“I feel like I’ve been fired by America,” says Cracker Barrel CEO Julie Masino, in a vulnerable tell-all that goes behind the scenes into the explosive Cracker Barrel rebrand which Glenn describes as “stupid from start to finish.” In August 2025, Cracker Barrel unveiled a minimal new logo with modern fonts, cozy colors....no nice old man....and no BARREL for him to lean on. But it wasn’t just the logo; the restaurant chain was also getting a “modern” remodel. In short: We hated it. Social media erupted with brutal reviews, calling it “minimalist,” “soulless” and “downright ugly.” Cracker Barrel stock tanked, their attempt to tamp down the pushback backfired, and it looked like this was their “Bud Light moment.” But then, Cracker Barrel surprised us. They listened. Within weeks, they scrapped the new logo, reinstated the original, and hit pause on every remodel. “Covid even made Cracker Barrel start drinking,” says Doug Hisel, Senior Vice President of Store operations, as he takes Glenn behind the scenes as to what REALLY led to moment that brought Cracker Barrel to its knees. In Julie’s first interview since her time on “Good Morning America” when she said the response to the new logo, “was overwhelmingly positive,” she is here to say to America: “I’m sorry....I regret it.” Now the question is: will America forgive her?
©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Cracker Barrel CEO Finally Addresses ‘Woke’ Rebrand Controversy | The Glenn Beck Podcast | Ep 275
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.
How a Scandalous Political "Reporter" REALLY Got Her Juicy Stories | Olivia Nuzzi Exposed
Washington’s media bubble is imploding after explosive revelations that reporter Olivia Nuzzi carried on an emotional affair with RFK Jr. while covering him during the presidential race. The scandal has spiraled into leaked love letters, a derailed engagement, allegations of multiple political affairs, and a sudden firing that exposes the collapse of journalistic ethics in D.C. As new details surface involving Mark Sanford and Keith Olbermann, the story reveals a deeper truth about how power, access, and media influence really work behind the scenes.
Transcript
Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors
STU: Okay. Olivia Nuzzi. Do you know who she is?
GLENN: She's a reporter, right?
STU: Okay. Yes. Reporter. Very famous, inside DC, New York circles famous reporter.
GLENN: Lover, intellectual lover of RFK, if I'm not mistaken. Intellectual lover.
STU: Okay. Exactly. Yeah. So you remember the story.
GLENN: Not a lover lover.
STU: The story you don't know -- if you don't remember this, Glenn is referring to, is she was engaged to another reporter, Ryan Lizza, and it was revealed during this most recent presidential campaign that she was having an emotional affair of sorts with RFK Jr. Who as we -- you know, certainly has meant much to him during his life, but he is also married.
So he is -- so, I mean, he's a Kennedy. What do you expect here?
GLENN: He's a Kennedy. Yeah. Yes.
STU: He apparently, they were going back and forth, they had some sort of emotional affair going on.
And this is after she had written a profile about him.
So obviously, journalistically, there are ethical problems. As if they cared about ethical problems in journalism anymore.
This one rose to the level where she was fired. She's canned from her job.
She had this stratospheric rise in the media. She was -- remembering the time line right. She was hired. She wrote -- she was working for a campaign at one point.
She then wrote kind of an exposé of that campaign, that she worked for. And it got published in the New York Daily News.
Based off of just that, she was elevated to the main, like, political reporter at the Daily Beast, which shows you their particular standards.
She was 22, at the time, Glenn. Like, super young. This does not happen.
She wrote for a while there. People kind of like her writing. She also has the sort of throwback style. Very pretty. Kind of -- she has that mystique about her. And it was to the extent that they brought her to, I think, it was New York magazine. She wound up getting the lead political reporter job at that -- or, lead political columnist. A job they created for her. A position that did not exist previously.
And she's like 24 years old.
How has this happened?
GLENN: I think RFK has probably came up with other positions for 24-year-olds that didn't exist as well.
STU: Certainly, factually, accurate. Whether you want to say it or not, is another story, I suppose.
So, anyway, she goes through, and she breaks a lot of big stories. She's always getting odd amount of access to politicians, that you don't understand. You know, all across the spectrum.
She breaks big stories. She always has these big details about it. She writes very colorfully about all these interactions with these politicians. Anyway, this whole scandal blows up with RFK Jr.
