Colbert testifies before Congress

Joke: Colbert testifies before Congress

 


STU: Yes.

GLENN: Stephen Colbert, in something that is-- it's not his fault. It is

Congress making a mockery out of Congress.

STU: It's his fault, too.

PAT: Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Stu. I knew you would be with me.

GLENN: Why is it his fault?

STU: Well, because he didn't have to obviously accept to go to Congress and make

an idiot out of himself in front of it.

PAT: He knows it's a mockery.

GLENN: Did he make it into--

STU: Yes. What it's known by the kiddies as a fail, an epic fail. He went up and

tried to do comedy in front of Congress and he looked like an ass and that's

what happened.

PAT: He's doing it for his show. He's doing it for his show. Look. If this were

you and you were testifying before Congress, what, on the FOX show or the radio

show, you would be vilified by every--

GLENN: Of course I would, but that's a different-- look. Here's the thing. I

mean, you want to see Congress just humiliating themselves where I would have

been humiliated had I done that. Let's say the roles were reversed and the

Republicans were in Congress and they said, we want you to come up and we want

you to testify, I wouldn't have done it because I would have thought it was

wrong. Do you know what I mean? You're not doing comedy in Congress at these

times. It's wrong. It's an insult to the American people.

PAT: You may be at some point to testify in the Goldline thing. I mean, that

could happen in a real way.

GLENN: No, I won't. The-- here it is. He goes up in front of Congress and he's

by invitation of the progressive left, of the chairperson. So, this would be

like me being invited to go speak by the conservatives and then what happens?

And then me being humiliated by the conservatives because that's what's

happened. Can you play the audio here? And Stephen Colbert, he didn't have his

mike on at this time. So, you can't really hear his response until the very end,

but listen to what happened. This is John Conyers now looking at Stephen

Colbert, just a little while ago. Stephen Colbert goes to Congress in character

to, quote, testify, and here's what John Conyers says.

CONYERS: But I would like to recommend that now that we've got all this

attention, that you excuse yourself and that you let us get on with the three

witnesses and all the other members there and we-- we're sure it will be shown

on the show tonight and maybe Monday-- I don't know-- you run your show. We

run the committee, but what do you say to that, Stephen? You didn't hear the

question? You don't understand the question? The question was that-- no, I'm

not asking you not to talk. I'm asking you to leave the committee room

completely and submit your statement, instead.


Video: Stephen Colbert in front of Congress

PAT: Now Colbert is trying to respond, but his mike isn't on.

GLENN: Right. And he looks-- you can see he looks like a regular citizen right

now just like, Wait a minute.

VOICE: I'm wondering if -- Mr. Colbert's microphone is on. He can't be heard,

but whether having posed the question, we could listen to Mr. Lungren and Mr.

Colbert can ponder what you said. I think many are eager to hear his comments.

CONYERS: That's fair enough.

PAT: Now somebody's about to come over and help him turn on a microphone. It's

difficult business.

COLBERT: -- chairwoman and if she would like me to remove myself from the

hearing room, I'm happy to do so. I'm only here at her petition.

VOICE: That is correct.

CONYERS: Thank you very much. That's fair enough.

VOICE: The gentleman's time has expired.

GLENN: Listen to that.

PAT: Okay.

GLENN: That is incredible. I am only here at the chairwoman's invitation. If she

would like me to remove myself, I'm more than willing to do that. That's being

invited over to somebody's house and then the-- you know, other people throwing

the party, the other people at the party, in front of a whole crowd, says, do

you know what? You are so inappropriate to even have you at this party, why

don't you excuse yourself now, in front of everybody and then saying, well,

Okay, I was only invited by this person over here. I mean, thought humiliating.

They have humiliated Stephen--

PAT: Oh, I know. I know

STU: I feel terrible about that.

PAT: It rips my heart out.

GLENN: Guys--

STU: Don't care.

PAT: He's such a good guy.

STU: What a brilliant--

PAT: I hate to see that to a wonderful man like Stephen Colbert.

GLENN: I mean this sincerely. Do you know -- do you know him? Do you know of

him? Do you know his personal life? Is he--

PAT: No.

GLENN: Is he despicable human being?

PAT: I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about what he does. I'm talking

about the charade he does. I'm talking about the viciousness of him. I'm talking

about--

GLENN: Wait, wait, wait.

