RADIOFebruary 21, 2023

Glenn’s powerful NATIONAL DIVORCE message: ‘I’m keeping the kids’

The far-left has labeled Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene a radical once again, this time for her push for a ‘national divorce’ in America. But if THAT is deemed ‘radical,’ then why hasn’t the far-left’s intense push to transform and destroy EVERYTHING we once loved about America ever been labeled the same? In this clip, Glenn gives HIS powerful message on a national divorce. He shows how America’s Democrats have dangerously transformed nearly every sector of society, describes what YOUR Constitutional (and peaceful) duty is as a response, and explains why establishing a strong relationship with God is needed now more than ever. Plus, what it means when Glenn says that if a divorce DOES occur, then conservatives are ‘keeping the kids...’

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So we need a national divorce. I want to make sure I'm very, very clear on this. We need a national divorce, she writes.

We need to separate by red states and blue states, and shrink the federal government.

So she's not saying destroy America.

She's saying, we should probably not do business with one another, because we're killing each other.

And shrink the federal government.

Okay. Everyone I talked to says this from sick, disgusting woke culture issues shoved down our throats, to the traitorous last -- America last policies, we're done. Okay. Then the response, all those who support Greene's call to end the US. She didn't say that. But let's just take her -- let's just take it at her -- you know, we should separate and have a national divorce. They should have their US citizenship revoked. Really?

Because I know a lot of people on the left, that have actually called for the USA to end. And they haven't their citizenship revoked. So if you want to do that, let's just be consistent.

Here's -- here's the way I look at things today.

Remember when they said they wanted to reimagine the police? Many of us thought, no, he they don't want us to reimagine the police. They want to reimagine everything. When it comes to the police, they want to reimagine the justice system. The system that we have had in place for over 200 years.

The system that is -- is dictated and designed by our Constitution. They wanted to redesign and reimagine all of that. They wanted to reimagine all of our history. They were taking down statues. They -- they were making George Washington into a monster.

They wanted to reimagine our basic way of life.

Now, a lot of us thought that was foolish. A lot of us thought that was foolish.

Now, there's a new study out, that shows the results of this. And it's been a two-year study. And if you're a long-time listener, you know I will admit when I'm wrong. And the study shows, right or wrong. The idea of zero bail and arrest and release. They are not foolish, as it turns out. They are extraordinarily dangerous as well.

Now, common sense told many Americans, that it's a disaster. You don't do that. You don't just throw something out.

This is important.

You don't just throw something out, and say, let's reimagine. What's your plan?

What are you -- what are the steps you are going to take? What are you replacing it with?

Now, they've been studying this since June 2021. And they are dramatic. And there are no two ways to read the results. I'll quickly just give you this. If you had a zero bail policy, it appears as though more than 70 percent now of those who were released without bail, were -- went on to be arrested for additional crimes.

Okay? Seventy-eight percent of suspects released without bail were found to be rearrested for crimes. And if you gave bail, only 46 percent were arrested.

So that's really, really clear. And this is just one thing, of the reimagining of our entire system.

So we know reimagining war, how that's working out for us. Reimagining our military. Reimagining our Middle East policy.

We know how those things are working out for us.

So the left -- and let's go back to the police forces. The left forced a reimagining on our police forces, all across the country.

They got their way. No bail.

They reimagined the district attorneys with George Soros. They imagined all of it. Did it help?

Did it help the criminal? Or did it help the victim?

Did it help black people, white people, Hispanics? The communities.

Is life better in those communities. For anyone.

Is life safer for either the victim, the offender, or the community?

Is our law enforcement better, did it fix the rogue cop problem? Are our cops feeling like, they're not the bad guy, with no one watching their back?

Or do they feel like they are the bad guy, and no one is watching their back?

See, this goes to one piece of the entire puzzle, that they have been putting together.

And a society cannot survive very long, with lawlessness. And a free society, even less. So now that the results are officially in, on just this one topic, will the cities admit they're wrong?

Will they change this policy?

Will mayors, governors, legislatures, attorneys general, reign in this grossly failed experiment?

Well, my guess is no. Why? Again, I would have to go to common sense. A couple of things, one, admitting that you're wrong is very difficult, and politicians don't usually do it. But they also have this thing with Marxism, where they say the same thing after every Marxist, authoritarian failure. It just wasn't done right. Well, we just didn't do it right.

Okay. Well, let me ask, Seattle, you had all the power.

Portland.

What levers did you not control?

Why did it not work out well?

Were the wrong people in charge again? See, the only thing you didn't have was the power to physically or permanently silence all those who opposed you.

But you had the power to do that, more than any time since the 1950s and the red scare.

The reason why this won't change, is because it is clear, this was never a plan to make policing better.

It was a plan, and it was well-thought out.

