Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
Shop
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Could Trump BOOST the economy by raising tariffs and abolishing the income tax?play icon
RADIONovember 13, 2024

Could Trump BOOST the economy by raising tariffs and abolishing the income tax?

During his appearance on The Joe Rogan Experience, Donald Trump floated the idea of abolishing the income tax. This would go hand-in-hand with his plan to raise tariffs, especially on China. Glenn, who has historically been against heavy tariffs, may have been won over by Trump’s explanation. But he wanted to speak with an economics expert to see if the math really added up. Heritage Foundation Visiting Fellow Peter St. Onge joins the program to break down how tariffs work, whether Trump’s plan would boost the economy, and what he must do if he wants to raise enough support to repeal the 16th Amendment.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Oh, yeah.

Oh, yeah. Hmm. Now, we've got a guy, I think he's -- I think -- I think his last name says everything.

Peter St. Onge, which I believe is French!
(music)
STU: What is happening?

GLENN: Sexy, sexy tax and tariff talk from the Heritage Foundation. A visiting fellow. We have Peter St. Onge.

How are you, Peter?

PETER: I'm great. I appreciate that. It is sexy.

GLENN: Yeah. I know. Everybody says it. Everybody says it. So without getting it too steamy in here.

Let's go over the tariffs.

Because I've always been against tariffs. However, I might be wrong.

PETER: Right.

GLENN: Donald Trump is making a good case, when he's talking about getting rid of the income tax. Because tariff -- tariffs will raise the prices of things. Especially, if he does it the way he's talking about doing it.

But if he is getting rid of, or lowering the income tax to, you know, 10 percent, it's such a boon for the economy. That we could make up that deficit, and become a very powerful nation again.

Tell many I'm wrong.

PETER: I think that's absolutely correct.

Yeah. I feel like you're absolutely right.

You know, the vast majority of economists, Glenn, they go after tariffs. And I think they're looking at the trees for the forest here, because if you replace a tariff, which is basically a sales tax. But it's one that focus on his imported goods.

If you replace that with either reducing or in our dream scenario, abolishing the entire income tax. It's absolute rocket fuel for the economy. The reason is because --

GLENN: He just said abolish the income tax. Pay attention, Sara. He just said abolish income tax. Oh, yeah.
(music)
All right. Go ahead.

PETER: Right.

The background music. So, yeah. And he actually started floated abolishing it with Joe Rogan a couple weeks ago. No tax on tips. Then no tax on overtime. No tax on first responders. No tax on Social Security. And it was kind of like he was really flirting with just breaking up with the income tax altogether.

And when he was on there with Rogan, that's exactly what he did. He said, you know, maybe we should go back to the 1800s, when, you know, it was before we had an income tax. Before we had a Fed.

And back then, the federal government had to live off tariffs. And that was the greatest period, not only of economic growth, but of cultural achievement.

It's astounding, what we -- everything Elon Musk does, was invented in the 1880s. Computers.
Rockets.

What's his -- Hyperloop. Every single thing. And it was really the golden age of humanity.

And the key there, we did not have an income tax. We did not have a regulatory state.

We did not have a Fed. So if Trump can take us back there. And all we have to do is an 8 percent sales tax on Chinese socks.

That is the deal of the century.

GLENN: Okay. Let's go over this.

Who pays the tariffs?

American companies or the foreign company?

PETER: Interestingly, during you Trump's first term. He put tariffs on China. And China actually paid up 80 percent of those. So it would issue subsidies to Chinese exporters so they could maintain market share and keep their prices low. So the Chinese government paid the tariffs.

GLENN: Hmm.

I like that.

PETER: So if he does that again, he's talking about hitting China with something like 60 percent tariffs.

And between a ten and 20 percent tariff for everyone else. Now, given Trump's style, he is not going to come and use it across the board. He is going to come and use that as a club.

Right?

So the Europeans, specifically. They act like a fortress. They are brutal to outsiders.

If you want to export something to Europe, they will put you over a barrel. You remember, a couple years ago, the first thing the European Union did was sat them down. And said, nice economy you've got here. Would be a shame if something happened to it. We're going to need a payment from you every single year.

It is literally the Mafia. They do that to Norway. It's all these countries have to fork over billions of dollars to get access to the European market. Now, imagine if we did that. Imagine if we called up Mexico or Canada. And said, hey, listen. We've got this beautiful economy. You guys are settling into it. Hey, why don't you write me a check for 50 billion to keep access? That's exactly what the Europeans do.

So the first thing Trump is probably going to do, given what he did last time. Is he'll call up Europe, and he will do the exact same thing.

You know, I have a 20 percent tariff burning a hole in my pocket. I need you to do some things for me.

But, anyway, even if he does end up applying those to all foreigners, the Europeans are not going to cover the exporters because they're in a deep fiscal hole.

They don't have the money. They're already bankrupt. They're not going to do what China did.