Her -- her engagement breaks off. She kind of goes into hiding. For a year.
In that year, she's apparently writing a book. And the book comes out today.
Now, all of this could be just already an amazing salacious story. However, on the day before her book release, her ex-fiancé, also a reporter, releases a story about how he found out about all of -- all of the nonsense. Okay?
GLENN: Oh, good.
STU: And he writes that she comes back from a trip. And he uncovers some napkins from a hotel with a bunch of writing on it. Which turn out to be a love letter to the politician.
Which, again, in her book.
GLENN: Written by her.
STU: Written by her. In her book, she never says RFK Jr's name. She describes his relationship in detail. Never says the name. Just calls him "the politician."
Because I assume, because he might sue or whatever. Who knows?
You know, she doesn't want to be -- she doesn't -- she doesn't want to call him out by name. Every detail is quite clear in the book. It's quite clear it's about him.
GLENN: Yeah. She might find him in the bottom of a river.
(laughter)
GLENN: I'm just -- I'm just saying. I don't know what else could happen.
STU: The thing I love about this particular segment is that I would love to give you this story at any time.
The fact that you're deep on back medication right now is the perfect time for you to --
GLENN: I'm not on medication. I'm actually not on medication.
I'm just in so much pain, I just don't care.
STU: Whatever is making you delirious, I love it.
GLENN: Right. Got it.
STU: So the Ryna Lizza piece comes out. It's called How I Found Out. He goes through the whole details. He finds the napkins, finds the love letter, written on the napkins.
Okay. And in the love letter, it says, if I swallowed every drop of water from the tower above your house, I would still thirst for you.
Now -- I just love it.
Now, they live in DC, Glenn.
As you may know, not a lot of water towers in their home in DC. She realized, this is not a love letter to me, but someone else.
Finally, she starts going in and realizing, this is about a famous politician.
We go through the same -- goes through the whole story and finds out, there's a lot of detail about everything.
This is going to blow up their life. He realizes, it's going to be a problem. He calls his publicist, of course. This is what you do when you're one of these DC insider reporters, you call your publicist. And he says, we have a big problem.
Olivia is sleeping with Mark Sanford, a totally different politician.
GLENN: Oh, my gosh.
STU: This is a totally different affair.
GLENN: Mark Sanford. Wasn't he -- he was in Virginia, wasn't he?
STU: No, South Carolina.
GLENN: South Carolina, that's right. That's right. Who went for a walk one day, and just never showed up.
STU: Yes! And remember, he was like, oh, he's out on the Appalachian Trail, and then they found out he was actually.
GLENN: That's right.
STU: He was actually hooking up --
GLENN: Yeah. Under a water tower.
STU: Right. With a person he called his soul mate. Which I guess that was true for a time. They got together after that old relationship got broken up. Then they got back together.
And he got together with the soul mate. Then that broke up. And then he's rerunning for president if you remember, Glenn, in 2020, against Donald Trump. And making the pitch that, you know, I'm -- I've turned my life around. At that time, apparently, allegedly, sleeping with this reporter who profiled him, same exact thing that happened with RFK Jr. Except that, you know, we don't know. At least, there's no allegations that they actually wound up consummating the RFK Jr relationship.
In the story, however, in addition to all of this, we also get additional details of a relationship that Olivia Nuzzi had when she was 21 years old with Keith Olbermann.
GLENN: Oh, my gosh. Oh, my gosh.
STU: I mean, the story is almost too good to tell.
GLENN: Oh, my gosh. So she's like -- what was the spy's name, you know, that was sleeping with everybody -- like Whory Harriet or something like that. I mean, is that how she gets the stories? She just sleeps with these people?
STU: I don't know. Seemingly, this does occur on a pretty regular basis in this situation.
GLENN: Wow.
STU: And, you know, we ran out of time. Tomorrow, we should do the Olbermann's part of the saga, which is absolutely fascinating.
GLENN: Oh, we must.
STU: They seem to be accusing him of something in this piece. Which is above and beyond just hooking up. So that's something we should talk about tomorrow as well.
GLENN: Oh, I will -- I'll just write it down now. I'm scheduling -- scheduling the Keith Olbermann segment for tomorrow.