But it was just a plan to destroy, to tear down, and to create chaos. And they've been very successful in that plan, all across America. And throughout almost every portion of society.

The plan to destroy the community. Destroy our history, standards. To destroy our story. To destroy our power, as an individual, and our power as a country. As far as, you know, domestically, our power as a country with foreign relations. And our physical power.

They've destroyed the relationship between parents and teachers. Parents and the state. Parents and their doctors. While destroying the stability of childhood. By refusing reality.

And confusing reality with fantasy. By destroying logic and reason. And empirical truth. And replacing it with activism, slogans, relativism, and dangerous lies.

So we have our proof on the reimagining of the police. We have it in a study. But we know the proof, on so many things.

I mean, anyone with common sense knew, this would be the result of no bail. How long will Americans of all political stripes, those Democrats, Republicans, independents. All of us. How long are we going to wait, before we demand, at the local, state, and federal level, that they end this wanton destruction of our entire way of life.

We are not safer today, in most of our cities now. The world is in much greater danger now, because we reimagined the truths that kept of our military strong.

We are economically in peril. The dollar value. Because we're reimagining what it means to print money. Our borders are not secure.

Our citizens are not in charge. They are not listened to many of the times.

Is our government even engaged in the basic tasks that we, the people outlined for them, when we, the people established the government.

Because we told them in writing, that we were just lending them our power, in order to, quote, form a more perfect union.

Are they moving toward a more perfect union, or a divided union?

We told them, we would lend them our power, to establish justice. Is justice being served, or justice being redefined against the people's will?

Are they ensuring our domestic tranquility. Or are they the source of a lot of our problems?

Providing for the common defense. Promoting the general welfare. Are they securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity?

Are your children going to be freer, than you are?

Boy, I would say, that is a big no. So I don't know if they're even engaged. I contend, that they have not just failed on this job, but they've become hostile to the meaning and purpose of that job.

And we let them.

But our Founders knew that this would happen. They knew we would tolerate it, up to some point. From the Declaration of Independence. All experience has shown, that mankind is more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they're accustomed.

We're used to this.

And it's still -- life goes on. I mean, I'm free to go to the movies. I have a job. Whatever.

So we tolerate too much.

But that's expected. But we told them, that their job was to secure the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Governments were instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. But it goes on.

Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people, to alter or abolish it. Not a period. A comma.

And to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them, shall seem most likely to affect their safety and happiness.

So what they're saying here is, you have to build the net to fall into. You have to show what you're going to replace it with.

And you'll notice that anyone who says, I don't want to replace it. I want to live by the Constitution, are deemed radicals.

And those who want to reimagine everything, are not radicals. Well, that's an upside down world.

They said, prudence indeed, will dictate the governments long established, will not be changed for light and transient causes. But when a long chain of abuses and usurpations, now, listen to this, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces, otherwise known -- shows clear evidence a design, to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right. It is their duty to throw off this government, and provide new guards for their future -- future security.

Now, that's a fascinating phrase. Think of that. A long train of abuses and usurpations. So things that are happening, that are -- are destroying your freedom. Your way of life. Our Constitution.

And they're all -- they're all ending the same way, as anybody -- you've ever heard. Hey, how come. I mean, this is a mistake. This is a mistake. This is a mistake.

How come there's never a mistake that goes the way of the Constitution for America. That's a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object.

The destruction. And when you have clear evidence, that this is a design, this isn't just happenstance.

There are people designing this, that put us into absolute despotism, then you have a right and a duty.

So the two questions remain. Do you see, a long train of abuses and actions, that are trying to destroy your rights and powers?

Do they all point to the same object? To the same direction. To destroy our system of rights, checks, and balances. Justice.

Security. To -- to give us a completely new form of rule and society. I think the answer to that one is clearly yes.

But it may not be for those who have their heads in the sand and are not paying attention to the news.

Have we, the people been informed and involved in those decisions?

Because if we were all doing it, and they were sharing and saying, look, we're going to do this.

We want to abolish these rights, in the Constitution. We want to make sure that we have an administrative state. And Congress is irrelevant.

And we all talked about it openly. And we all decided, that would be different. But that's not what's happening.

More in just a second. First, let me tell you about Good Ranchers. Unless you have resigned yourself to what the World Economic Forum wants you to do, and that's eat bugs or worse. Become a vegetarian, you're probably going to buy meat for yourself, and pretty regularly.

And that is really expensive. And it is expected to go up another 15 percent this year.

Lock in your prices. And also, get American beef. Over 80 percent of the grass fed beef that you will find in stores, is imported. Even though, it has the little American flag on it.

People lie sometimes. But not Good Ranchers. Ditch the usual.

It doesn't cut it anymore.

Go to GoodRanchers.com.

Snag 30 percent off -- with the offer code Beck. At GoodRanchers.com.