But a lot of those tariffs, especially the ones from China, are probably going to keep getting paid by China. Because exports to America are what they live on. If they lose that, it's game over.

GLENN: And we should not be empowering them, quite honestly.

Now, here's why. Here's why I have possibly turned around.

I'm willing to listen to tariff talk, because in my -- in my cute little head, I keep thinking that all of the -- when you have an extra 20 or $30,000, that you're pulling in, every year. Whatever it is, you are paying in income tax. And everything -- everything goes down that's made here in America.

If you're not paying that income tax. You have a lot of extra buying power, which means, most of Americans, will spend that.

And will grow our economy, which will put more taxes. Well, we don't have taxes. So that wouldn't work.

How does it work, when you don't have taxes? Go ahead.

PETER: Yeah. So just kind of running into the numbers. The first thing that happens, if you get rid of income tax altogether. So I estimate you get about a 20 percent jump in incomes in the US.

So it would be something like $15,000 for typical families. That's what you get off the bat. The typical family currently has about 18,000 in income tax, and then you knock off about 3,000 for the tariffs.

There's a variety of estimates on that. But that seems to be the cluster. So you get a 15,000 raise, because the economy is growing faster. You get an 18,000 raise because you don't have to send your income tax to the government. People don't realize how much they're paying to the government.

Right? A lot of it is tips. But, anyway, you've got -- what do they call it?

Withholding. So, anyway, that's 33. I call three for the tariffs. 30,000 dollar raise per year, 2500 a month. Now, currently, the median American take home is about 58,000.

Okay. Which is about 76, minus the income tax. So you go from taking home 58, to taking home 88. Right? That is a massive difference.

And that sort of sets the stage.
(music)

GLENN: Hold. Hold on. You go from 58 to 88. Oh, yeah.
(music)
Ding-dong. Pizza deliveryman. Anyway.

STU: Why is that the part you like so much in his movies? It's interesting what he is excited about.

GLENN: All right. Go ahead.

All right.

PETER: No. I love it. And it's true. You know, if you're making 88. You can go to Vegas. And things happen in Vegas.

GLENN: Yeah. Right. Right. Creating jobs.

PETER: Right. Yeah, well, and so that's the fun part, right? Is you mentioned earlier, that if you're not paying income tax, then production in the US is cheaper.

So instead of the Chinese socks coming in -- you know, they used to come in at $6, now they're at $9. Fine. But China is paying for that, so they're probably still coming in at six.

But, meanwhile, American factories can make socks for less, because they are not paying the income tax.

There's a very good chance that we will see a lot of that manufacturing, even if the Chinese government pays for the tariffs.

GLENN: And that means, also because the economy -- we're building factories. We're doing things ourselves, because we can.

Everybody's pay goes up. Because we need more workers. Right?

PETER: Exactly. Exactly. And then there's actually mass deportations, then the socks will actually go American.

So you've got two possibilities, right?

One of them is that China covers the tariffs. In which case, it's a free lunch for us.

China is, what?

Putting us about 500 billion -- well, their share would be -- let's say 300 billion. So that would be fantastic. Thank you very much.

Or China does not cover the tariffs, in which case China is priced out of the market. America pays no income tax, so they're cheaper. By the way, every headquarter on earth would try to move to the United States. If you're paying no income tax on the single biggest economy on earth, everybody will be trying to move here. Including the Chinese companies. The worst-case scenario, the Chinese don't cover it.

They get outcompeted. And it all comes back to America. And if it's only Americans living here, then Americans will be swimming in jobs.

GLENN: I mean, this is just -- this is big.

How -- how much --

PETER: Oh, yeah.

GLENN: He has only floated this on the Rogan show. How real do you think this is? Because I know he loves tariffs. I know he loves tariffs.

PETER: He loves tariffs. And he hates the income tax. So it's beautiful. It's like a -- it's just like the perfect Newton president.

STU: Peter, isn't the complication here, that he can essentially do what he wants with tariffs. But he can't do what he wants with the income tax. And that becomes the heavy lift here?

PETER: Right. So he would need Congress to play ball on the income tax. And Congress is very tight, as we're all discussing at the moment. There's a ton of RINOs over there.

So that's going need to the pressure and the passion that people showed during the campaign, that millions of Americans showed. We have to put that on the RINOs.

GLENN: Yeah. I think that if he did, you know, a tour even. And was just all about income tax. You just have to say to people. You go from 58 to 88 in take home pay. I think a lot of people will be like, you know what, I love that.

STU: I agree. But you're not going to get -- obviously, in theory, you could put it into a reconciliation bill. Right?

At least a massive reduction.

You couldn't -- not a constitutional amendment, unfortunately.

That's what I would prefer.

Repealing the 16th.

GLENN: Yeah. Me too.

But you could capture American's imagination with this.

STU: Yeah. I think that's pretty -- that would be pretty great.

I do think you would have issues with some of these, as you point out. RINO-type republicans, who would complain about all sorts of things.