A Secret Cracker Barrel Warehouse Holds the Truth About the Remodel Scandal | Glenn TV | Ep 470
When Cracker Barrel began remodeling select locations and stripped away the nostalgic décor that defined its brand, customers erupted in outrage, asking: Has the poster child of Americana gone woke? The intense public backlash and financial fallout forced executives to pause their modernization plans. For the first time since the backlash, Glenn Beck gained exclusive access to the center of the controversy and Cracker Barrel’s massive warehouse of Americana antiques in Lebanon, Tennessee. There, Joe Stewart — the man tasked with telling America’s story through the chain’s iconic wall decorations — shares his reaction to the controversial remodel. Plus, Glenn unveils an exclusive first look at his no-holds-barred interview with Cracker Barrel CEO Julie Masino in her first on-camera appearance since her "Good Morning America" interview.
Watch the full interview Thursday, November 20, on BlazeTV and Glenn’s YouTube channel.
The HIDDEN reason Democrats URGED the military to DEFY Trump
A group of prominent Democrats recently put out a video urging the military and CIA to defy any "unlawful" orders from President Trump. On the surface, Glenn agrees with their message. But he explains why he believes it was never meant for the military. It was part of a campaign to sow seeds of doubt into the minds of average Americans...
Transcript
Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors
GLENN: So let's start with Venezuela. The New York Times is now reporting that Trump has been said to authorize CIA plans for covert action in Venezuela.
Now, when I read this story, I thought to myself, didn't I read this story about three or four weeks ago?
I think this is the exact story. Correct me if I'm wrong. Do you remember it?
I think this was the exact story that the New York Times or someone else came out with, about four weeks ago.
We have Jason here, who watches this kind of stuff. Am I right on thinking that, Jason?
JASON: Just heard this. Thirty-four weeks ago or a month ago.
GLENN: Yeah. Right. There's nothing new here.
So what exactly is the New York Times doing?
JASON: Uh-huh. They're parroting what they were slipped from their unnamed source. Imagine that!
GLENN: So what do you mean, they were slipped from an unnamed source? What do you mean by that?
JASON: There's no way this is a leak. Like, oh, we've got to get this out. Because it's like, atrocious that this was happening. This is approved.
GLENN: Yeah, this is something -- this is something that you're seeing the Deep State in action. Somebody wants to make sure that this is -- that this is -- circled around. So everybody is like, oh, my gosh. What are we doing in Venezuela?
What are we doing in Venezuela?
We already told you what we're doing in Venezuela. This is to secure the western hemisphere. To get China out of the western hemisphere.
This has everything to do with that little training island. That we told you about, a year or two ago. Where Hamas and Hezbollah are training people in Venezuela, just off the coast.
That's what this is about. This is to stop the infiltration of the Islamic radicals. In cahoots with Maduro. In Venezuela. That's what this is about.
And the Chinese are an extra added benefit. You know, don't believe the -- well, it's the drugs. If it was the drug thing, we would be going after Mexico.
I mean, not that that doesn't play a role. But it's only part of the story. And we've told you that. And now, you know, Trump authoring plans for the CIA. Yeah. We know that. You said that to us, long ago.
Now, at the same time that is happening, there was a video that was released from the Democrats. Now, these are Democrats that are currently, you know, in power.
Big name Democrats. And listen to what they're telling the troops and Intel officers. Listen to this.
VOICE: I'm Senator Alyssa Socket.
VOICE: Senator Mark Kelly.
VOICE: Representative Chris Deluzio.
VOICE: Congresswoman (inaudible).
VOICE: Representative Chrissy Houlahan.
VOICE: Congressman Jason Kraut. I was a captain in the United States Navy.
VOICE: Former CIA officer.
VOICE: Former Navy.
VOICE: Former paratrooper and Army Ranger.
VOICE: Former intelligence officer and former Air Force.
VOICE: We want to speak directly to members of the military.
VOICE: The intelligence community.
VOICE: Who take risks each day.
VOICE: To keep Americans safe.
VOICE: We know you are under enormous stress and pressure right now.
VOICE: Americans trust their military.
VOICE: But that trust is at risk.
VOICE: This administration is pitting our uniformed military.
VOICE: And intelligence community professionals.
VOICE: Against American citizens.