100 percent satisfaction guarantee.

This is a great, great box of meat. We just got a delivery on it a couple of days ago.

Quality, quality meat, all from America, and American ranchers.

You can set up an affordable and delicious subscription, to American meat, delivered to your home. That's fish, that's meat. That's also chicken.

Really good. America's best from GoodRanchers.com.

Promo code Beck. GoodRanchers.com.

Promo code Beck. Ten-second station ID.
(music)
So do we have a long train of abuses and actions, trying to destroy?

Have you been involved in it, or have you been lied to?

Have you been diverted, silenced?

Gas lit? Have you been told things like ESG and The Great Reset. Are fables. Lies. Disinformation.

Conspiracy theories. And now see that they are not that.

And how many times have you been told one thing by your government, and then I realize, they are actually doing that.

Have they allowed chaos to breed and burn on our streets? Only to excuse them with the torch. And then discredit or silence those people. Call them terrorists.

When they're actually law-abiding citizens, who are just standing up and saying, law and order?

Has the government grown past their constitutional restraints?

And has it been to enhance and secure your individual rights, or has it been to chain you, while freeing those who are in bed with government.

And are all of those abuses and actions pointing the same direction, or not?

Now, you have a right and duty, but that's only the first question. How?

What is that duty? How do you do it?

Now, this is where everyone stops. This is where everybody says, we have to separate and have a national divorce. And others say, that's traitorous. That's treason.

Well, that's because people aren't answering the second question. The Constitution and the -- and the Declaration of Independence are very clear on your rights and your duty.

But the second question is: How? What does that mean?

The answer, next.
(music)

Cheryl wrote in about her dog's experience with Ruff Greens. She says, I was actually a bit skeptical, that this would have any difference with my dogs. But the difference is unbelievable.

I decided to buy it when my 11-year-old dog had to have surgery, and wasn't really doing well.

Within a week's time, she was playing like a puppy. I am totally amazed how better -- how much better my dog is acting. My dog's digestion. Thank you, Ruff Greens.

Ruff Greens is not a dog food. But a supplement developed by naturopathic Dr. Dennis Black. You can sprinkle it on the dog food. It's chalked full of vitamins, minerals, probiotics, antioxidants. You name it.

You sprinkle that on, and you will see a difference in your dog.

Now, the folks at Ruff Greens are so confident, that your dog will love it. And you will love seeing what happens with your dog. That they have a deal, just to make sure that your dog will eat it and likes it. They will send you a first trial bag for free. All you do is pay for shipping.

Then if your dog likes it, you get the next bag from Ruff Greens, and you watch, over the coming months. You will see a difference in your dog. RuffGreens.com. R-U-F-FGreens.com. Or call 833-Glenn-33. RuffGreens.com/Beck.
(music)

STU: Now is the time to join up to Blaze TV. Go to BlazeTV.com/Glenn and use the promo code Glenn, to save.
(music)
(OUT AT 8:28 AM)

GLENN: So we have been talking about the national divorce. It's trending again today. And people are arguing, back and forth. You're a traitor if you say that. Well, you're a traitor because you're trying to destroy America. Let's just use some logic and reason here. Okay?

Nobody wants a war. If there's a War Between the States, those don't usually end well. In fact, I think ours is the only one that's ever ended well.

But it won't end the same way this time, because we are not the people our Founders were.

We have to decide, first of all, is there a pattern or a long train of abuses? Is there a pattern all pointing to a design to destroy your freedom, your rights, as outlined in the Bill of Rights, Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence?

If you decide that, then you have a right and responsibility, according to the Declaration of Independence.

So now what do you do? What do you do about that?

Red and blue separate. Okay. What does that even mean?

Because if -- if Texas decided to secede, I would not live under a -- a state, unless it is under the framework, the exact framework of the Constitution and the mission statement of the Declaration of Independence.

So, in other words, I would not tolerate anything being changed, except a reset back to factory settings.

If you want to write a new Constitution, I -- I am not in.

Because I support the Constitution of the United States. Okay?

I will -- I will do everything in my power to protect and defend that. So I don't really see, you know, myself at least, as leaving the United States of America.

I think the United States of America, the of power structures, have left the United States of America.

Not me.

I still believe in the same values, that we've had since the revolution. And the -- and the beginning of the republic.

So what does that mean exactly, the national divorce?

Now, build a dual economy?

This makes sense on so many levels. First of all, we have seen that the economy, our banking system. Our trade with one another, has become weaponized by the United States government, through public/private partnerships.

The things they couldn't do, because they were constitutionally restrained. They have gotten corporations to do.

Well, that's a usurpation of the rights in our Constitution, so no.

I don't want to live that way.

And until they will reestablish the proper role of government, we should do everything we can, to ensure we don't need their corporations.