Including deficit stuff. Right?

They would say, we're going to lose all this income.

GLENN: All right. Let me take a break, and then let's talk about the deficit, Peter. All right? Peter st. Onge. He -- hmm. I'm not going to hold it against him for being French. I mean, somewhere in his past, somebody had sex with a French person. Okay. Let's -- let's move past that. He's with the Heritage Foundation. A visiting fellow.

STU: This is definitely the weirdest interview he's ever done. And he's regretting every minute of this.

GLENN: He's like, this is the end of my career and my credibility.

GLENN: Okay. I think I've got this number from you, Peter.

But a -- tariffs would bring in about 900 billion.

Almost a trillion dollars.

But our -- we're spending now, I don't even know how much.

$4 trillion a year? Some crazy number like that.

So how do you bridge the gap?

PETER: About six and a half.

GLENN: Six and a half. Okay. Good.

STU: There's a bit of a gap.

GLENN: There's a five and a half trillion dollar gap.

PETER: So income tax itself is taking about two and a half trillion.

And then you've got -- what? You've got payroll. You've got excise. Things like gasoline and cigarettes, things like that.

You've got capital gains. Corporate income tax. Those hopefully would be folded into an income tax repeal.

You put it together. You're looking at 2.4 trillion in lost revenue. And then you've got 900 in tariffs. About 1.5.

Now, the economy grows 20 percent, then you're going to get about 500 billion more from payroll tax and from excise. So you're looking at a net loss of 1 trillion. Now, I personally would prefer to get rid of the payroll tax as well.

STU: Yes!

GLENN: Pernicious.

PETER: It's not as bad as the income tax. Because the income tax is on top of it. It also varies on how much you produce. The payroll tax is a flat tax.

So, you know, in a perfect world, we're not taxing work at all. We're taxing bad things, not good things.

In the grand scheme, you know, in the terms of incentives, get rid of income tax first. Then we can have the next conversation, which would be getting rid of the payroll tax. If you're just going to the income tax, you're talking about 2.4 net of the tariffs. Net of the economic growth. You're talking 1 trillion. So you would be cutting 1 trillion out of a budget of about six and a half.

Now, Elon is -- he's talking about his department of government efficiency.

He's floating 2 trillion.

So I haven't seen the math on those.

I don't know where it's coming from.

I agree whole-heartedly.

I'm certain we could get a lot more than that.

It's cutting out the parts of the military, that is part of our country.

Bring them home. Put them on the border. Divert the Navy that patrol our waters. Stop invading other countries.

That would be a very easy 800 billion, if we look at countries like Japan or UK, which the UK has a functioning military. It has a Coast Guard.

Although, it doesn't use it.

About the whole kit. They spend less than hundred billion.

Of course, you can cut welfare for able-bodied people.

Which the government tries very, very hard to hide how much it spends on welfare. But it's easily over a trillion.

The cost of illegals themselves, which very conservatively is about 150 billion a year. Maybe closer to 350 billion by some estimates. Because, again, they're trying to hide the costs.

Pharmaceuticals. Right?

That's going to be coming into focus with RFK here. But there is a ton of waste and corruption in pharmaceutical payments. Those are something like 20 percent of our economy.

But really, you know, if you sort of zoom out, you're very familiar with the Tenth Amendment.

There are precisely four agencies that are authorized. Right? State, justice, defense, treasury with both offices.

So strictly speaking, if we had a Supreme Court, that actually read the common sense language in the Tenth Amendment, almost the entire thing is gone. You would slash everything. Personally, I would keep Social Security and Medicare because they've already been paid for. That's a complicated issue. I think you have to make sure people are protected, because they already got ripped off on the way in. But aside from that, almost everything they do, from DEI, to just -- to the Federal Reserve, all of that is unconstitutional.

You slash that down, and you are -- gosh, you're probably more than 3 trillion down.

GLENN: So do you think we have a shot at doing that?

Is he putting the team in, around him to do something like this?

PETER: So the closest we have, I follow Polymarket very closely. They've got odds on pretty much everything out there. The sort of tip of the spear on income tax repeal is starting with tax on tips.

Right? That was the one that he most clearly promised.

And so that's kind of a proxy for whether we're going to start hacking away at the income tax. So tax on tips, is currently running 38 percent on Polymarket.

That's the number I'm watching. That's encouraging. Because it means, it's not just talk.

That people with capital, believe it's the real.

But for sure, Congress will play ball.

GLENN: Yeah. Thank you so much, Peter. We'll have you on again. Great explanation of this. Peter St. Onge. He's with the Heritage Foundation. You can follow him @PeterStOnge. Good luck spelling Onge. I mean, just saying.

Witnessing a SpaceX Launch & Predicting Elon Musk's Legacy in 50 Yearsplay icon
RADIO

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.

Jasmine Crockett just DEFENDED this Jeffrey Epstein claim?!play icon
RADIO

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 Nuzziplay icon
RADIO

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.