STU: The boring schtick he does every night, the same thing all the time.

GLENN: His viciousness, his viciousness, you're saying in our time in comedy we

haven't been vicious? When we were doing comedy, Pat, we weren't vicious? Comedy

is ugly.

PAT: Well, but if anything happened to us, we deserved it then. I mean, if--

because of our viciousness, because of the shtick we did and something that

happened and sometimes it did and sometimes it did and sometimes we were set up

and sometimes we were sued by people, then we deserved it. We deserved it.

STU: He's making a mockery of a very serious situation.

PAT: He knows it's a mockery.

STU: He's doing it there to promote his stupid show. He is in character, not

trying to talk about his actual experience. He's in character making jokes to an

audience that isn't laughing, by the way, and it's just a-- it's just pathetic.

It's worse-- yeah. I did watch a good portion of it.

GLENN: What happened?

STU: It was in shtick. All in character and shtick. It was like, oh, it's

really-- he was trying to make jokes about how hard it was to work out there.

It was boring, typical nonsense that he does on his show and being completely

clear, Congress is much worse than him for inviting him. He is--

PAT: Yeah.

STU: I mean, compared to them, he's, you know, a borderline sanity, but, you

know, it's just pathetic for him. He shouldn't have taken it. He looked horrible

doing it. It wasn't funny and Congress is pathetic for allowing that to happen.

That's just a disgrace. It's boring and it's a disgrace.

PAT: He's a willing participant in this kabuki circus. He's a willing

participant in it. So, for him to get humiliated, I don't have an ounce, not an

ounce of sympathy for him, not oneounce. Sorry. I just can't--

STU: I know. I think Conyers comes off looking good there. At least--

PAT: Conyers does.

GLENN: You know, Conyers once in awhile is surprising.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Conyers once in awhile is surprising. I disagree with a lot that he says

but once in awhile, the man has some dignity.

STU: He does.

PAT: Isn't he the read the bill? Yeah. Same guy.

GLENN: I get a kick out of these people who say read the bill, but once in a

while, he'll say something -- well, for instance, what was it with the ACORN

thing? Remember, he was, like, do you know what? Maybe we should have this, we

should have this hearing. Don't shut this down. Let's listen to this.

PAT: They shut him down.

GLENN: They shut him down big time.

PAT: But he was right at the beginning saying, yeah, let's look into it. He

didn't do it.

GLENN: No, he didn't. He didn't follow through. Who is the woman who came in and

saved Stephen?

PAT: I don't know. She was the committee chair. I don't know who that is.

GLENN: You know, I think that-- you know, look. We are just in a--

everything's being-- everything's changing. Everything is changing and no one

knows what anything is anymore. Congress is being made a joke. There's no way

Stephen Colbert would have done that five years ago. Would he have done that?

PAT: I don't know. Again, I--

GLENN: I don't know him.

PAT: I don't know him.

GLENN: But, I mean, you know, you don't-- you don't make Congress into a

mockery more than they already are. The institution of Congress, you don't do

that. Congress wouldn't have invited five years ago and if they were wrong--

they would have invited me-- it would have been wrong. It was wrong to take it.

STU: It would have been bad if you were doing character. I mean, you know, if

you were--

GLENN: No, no. Yeah, if you're invited-- if he did that and he was, like, you

know, go and work and then testify because you're a star or whatever --

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: -- you know, that's like bringing--

PAT: That's different.

Glenn: Yeah. That's bringing George Clooney, who I thinkGeorge --

PAT: Any of those guys.

GLENN: George Clooney actually believes in the horrors of Darfur and Rwanda.

PAT: And fighting against it.

GLENN: Yeah. He believes that -- no. He believes in--

PAT: I just wanted to make that clear.

GLENN: He believes deeply in it. He is sincere about that. He is. I've talked to

him personally. He is sincere about that and I respect him for that. I disagree

with his answers, but he is sincere about it. So, to have somebody like George

Clooney or somebody like that come and speak on something, you can understand

it. In character, no, and then beyond that, I mean, I just-- I guess I feel bad

for Stephen Colbert because he was invited into their house.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: And it wasn't an opposition member who said this is a mockery. It was

their own team. The people who invited him embarrassed him.