The government's corporations, to survive.

But this makes sense in -- in so many ways. Look at what COVID taught us.

We are not independent. We are not independent as people. We are not independent as communities.

Or states. We will all perish, if there is a global trade shutdown.

We should be rebuilding our manufacturing, our skills, we should be able to survive locally.

So having, you know, a -- a -- a dual economy, is really smart.

So you have a right to do this. You have a right to discuss this. You have a duty, it says in the Declaration of Independence, to throw off the chains. But what is that duty? What does that mean?

Because remember, there's a comma, not a period.

You have to replace it, with something that you think is going to be better. Now, I can't think of anything better than the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence. Can't think of anything better, that would protect them. You just have to actually use those things.

See, it's our duty to not only throw off the chains. And not act as terrorists. Or to become, what we despise.

It's to work together, as a people, to throw off the chains and organizing such powers that will be more likely to protect those rights. So that's not a terror group, from Antifa, to the white supremacists, that -- that offer nothing more than chaos. Slavery.

You have to have a plan, before you follow someone, or you say, let's just shirk off these chains.

You can't. What's your plan for being more safe for individuals and their rights?

I haven't heard that plan. You see, there is that plan, on the other side. They are building the framework of the global community. They are building a global government.

They are building a new currency, that will monitor you. They are building the authoritarian state.

And there's a very well-crafted, well-designed plan, that, quite honestly, is genius.

They didn't collapse us first. They're collapsing us as the power grows.

They start to put an ESG. And as that takes root, they collapse us a little bit more.

And so it's a controlled destruction. Well, you don't just destroy that, and expect everything to go well.

What is the framework?

So when somebody says, we should secede, or we should have a national divorce, what do you mean by that?

What is the framework? What are the states -- what is their government like?

The first thing we have to do, if you believe there are usurpations, and a long train of abuses, that point to despotism, we must first reestablish our first citizenship.

Otherwise -- this is America's cornerstone.

God.

If you live up to those laws first, start with the first, hey. How about this?

How about the Ten Commandments? Are those too difficult?

How about the golden rule?

Okay? Live up to those laws first. Because that will give you reason, clarity, and define inspiration to reestablish this experiment.

And the guardians, to guard those rights.

In the meantime, know that the design is real. The design to destroy this is real.

And so we all have a duty to stand up, but what? We stand up for the restraint on current power. We're not against, we're for the Bill of Rights.

Why are we always saying we're against this. We should be saying, no. That's a violation of the Bill of Rights, and I am for freedom of speech.

We need to stand for people. Like freedom caucuses. There should be a Freedom Caucus in at least 25 states. And they should be powerful.

Texas, doesn't have even have one. How is that possible, in a state, this red?

Because this state, the G.O.P. has gone corrupt.

We need to stand as long as the Freedom Caucus stands for the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

Ohio, stop waiting for the feds.

What are you waiting for?

Why did the governor wait so long?

Wait, the governor has absolutely no power. I mean, I swear, I'm going to get him a little bracelet. That says, what would Ron DeSantis do?

Just look at it every day?

You think he's waiting around? Take care of your own people. You look mousy, and, quite frankly, un-American.

Now, we need to stand up, in all cases, against lies.

Now, that's hard. In all cases, against -- do not tolerate lies. This is the easiest thing you can do.

Do not go along to get along. That doesn't mean agitate. That means, no. I'm sorry. That's not true.

Get involved in -- in your anti-ESG legislation, your -- on your state level.

Work for fair access laws. Which empower you, not the attorney general. But empower you to go after ESG.

Now is the time to support candidates, that will throw the RINOs out. Now is the time to decide, am I supposed to run? Am I supposed to help somebody who is running?

In 2024, there should be strong Bill of Rights and constitutional candidates.

Not radicals. Not crazy people. People who know the Constitution, and Bill of Rights.

And will walk through fire to reestablish that. Mitt Romney should have a challenger right now. Kevin Cramer in North Dakota should have a challenger. Does he have a challenger? Is the G.O.P. or the freedom-loving people there, are you working on this?

Roger Whittaker of Mississippi. These -- Deb Fischer in Nebraska.

These senators can be flipped!

But you better have a good candidate. And you should be working on it, right now!

We don't need to separate. We need to find things that we all pretty much agree on. And this insane march to war, is something that should be universal.

We should stand up against the march towards war. Stand up in your local community. You want to make a difference? Start a farmer's market, if you don't have one already.

You want to make a difference? If you have one already, go shop the farmer's market. Go find a church, that is actually engaged. Not necessarily in politics, but a church that is teaching what our pilgrims knew.

That made them a danger to the king. Which is, there is no king, but God.

I answer to God first. Not men.

And the -- the flow of power, goes God, man, government.

Government is last, and only empowered by man, to protect the rights given to him by God.

