creating a Blue Ribbon Advisory Panel that will help inform the president's decisions. But this panel has problems of its own. The Blue Ribbon Advisory Panel's decisions are non-binding and not public, a result of its exemption from the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which ensures the transparency of advisory committees. There are arguments against FACA's necessity, the panel's deliberate exemption from the law undermines the idea that its goal is to ensure non-partisanship. Instead, H.R. 1 will allow future presidents to tilt the scales of the FEC in their favor, a fate the post-Watergate creators of the FEC were so desperate to avoid they originally had members of Congress picking commissioners before the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional. Apparently, the solution to excessive gridlock is one-party control.

H.R. 1 also seeks to grant unilateral powers to the Chair of the commission in the name of expediency, again giving leverage to the Chair's party, and allows the General Counsel to take actions independent of commission votes. While some of the FEC's problems, such as its notoriously slow pace and the delayed appointment of commissioners under Presidents Obama and Trump, might be solved with legislation, the consolidation of power in the hands of a few at the expense of the FEC's integrity is not a winning strategy.

The FEC is afflicted by the same problem that has afflicted governments for as long as they have existed – governments are made up of people, and people can be bad. The Founders, in their wisdom, sought to limit the harm bad actors could do once in power, and the FEC's current structure adheres to this principle. Currently, the consequences of bad actors in the FEC is dysfunction and frustration. But under H.R. 1's reforms, those consequences could be blatant corruption.

Michael Rieger is a contributor for Young Voices. Follow him on Twitter at @EagerRieger.

'This is craziness': Why Dems have shunned Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz

Wikimedia

On Monday's radio program, Glenn Beck and Stu Burguiere discussed former Starbucks CEO and progressive Howard Schultz, a lifelong Democrat who has not only been disowned by the Democrat Party but he can no longer set foot inside of a Starbucks store because of his success in business.

In this clip, Stu explained how at one time Starbucks only sold coffee in bags until Schultz, an employee at the time, convinced the company to open a Starbucks cafe.

Click here to watch the full episode.

At one point, the owners came close to closing down the cafe, but Schultz eventually managed to purchase the company and transform it into the empire that it is today.

Stu continued, describing how Schultz, a lifelong Democrat, went on to implement liberal corporate policies that earned the company a reputation for being a "beacon" of liberalism across the country.

"And now he (Schultz) can't even get into the Democrat Party," Stu said."That is craziness," Glenn replied.

Citing a "60 Minutes" interview, Glenn highlighted the journey that Schultz traveled, which started in the New York City projects and evolved, later becoming the CEO of a coffee empire.

"This guy is so American, so everything in business that we want to be, he has taken his beliefs and made it into who he is which is very liberal," Glenn explained.

Catch more of the conversation in the video below.


This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

CLOSER LOOK: Who is Rep. Rashida Tlaib?

Wikepedia

This weekend, March 17, Rep. Rashida Tlaib will be speaking at (Council on American Islamic Relations) CAIR-Michigan's 19th annual "Faith-Led, Justice Driven" banquet.

Who knows what to expect. But here are some excerpts from a speech she gave last month, at CAIR-Chicago's 15th annual banquet.

RELATED: CLOSER LOOK: Who is Rep. Ilhan Omar?

You know the speech is going to be good when it begins like this:


CAIR-Chicago 15th Annual Banquet: Rashida Tlaib youtu.be


It's important to remember CAIR's ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Think of CAIR as a spinoff of HAMAS, who its two founders originally worked for via a Hamas offshoot organization (the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP)).

A 2009 article in Politico says feds "designated CAIR a co-conspirator with the Holy Land Foundation, a group that was eventually convicted for financing terrorism."

The United Arab Emirates has designated CAIR a terrorist organization.

In 1993, CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper told a reporter for the Minneapolis Star Tribune:

I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future.

In 1998, CAIR co-founder Omar Ahmad said:

Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran … should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.

Notice the slight underhanded jab at Israel. It's just one of many in her speech, and is indicative of the growing anti-Semitism among Democrats, especially Tlaib and Omar.

Most of the speech, as you might expect, is a long rant about the evil Donald Trump.

I wonder if she realizes that the Birth of Jesus pre-dates her religion, and her "country." The earliest founding of Palestine is 1988, so maybe she's a little confused.

Then there's this heartwarming story about advice she received from Congressman John Dingell:

When I was a state legislator, I came in to serve on a panel with him on immigration rights, and Congressman Dingell was sitting there and he had his cane, if you knew him, he always had this cane and he held it in front of him. And I was so tired, I had driven an hour and a half to the panel discussion at the University of Michigan Ann Arbor campus. And I sit down, my hair is all messed up, and I said, 'Oh, my God, I'm so tired of this. I don't know how you've been doing it so long Congressman. They all lie.' And he looks at me and he goes. (She nods yes.) I said, 'You know who I'm talking about, these lobbyists, these special interest [groups], they're all lying to me.' … And he looks at me, and he goes, 'Young lady, there's a saying in India that if you stand still enough on a riverbank, you will watch your enemies float by dead.'

What the hell does that mean? That she wants to see her enemies dead? Who are her enemies? And how does that relate to her opening statement? How does it relate to the "oppression" her family faced at the hand of Israel?

Amid accusations of anti-Semitism, Omar and Tlaib to speak at fundraisers for terror-linked organization

Glenn Beck on Wednesday called out Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) for their blatantly anti-Semitic rhetoric, which has largely been excused by Democratic leadership. He noted the sharp contrast between the progressive principles the freshmen congresswomen claim to uphold and the anti-LGBTQ, anti-feminist, anti-Israel groups they align themselves with.

Later this month, both congresswomen are scheduled to speak at fundraisers for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a pro-Palestinian organization with ties to Islamic terror groups including Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, and the Islamic State.

Rep. Tlaib will be speaking at CAIR-Michigan's 19th Annual Banquet on March 17 in Livonia, Michigan, alongside keynote speaker Omar Suleiman, a self-described student of Malcolm X with links to the Muslim Brotherhood. Suleiman has regularly espoused notably "un-progressive" ideas, such as "honor killings" for allegedly promiscuous women, mandatory Hijabs for women, death as a punishment for homosexuality, and men having the right to "sex slaves," Glenn explained.

Rep. Omar is the keynote speaker at a CAIR event on March 23 in Los Angeles and will be joined by Hassan Shibly, who claims Hezbollah and Hamas are not terrorist organizations, and Hussam Ayloush, who is known for referring to U.S. armed forces as radical terrorists.

Watch the clip below for more:


This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.