STU: Yeah, but he is going to get on there and he is going to get all sorts of

coverage for this. Everyone is going to watch it and, of course, the media is

going to blindly praise him for being funny when he wasn't, because he always

gets that and, you know, for him it's all upside. The only thing he was supposed

to do there was actually be funny which he was unsuccessful with, but that's

fine. He's going to get praised for it, anyway.

GLENN: I haven't seen it and you have a thing with these two. You have been done

with them for about a year on-- you just-- I mean, you used to think they were

funny.

STU: I never was a big Colbert guy, I will say. I still think Stewart is

occasionally funny. It's a little boring after all these years, but, still,

Colbert is the same shtick every day. As you said, it's the dragon cat every

night for a half an hour. It's a Saturday Night Live sketch.

GLENN: Okay. Hang on just a second, though. Isn't-- David Letterman's top 10

list, I mean, how-- that started in 1985.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: But that's only one little segment in his show. It doesn't hurt that much.

When you're doing-- is it half an hour or an hour?

STU: Half an hour, I think.

PAT: Half an hour every day of the same stupid, inane thing. Okay. , we get it.

We got it five years ago. It's still not working. Move on. Do you know what it

worked as? It worked as a segment-- didn't it start as a segment on Stewart's

show? Isn't that what the deal was?

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: He was an investigative reporter and he was very funny.

STU: It was funny then. It was funny then, but, I mean, -- and everyone treats

him like he's this big success. He comes out. He does an interview for a few

minutes. He has, you know, a couple of bits here and there and he drops off,

what, 40% of Jon Stewart's ratings. Congratulations. What a miracle success

story. Oh, wow. We should all surround him and praise him and call him in front

of Congress. It's just a boring sketch. It's a sketch every night. I mean, it's

not-- he's dropping 40% of Stewart's ratings, 40%. How is that a success?!

GLENN: Stu loses sleep over this.

STU: No. I don't care. I just think it's funny. It's one of those things that

he's built up as we are supposed to take his nonsense seriously. Okay. Maybe if

you wanted to have-- when all the Republicans were in control, maybe it was

ballsy to have this character that's making fun of the right. Have you noticed?

You have control of the entire government. If you were going to be a bad ass and

go against the grain, you would have someone out there parroting liberals, but

you don't because it's the same shtick over and over and over again. Amen

 

Legal scholar and famed criminal defense attorney Alan Dershowitz has a message for partisans dividing America: "A plague on both your houses." He voted for Hillary Clinton. He endorsed Joe Biden. He's a man who is basically the Forrest Gump of American judicial history.

Look up a big court case over the past few decades, and you'll probably see him standing in the background. He's represented notorious clients like Mike Tyson, Patty Hearst, Harry Reems, Harvey Weinstein, Jeffrey Epstein, and yes, Donald Trump. It's made him a target for both the left and right.

Alan also describes himself as a "civil libertarian," and that's probably why he and Glenn Beck get along despite their opposing political views. His story is like a history lesson, spanning half a century, and it just might be the key to bridging the political divide.

On this week's podcast, Alan explained that while he's a strong defender of the Constitution, he's never been a big fan of the Second Amendment. In the past he's called it absurd and outdated, and even today, he admits that he wouldn't have ingrained it into our Constitution if he was a framer. However, with the whole Bill of Rights under attack, he's now fully in defense of our right to bear arms. Because if the Second Amendment changes, any amendment could be next.

"I'm now a supporter of the Second Amendment. I don't want to change it. I don't want to change one word of it, because I'm afraid that if I get to change the Second Amendment, other people will get to change the First Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment," Alan said. "So, I am committed to preserving the Bill of Rights, every single word, every comma, and every space between the words."

Watch a clip from the full interview with Alan Dershowitz below:

Watch the full podcast below, on Glenn's YouTube channel, or on Blaze Media's podcast network.

Want to listen to more Glenn Beck podcasts?

Subscribe to Glenn Beck's channel on YouTube for FREE access to more of his masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, or subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Investigative reporter David Steinberg joined the radio program Monday, to explain how a new video may provide enough evidence to begin a FBI investigation into alleged illegal practices by Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar's campaign.

In the video, which was produced and released by Project Veritas, residents of Omar's community describe campaign teams that not only conduct illegal ballot harvesting practices but also pay people for their blank absentee ballots.