This is what we need to do to save our country. But if I boil it down to one thing, it would be getting you and your family right with God.

God is the only answer at this point. If we do not have his favor, we do not survive.

This is a divine and sacred land.

This land -- is it a coincidence that freedom was established here, and all of this land -- we have everything we need -- everything we need to be independent and free. And be a beacon on a hill.

For all the world to see. This is how it can be done.

This is how man can live with one another, in peace. In harmony.

We get it wrong. And sometimes for long periods of time. But as long as the people understand they have the power to correct those wrongs.

And go back to the system, that was divinely inspired. Our Constitution. Our Bill of Rights. Our Declaration of Independence.

It's all of the answers that you need, are in those documents. So should we have a national divorce?

I wouldn't be against it. But I'm the one that's keeping the kids. I think we're the ones that, you know, need to make sure, we're not the ones that are violating the rules of this marriage.

You are. You're the ones stepping out on us.

I'm living by my marriage vows.

I'm living by the rules of the Constitution.

And if your state is not -- start standing up and demanding that they live by the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and the US Constitution.

Witnessing a SpaceX Launch & Predicting Elon Musk's Legacy in 50 Years

Glenn Beck recently witnessed a SpaceX rocket launch from hours away, and the raw power of it sent him into a passionate breakdown about the wonder of space travel, the brilliance of Elon Musk, and the insanity of a culture that’s turning on its greatest innovators. From the days of the Space Shuttle to Musk’s Starship and self-driving Tesla vehicles, Glenn argues that Elon isn’t just a tech founder, but rather a once-in-history mind, a modern Edison who revived an American spirit we had forgotten.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Last night, here in Florida, Tania said SpaceX is going to launch another missile. About 15 minutes. Let's go outside and see if we can see it. And we live right on the coast. And all of a sudden, you know, we're watching it, ten, nine, eight, seven, six. And about 45 seconds after the launch. We're like, oh, but we can't see it. Then all of a sudden, over the top of the trees, we just see this flame coming up. And it was absolutely. I posted it on the Instagram last night. On my Instagram page. It was absolutely one of the most amazing things I've seen.

From a distance. I've seen it once before. I've seen the last space shuttle lift off in the middle of the night. And I really close. I was across the water. I was just right across from -- what is it?

Cape Kennedy.

And I could not believe, it was a wonder of the world. 3 o'clock in the morning. All of a sudden, it was just day light.

And now, I'm -- oh, I don't even know.

Three hours away. Two, three hours away?

And it's one of the most incredible things I've ever seen.

It just starts coming up. And then, you know, you see the rocket. The boosters detach.

The -- the first stage rockets go out. They turn blue. Then they go out.

And then you see them. And it just picks up so much speed. And just racing through the sky.

It is incredible. It's incredible.

If you've never seen a rocket launch, I can't wait to see his -- what is the -- that was a falcon.

What's the big, big heavy one that he's working on.

Nobody knows.

VOICE: Falcon Heavy, isn't it?

VOICE: Is it the Falcon Heavy?

I don't know.

I don't think so.

I think -- somebody look this up.

Starship. That's it.

I think it's based on the original Soviet design. The Soviets, the reason why we beat the Soviets up in space, is they had this great design of like 24 rockets.

Where we had like four, big, huge ones for lift.

They had like 24, 25 rockets, at the bottom of it.

But they couldn't synchronize them.

You know, this was when computing was really, really bad.

They couldn't synchronize them.

So they couldn't keep it level.

So it would take off. And spiral out of control and blow up.

That's the reason why we beat them into space.

I saw the bottom end of one of these rockets in a video. And I think -- I think it's the original Soviet design. I'm not sure. Because now we have the ability to synchronize everything. But I can't wait to see that thing. Because it's bigger than a Saturn rocket. Bigger the ones that we send to the moon.

JASON: At some point, I don't know if the wonder of space travel left.

JASON: We get bored with things.

JASON: It's so weird. But Elon Musk just brought it back. I mean, we're doing just amazing stuff.

GLENN: It's like everything.

We did it. We mastered it. We put people on the moon. Everybody was crazed about it. I remember sitting in class and seeing the astronauts, you know, on the moon. We would go in. They would bring in an old TV.

And they would sit the TV. Before these things were even on the little -- you know, wheel, you know, AV kind of things.

It was just a big old TV.

And we all went into the regular -- you know, the gym, and we watched it on a regular TV.

And them walking around, on the moon. And that must have been in the early '70s.

And then after that, everybody was like, yeah. So we've been to the moon. Now, nobody believes we've gone to the moon ever.

Now we're going back up. And, I mean, it's amazing. It's amazing to watch. Because you just think, I just watched it last night. I'm like, my gosh. Look at the power of that thing.

I could -- how far are we away?