VOICE: Like us, you all swore an oath.
VOICE: To protect and defend this Constitution.
VOICE: Right now, the threats to our Constitution aren't just coming from abroad, but from right here at home.
VOICE: Our laws are clear: You can refuse illegal orders.
VOICE: You can refuse illegal orders.
VOICE: You must refuse illegal orders.
VOICE: No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution.
VOICE: We know this is hard. And that it's a till time to be a public servant.
VOICE: But whether you're serving in the CIA, the army, the Air Force.
VOICE: Your vigilance is critical.
VOICE: And know that we have your back.
VOICE: Because now, more than ever.
VOICE: The American people need you.
VOICE: We need to you stand up for our laws.
VOICE: Our Constitution. And who we are as Americans.
VOICE: Don't give up.
VOICE: Don't give up.
VOICE: Don't give up.
VOICE: Don't give up the ship.
GLENN: Hmm.
So I'm looking at this, and I'm thinking, I agree 100 percent with everything they just said. 100 percent.
My question is: Why are they saying?
What illegal orders?
And why now? Are you telling me that all of the stuff with USAID, all of the stuff that was going on with the FBI with our intelligence community. With Russia, Russia, Russia. All of that stuff was on the up and up? They had no concern about that?
When -- when Barack Obama was targeting US citizens to be droned.
US citizens to be droned. They had no problem with it?
And now all of a sudden, because of what? Venezuela?
Now, all of a sudden, they have a problem. No. I don't think so.
I think this is a -- this is the beginning of a campaign.
And again, all it does is sew seeds of doubt, not in the mind of the military.
Not in the mind -- well, maybe CIA. But I think CIA is off their own if territory, anyway.
This sows seeds of doubt in the mind of average Americans. They're now sewing seeds saying, Donald Trump is doing something unconstitutional with our military.
What is it?
Speak clearly. Don't say we're under pressure! Speak clearly.
What exactly is he doing that is unconstitutional, that they should -- that they should disobey. I would like to know what it is. Because all this is doing is undermining.
STU: Is it Venezuela?
Like, did they state --
GLENN: No. They didn't say that. No.
STU: Just generalized advice. Whatever you do -- don't -- like, that seems really sketchy. Because we were talking this a little bit off the air. That, like, there's a version of that, that is like treasonous. Right?
You're telling me, the military to not listen to the commander-in-chief. Now, I don't think that was the version of it, that is treasonous.
I think that was worded very carefully. And as you point out. I don't think anyone would disagree, that if there's something blatantly illegal, you shouldn't be doing it.
But I guess their idea is some of -- is that Venezuela.
Are they trying to encourage these people to not drone the ships.
What's the ask here?
GLENN: I don't know. They didn't mention -- I don't know. They're just sending out. That's why this seems so unbelievably calculated to cause chaos.
Because they're not sewing seeds in the doubt of the mind of the military. They are sewing the seeds of doubt in the mind of the US public.
This went out to everybody in the whole world.
And what it's sending is a message to the whole world.
Our president is so bad, that we in Congress, need to tell -- tell the military, do not obey him.
Well, can you be specific?
On what exactly? On what, exactly?
No. They -- they can't be specific. If you could be, I would have no problem.
If you came out with that message, and you said, look, we just want to restate the policy of the United States.
Whether the president is a Republican or a Democrat, you do not have to obey the commander of chief, if he is asking for things that are unconstitutional.
For instance, if he asks you to do X, Y, or Z.
They're not just talking about as well, as the military. What's intriguing to me is they're also including the CIA.
Who in their right mind today, thinks the CIA is under control?
Who in their right mind thinks the CIA is actually living within the Constitutional bounds. Because I don't. To a?
Do you know anybody who thinks that? Left or right?
Does anybody within the sound of my vice, thinks that the CIA is actually contained and living in its own little space, constitutionally, where it should be?
Does anyone actually believe that they answer to Congress?
Because I don't. Do you, Stu? Do you, Jason?
JASON: I -- I think the establishment of the CIA is actually anti-constitutional. To be perfectly honest, I don't think an organization like the CIA can operate within the bounds of disclosure, with, you know, letting Congress know everything that they're doing. It can't operate that way. So I think all too many times, they understand that. And they just do whatever the heck they want to do.