Steinberg told Glenn that, if these charges prove to be true, the federal government could bypass Omar's friend and protector, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison. Could 2020 be the beginning of the end for Omar's political career?

Watch the video below to catch Glenn's conversation with David Steinberg:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Mike Fratantuono is the manager of Sunset Restaurant in Glen Burnie, Maryland. He wrote in the Washington Post's COVID-19 series about the recent, heartbreaking loss of his business, a restaurant that has been in his family for "four generations and counting."

"I know this virus is real, okay? It's real and it's awful. I'm not disputing any of that," Mike wrote. "But our national hysteria is worse. We allowed the virus to take over our economy, our small businesses, our schools, our social lives, our whole quality of life. We surrendered, and now everything is infected."

On the radio program Monday, Glenn Beck reacted to Mike's letter, which he shared in full, adding his hope that those in government are ultimately held responsible for what he called the biggest theft of the Western world.

"This is the biggest theft of, not only money, but of heritage and of hope," Glenn said. "The United States government and many of the states are responsible for this, not you. And hopefully someday soon, we'll return to some semblance of sanity, and those responsible for this theft, this rape of the Western world, will be held responsible."

Watch the video below for more details:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

We did our homework over the weekend; we did the research so we can tell you what is likely coming from Senate Democrats regarding President Trump's Supreme Court Nominee Amy Coney Barrett. Based on our research and the anonymous people who have already come forward to talk about Coney Barrett's youth, these are the main shocking things you can expect Senate Democrats to seize on during the confirmation process…

A man has come forward under the banner of "#MenToo," to say that in second grade, Amy Coney Barrett and her best friend at the time, cornered him at a birthday party at Chuck-E-Cheese and "injected him with a full dose of cooties." Which, if true, would obviously be disqualifying for serving on the highest court in the land.

Then there's a woman who says when she was nine-years-old, she lived on the same street as Amy Coney Barrett. She alleges that Coney-Barrett borrowed her VHS tape of Herbie Goes Bananas and did not return it for at least six months. And then when she did finally get the tape back, the woman says Coney Barrett did not even bother to rewind it. The FBI has interviewed at least two witnesses so far who say the tape was indeed not rewound and that it was very upsetting to the owner of the tape. Again, if true, this is troubling – clearly not the kind of integrity you want to see in a Supreme Court justice.

Apparently, in their elementary school days, they liked to drink milk – and lots of it.

The same neighbor also dropped a bombshell allegation about the drinking problem of Amy Coney Barrett and her closest friends. Apparently, in their elementary school days, they liked to drink milk – and lots of it. The neighbor says she "frequently" witnessed Coney-Barrett and her friends chugging entire cartons of milk – often Whole Milk, sometimes Chocolate Milk, occasionally both at the same time through a funnel.

Unfortunately, shooting-up cooties, injurious rewinding, and potential calcium-abuse are not even the worst of it.

A third person has now come forward, another man, and this is just reprehensible, it's hard to even fathom. But he alleges that in fourth grade, when they were around ten-years-old, Amy Coney Barrett and a group of "four or five of her friends" gang-GRAPED him on the playground during recess. He alleges the group of friends snuck uneaten grapes out of the cafeteria and gang-GRAPED him repeatedly in broad daylight. In other words, and I hate to have to spell this out because it's kind of graphic, but the group led by ten-year-old Amy Coney Barrett pelted this poor defenseless boy with whole grapes. He recalls them "laughing the whole time" as they were gang-GRAPING him.

He recalls them "laughing the whole time" as they were gang-GRAPING him.

Obviously, even if just one of these allegations is half-true, no Senator with a conscience could possibly vote to confirm Coney Barrett. When there is a clear pattern of destructive childhood behavior, it always continues into adulthood. Because people do not change. Ever.

Fortunately, for the sake of the Republic, Democrats plan to subpoena Coney Barrett's childhood diary, to see what, if any, insights it may provide into her calcium habits, as well as her abuse of illicit cooties and the gang-GRAPING incident.

We will keep you posted on the latest, but for now, it looks like Democrats will find plenty in the reckless pre-teen life of Amy Coney Barrett to cast doubt on her nomination. And if not, they can always fall back on her deranged preference for letting babies be born.

[NOTE: The preceding was a parody written by MRA writer Nathan Nipper.]