Three hours?

Two hours?

You could hear it. You could hear it. It got to a certain place. Where my wife said, you can see it on the tape on Instagram. My wife at one point said, can you hear that?

You could! You could hear the crackle of it. It is -- I mean, it's incredible. Just incredible.

I really want to go see a liftoff in person, again. Just amazing.

STU: Yeah. We should. To be clear, we should excommunicate him out of our society. Because you wore a red hat a few times. That, I think is a smart -- it's a smart move.

GLENN: I know. What a dummy.

STU: Yeah. He's an idiot. And obviously, we don't need him helping our country, right now.

Why?

Because he voted for lower taxes or something.

We -- that's a good way to run our society.

GLENN: Hate that guy. Hate that guy.

STU: Amazing.

GLENN: What a dope.

We have just -- we have just become morons.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: We really -- really have.

History will look back and go, at what point, they just became morons. You know.

STU: Do you find it interesting, Glenn. He was at this turn with the Saudi Arabian, you know, delegation, I guess.

Trump did a turn and invited a bunch of VIPs to it.

I thought a good sign from the perspective of the relationship between Trump and Elon Musk, that he was invited in, was there.

Right?

Remember, they had a total falling out. It was over the Epstein files. If you --

GLENN: No. They made nice at Charlie Kirk's funeral.

STU: Yeah. So that's what you think earlier repaired. Somewhat repaired at this point?

GLENN: Yeah. Somewhat repaired. And, you know, if you're trying to showcase the best of America. Who better to have at the table than Elon Musk?

I mean, he is the Tesla or the Edison of our day. There's nobody -- is there anybody in the world that everybody, with an exception of those who are just so politically, you know -- I don't know.

Pilled. That they just can't stand anybody that votes differently than them.

I mean, be even when he was -- we thought he was a real big lefty.

I still wanted to meet the guy.

I still wanted to be, man, I would give my right arm to sit and listen to that guy in the same room.

You know what I mean?

It would be great.

This is a guy who will be remembered for hundreds of years.

After Jesus comes.

Well, we may not have history books at that point.

But he's going to be remembered for hundreds of years, as one of the greatest human beings ever. When they were still human beings.

So, I mean, who doesn't want to meet that guy?

How is it that we have half of our -- we have half of our country now just hating on that guy?

It's genius. Would you be happier if he was Chinese.

STU: Thank God, he's here.

GLENN: Thank God.

STU: And wants to be here.

And wants to be in this environment.

I think that, you know, you look at everything.

And it's going to be a great biopic.

The movie on Elon Musk's life. Is going to be absolutely incredible. Because he is a somewhat complicated figure at times.

There's a lot to discuss on the Elon Musk front.

GLENN: Oh.

STU: Just think of the fact that this guy has put, I don't know.

You know, hundreds of thousands. Millions of cars on the road right now.

That are, you know, capable and are driving themselves.

Think of -- that's like -- an incredible accomplishment!

This is a guy who is putting cars that are -- you know, have full self-driving. You can sit in there.

The thing will drive itself from point A to point B. Without you touching really anything.

And that is -- think about the fact that that's just being said. That even people are allowed. You know, that governments are just like. Yeah. We trust this guy. To let all these cars drive themselves.

It's an amazing accomplishment. That's just one of many.

It's really an amazing life.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

Cracker Barrel CEO Finally Addresses ‘Woke’ Rebrand Controversy | The Glenn Beck Podcast | Ep 275

“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?

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.

From Anthony Weiner Intern to Media Royalty... The Scandal-Ridden Rise of "Reporter" Olivia Nuzzi

Reporter Olivia Nuzzi’s career is one of the strangest success stories in modern journalism. From volunteering on Anthony Weiner’s collapsing mayoral campaign to becoming a 24-year-old Washington correspondent with jobs created specifically for her... Nuzzi's rise through the media ranks defies every norm of the industry. Glenn Beck and Stu Burguiere explore how an unknown college student was elevated into a media celebrity overnight, why institutions continued to protect her even after major ethical scandals, and what her story reveals about how power truly works inside the press. Is this talent, luck, or something far more engineered?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

STU: Yes. And I will begin the story at the very, very start, Glenn. And I will start it with a question for you.

And this is a question that I think sets the scene for the entire journey we're about to go on.

GLENN: Okay.

STU: Journalist.

GLENN: Let me get my boots on.

STU: Let's do it. She starts her career, very first job, she volunteers as an intern for what campaign? Volunteers as an intern for what campaign?

GLENN: Just -- it just has to be Bill Clinton. Has to be.

STU: It's a good guess. However, timing wise --

GLENN: Oh, Anthony Wiener.

STU: Anthony Wiener is the answer.

GLENN: Yes. Yes! Yes!

STU: She volunteers for the failed mayoral campaign.