GLENN: Yeah. It's all black ops. It's all black ops stuff. And, you know, look at what -- where was this message when we found out from -- what was the guy who blew the whistle and went to Russia? What was his name?
STU: Snowden?
JASON: Snowden.
GLENN: Snowden. Where was this message with Snowden?
When that came out. Hey, if you're in the NSA, you're in the CIA, you can't be doing this stuff. So blow the whistle.
Where was that?
Where has this message been with any of the whistle-blowers have come out. Where was this with the whistle-blowers that were coming out today, about what the CIA has been doing. What the intelligence community has been involved in.
Where was this message?
This is not an honest message.
That's the problem with this. This is not an honest message. This is part of Colour Revolution. This is just, sew the seeds of doubt.
Make sure you are positioning the president as somebody who is so radical, and so unconstitutional. That they have to tell the military, not to obey his orders. Without any specifics, whatsoever.
That's pretty remarkable!
Because, again, I don't have a problem with saying that. We're one of the only countries. You do not answer to the president of the United States. You do not answer to your general.
You answer to the Constitution of the United States.
That's absolutely true!
So I have no problem with this message being taught. It should be taught by every single president. President!
But it's not. They have seen so many abuses under their rule, and now, all of a sudden, you get this?
Where -- where was this message when the president used the military as a prop? Behind him in the speech where it was blood red, and Biden was saying, these are enemies of the state!
You can't do that with the military. Where was this message, from anyone?
Hey. You cannot be used as a prop behind the president. You cannot do that.
I didn't hear anybody saying that. Because they don't have a problem with it.
If it's their side, they don't have a problem with it. I have a problem with it, on both sides. I want the military -- I want the military. Let me separate these.
I want the military to know. We have your back. If the president. Any president is ordering you to do things that are unconstitutional. Do not do them.
Do not do them. Blow the whistle and the American people should have your back. I know I will have your back.
To the -- to intelligence community, you better stop doing what you're doing.
Because I know the American people. And I don't know if you can be stopped. But I know the American people know that you're doing things that you should not be doing. And you're doing them under every president for God only knows how long.
Stop doing it. Because if we ever get into the position where we can stop you, we will.
And the American people will demand a trial for every single one of you that was breaking the Constitution.
Don't care who ordered you to do it.
It's your responsibility to say no.
And you haven't. You haven't.
Start saying no, to any president, any boss, anybody who is telling you to violate the US Constitution.
Don't do it. Don't do it!
But, but I don't think that's the reason why they're saying it.
JASON: No, and they know this. Because all of them are -- are -- are veterans of the military or the intelligence community. They know, and I've gone through these before. This is stating the obvious.
This is already taught within -- from the lowest enlistment ranks, all the way up to the top, you know, within officer school within the military. There are procedures, if you ever have an unlawful order, how to, you know -- you know, work through it. And report it.
GLENN: Stu, what do you think this is really about? What are they doing?
STU: It feels like it's about politics. Right? I mean, it feels like they are trying to build a case that the president is continually engaging in things that are illegal and unconstitutional. And like, you bring up Colour Revolution.
I think it's -- I think it's -- I think there's a political element to that. And I think they may very well be related. But if you think about -- it might be about Venezuela. But I don't think the American people really care about that story.
I don't know that that's necessarily healthy that we don't care about it. I think there are real questions about the process here. And how this all went down. I almost feel like it's more related to something like immigration enforcement.
Right? In the United States. And that's not. Because we've talked about the -- the military being involved in cracking down on cities. And -- and things of that nature. Where like, you know, we've talked about the questions around them. There are legitimate questions about how much can be done in that realm.
I wonder if they're trying to kind of set that precedent. This sort of tone, that the president is engaging in these things.
And slowly, over time, you can build to not only a political answer. Maybe the Colour Revolution angle. And also the chaos in the streets angle.
At some point, if you believe your president is doing unconstitutional things and forcing the military of the United States to engage in actions that are unconstitutional against the American people. Man, you're going to get a lot of people out on the streets for that one, if this thing were to be successful.
So I think that might be the path. Do you buy that?
GLENN: Yeah, I do. I just think that the main goal here is just to undermine credibility.
Undermine. Tear us apart even more. Undermine credibility, sow the sees of chaos once again.