GLENN: Fascinating. Fascinating.

STU: Of Anthony Wiener. So this is how this story starts.

GLENN: Oh, Anthony Wiener. So she starts covering Wieners.

STU: Yes. She starts covering Wieners. And the whole story is her doing more of that. We'll get into that as we go.

GLENN: All right.

STU: She starts with the Wiener campaign. It's a disaster. It's kind of a legendary catastrophe. They have a documentary about to go. We talked about that at the time. You know, totally the whole thing flames apart.

GLENN: By the way. By the way. I'm just sitting here thinking, I don't think I was technically wrong when I said it was a Clinton campaign.

Because remember, Hillary Clinton is all over the Wiener.

STU: But that's -- please, don't say it like that.

But, yes. That is accurate.

GLENN: Yeah. Because if I say it like that. It leads you to believe. And that is absolutely not true.

I don't think she's ever --
(laughter)

STU: I think, yes. Because if you remember Huma Abedin, at this time is married to Anthony Wiener.

GLENN: Can you use air quotes? Air quotes on that?

STU: Yes. On her wonderful path to marry a Soros. She's at that time, married to Wiener. And she is helping out Hillary Clinton as her top dog main assistant.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: That's ongoing. That's the first thing. Almost has nothing to do with the story.

GLENN: Did you use air quotes for the word assistant there, as well.

STU: I did not. So how does Olivia Nuzzi get into our lives? She goes to -- she goes from the Wiener campaign and leaves, and writes basically a tell-all, you know, scandal log of what was going on during the Wiener campaign. Basically, this thing was a catastrophe. She tells the inside story. And releases it to the Daily News. Who prints this column, from at this point a 20-year-old aspiring journalist. And, you know, she's pretty. She's glamorous. She's kind of like the New York elite journalist that you would exactly picture in this situation.

So she gets this, and turns that one column into a job, while she's still in college. She's at Fordham. She's still at college.

GLENN: Oh, she's in Fordham.

STU: Fordham, of course. I thought you would like that detail.

GLENN: Yeah, sorry.

STU: For multiple reasons.

GLENN: My daughter went to Fordham. They actually -- they actually had the balls to -- they held rallies against me on the Fordham campus, and then they had the balls to come and ask my wife and I to come in to meet with the dean, because they wanted to know if we would help them build a library.

STU: No.

GLENN: There were words that started with F that were not fruit!

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: As we left that meeting.

STU: Was it Fordham? Was the F-word Fordham? You Fordham!

GLENN: No. Fordham you!

STU: Yeah. That's the university.

GLENN: That's what I mean. Fordham University. Fordham you! Anyway, go ahead.

STU: Okay. So she gets hired from one that column, as one of the main presidential campaign correspondence for the Daily Beast, which tells you yet again, something about the standards of the Daily Beast when it comes to journalism, which are exactly zero. They have higher standards at Fordham.
(laughter)

GLENN: And those are pretty low.

STU: Those are low.

She is going to cover the Chris Christie campaign. The Rand Paul campaign. And some of the early bubbling beginnings of the Donald Trump campaign. This is back in 2014, '15, and there. She -- in 2015, as you note, as she's in this job. She does that tweet about House of Cards. And how women should not -- or Hollywood should not misportray the journalists that are females. Because they're always saying that they sleep with their sources. And that's a terrible thing -- point that out.

Which is an amazing thing for multiple reasons, Glenn. Because, well, I'll get into that here in a second.

GLENN: Yeah. Okay.

STU: So she see that. She then gets named by Politico one of the 16 breakout media stars of the presidential election. This is November 2016.

GLENN: Wow.

STU: She then in February 2017 parlays that into a job, as the Washington correspondent of New York magazine.

She's 24 years old. Twenty-four years old, Washington correspondent, at New York magazine. You're saying, wow. That's a prestigious position. Who held it before her?

No one. They literally create this job for her, which is incredible. Again, she's 24 years old.

GLENN: Again, it's probably not the only position created for her.

STU: She may have several that she's documented in -- in a book or two, that we could go over later. Okay. So -- and you wonder. And this is a time to pause.

GLENN: Jesus would not be doing this segment, I just want to let you know, right here and now.

STU: Right. That's true. That's true.

GLENN: Go ahead.

STU: You think about what a meteoric rise this is.

Glenn, you know this. This is not how media operates. You don't do what she's done here.

Like, incredible. It's like, she -- someone who never played basketball before, and is in the NBA three years later. It's legitimately an incredible rise. You wonder how that rise occurred. Those questions may be answered later on.

GLENN: Stop using the word "rise." You're making me uncomfortable.
(laughter)

STU: 2018, she's included in the Forbes 30 under 30 list.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: Which is a very prestigious list. October 2018, as a member of -- working for the New York magazine. She's invited for an exclusive interview in the Oval Office to interview Donald Trump. Again, she's 25 at this point.

Very prestigious. She's awarded a next award by the American Society of Magazine editors. She gets a documentary on MSNBC. She portrays herself on the show time show Billions. In 2022.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

STU: Again, this is someone who is a massive celebrity in that world. You may not know her name. But she is a massive celebrity.

GLENN: Okay.

STU: She gets a six-part interview from Bloomberg. And then she does a profile of RFK Jr, the candidate who you may remember running for president as a Democrat.

Okay. I can't remember if the profile happened when he was running as a Democrat, or he had kind of flipped to an independent. But it's before he's endorsing Trump, or there's MAHA or any of that stuff. Right? It's in that period.

GLENN: Sure. Sure. Sure.

STU: And she does this profile of him that I guess goes pretty well. And it comes out much more favorable, I would say than many of the other previews. Profiles of RFK Jr in this period.

But, again, has some criticism. And some quirkiness in it. And her style of writing has all sorts of weird details. You know, sometimes it's kind of -- I think it's actually pretty good. I think her reporting was regulated. She did have some really fascinating stories that she wrote over this period.

But like, the celebrities seemed to overextend past maybe what she had achieved in her career so far. So she writes this profile of RFK Jr.

And then it is -- the news breaks that RFK Jr and Olivia Nuzzi are having what they call an emotional affair, which seems to be lots of very detailed loving text messages back and forth. Promises about --

GLENN: When you say loving. Is it like, you know, you are a child of God. And I just love you and want to help you in any way. Is that what you mean by loving? Or do you know do you mean like Barry White loving?

STU: Well, to put it in another word, we're talking about a Kennedy. So I'm talking about Kennedy style loving.

GLENN: Okay. Ding-dong, pizza delivery.

STU: It's important to note that Olivia Nuzzi is engaged to another journalist, Ryan Lizza at this time. And so she's engaged to somebody. RFK Jr.

Not that this makes seemingly any difference to him whatsoever, is married at the time, and is still currently married to an actress in Hollywood. So he's doing this. She's doing this.

This is suboptimal not only for a marriage, but also a presidential campaign. This goes on, the news finally breaks this is happening. This is a problem for a bunch of reasons. Number one, you're -- you have a fiancé. Number two, the person you're texting with is married.

Number three, though, a really serious journalist problem, right?

Like, you're profiling someone and having an affair with them at the same time. That's frowned upon, at least in theory, in the world of journalism.

Now, in practice, God only knows. But in theory, you're not supposed to do that, Glenn. This is something they tell you relatively early on in journalism school, I assume.

And so he --

GLENN: I've got to apologize to all those people that I've been sleeping with that I've been on the show.

STU: How many people have you profiled, Glenn? You just profiled the Great Mufti. Have you ever had any relations --

GLENN: Yeah, have you ever had the relations with the Mufti? I've got to tell you the truth, Stu. Yep. Yep. Back in 1942.

STU: Oh, no.

So all of this comes out in the -- in the media. And she sort of goes -- she gets fired from the New York magazine because of this journalistic lapse. And she sort of goes into hiding.

Okay? She goes into hiding. She moves. She is -- not saying word one about this. And, you know, she talks a lot.

So that's notable.

In this period, Ryan Lizza, her ex-fiancé now, they broke up. Ex-fiancé and her are -- are negotiating according to him, a do not -- what is it?

A non-disclosure. Don't talk about this. Don't talk about this. Don't disparage. Let's just let this be over.

He also gets a message, according to him, from an intermediate friend that says, "Hey. She never wants to talk about this again. She hopes you'll never talk about this again. Can we just move past this?" And he according to him says, "You know what, I'm on board with that. Let's just never let this go."

So a little bit of time goes on. What we learn is, her time in exile has actually been spent writing a book, which is called American Canto. It's coming out in a couple of weeks from today, or from yesterday.

Two weeks from yesterday.

And it's a book --

GLENN: Is this one -- does the book include her time with governor Mark Sanford?

STU: Well, we're getting to that.

GLENN: 2019, 2020.

I mean, was she sleeping with him, too, before the JFK thing.

STU: That's a big part of the story we're getting to. At this point in the story, we have no idea about that. We only know about the RFK Jr. thing. So she releases this book, and in it, is all these details about the RFK Jr thing.

Now, you would think the way the media would handle this woman who they've just ejected from their society for massive journalistic and immoral lapses would be hammering her over her activity here.

GLENN: No.

STU: Instead, she gets a glowing profile in the New York Times with, like, her -- with an incredible -- you have to seat footage, Glenn. You would love it. It's her, she's driving in a convertible. Hair in the wind. Like, Chanel glasses. She looks spectacular, as she's going down. This is how the New York Times rolls this out for her.