Best of the Program | Guests: Dr. Robert Epstein & Rep. Chris Stewart | 10/7/19

Hey podcasters, welcome to Monday.

Stu's with us, so it's going to be another

iffy kind of show.

Yep.

But

we have Dr.

Robert Epstein on.

Again, we have the review of The Joker.

We also spend some time talking a little bit about what it's like to be throttled, what it's like to be shadow banned, as Twitter and Facebook and YouTube are now shadow banning.

And we have evidence that we get into right off the bat on today's podcast.

You're listening to the best of the blend back program.

So we have some news about our special last week.

We want to thank you so much for being a Blaze subscriber.

I just got some data points last night.

It is now the most watched video on the Blaze platform that the Blaze has ever produced.

That's in nine years.

This is the biggest video we have ever produced.

Most watched video we've ever produced.

That's saying something because it was a two-hour special.

And just the chalkboard is 50 minutes long.

Now here's where it gets weird.

If you go to uh YouTube

or if you go and look for it online,

it's not the biggest video we've produced.

Isn't that weird?

So inside the platform, it is gigantic.

It is the biggest thing we've ever done.

But if it's shared off of the Blaze platform, all of a sudden it's like, meh, it's okay.

Now it's still big.

Still has almost 2 million views now on all of the different platforms.

But

really?

Strange, right?

I mean, usually, and we've seen this a million times.

When we have something that hits with our audience here, it tends to hit with the YouTube audience and with the

very standard procedure.

We're a media company.

we watch these things closely uh uh and so we've noticed that it's like somebody shifted us into first gear now it couldn't be google and facebook could it

now we have something uh last night or yesterday i guess brad pascal who is the

i know he's the trump social media guy um campaign big role in the campaign i believe now yeah okay so last night uh he tweeted investigate or this was 17 hours ago, investigate.

Glenn Beck nails it.

The fake news media wants to ignore this.

If anything close to this existed, the GOP

would play 24-7 on every channel.

He breaks down the origin of it all and the real collusion against real Donald Trump.

Okay, then he embeds the link.

Then this morning, he just tweeted: my average tweet gets two hundred and fifty to four hundred thousand impressions.

A great tweet gets a million.

This tweet has forty thousand, the lowest of any tweet since I became campaign manager.

Hmm.

Cards are so stacked against us, you won't stop me from getting this out, Libs.

Then Charlie Kirk last night wrote to me and he said, just saw the video, Glenn.

It's unbelievable.

He said,

tweeted it out right away.

Charlie just also tweeted.

A typical tweet of mine will get 150,000 impressions and 36,000 engagements.

Yet when I shared the Parscal tweet about truth behind Ukraine, the video of mine, it only got 237.

237.

I choose to believe that Google, Facebook, Twitter are all innocent and people just don't like you.

Now, I don't know if that's possible.

There is a possible.

So if you look at this, this is, by the way, that's not engagements.

Okay.

Impressions, 159,000 is, you know, he just compared his average is 150.

So impressions, 159,453.

This is impressions, not engagement.

Impressions, 237.

That's not even possible.

That's not possible.

It's not possible.

237 impressions.

Impressions.

So then, Pascal just, or how do you say his name?

Parscal,

he just

tweeted this.

This appears that Glenn Beck's website URL is causing a conversation quality conversion.

I'm sorry, what was that?

He says it's a conversation quality conversion.

Ah, okay.

Which means impressions are not being shown on those links

one step within those that follow me.

So in other words, if you follow,

you may get the link.

But if you are one step beyond,

the algorithm is stopping it and choking it right after those who

voluntarily said, I want your tweets.

So not everybody's getting that, but no one's passing it on.

The algorithms are not passing it to anyone else.

Right.

It's not going to top tweets or, you know,

and they do that.

And look, it's probably their right to do it, but it's an interesting thing that they are doing.

And if you're going to get protections from the government, how is this possible?

Yeah.

I mean, this we should should get Ted Cruz on.

We should get everybody else that's on with Google.

I'd like to talk to Robert Epstein and have him look into this.

Yeah.

Because

if he's seeing it happen as well.

There is absolutely no reason why this

video is not being shared.

There's no, by the way, it is a banned video.

You know how they ban for that.

It's only 2%.

You know, where you can't watch it in college.

you can't watch it in a school campus, you can't watch it

in a library.

Yeah, right.

It's restricted.

Yep.

It's a legitimate idea, the restricted mode thing, right?

Where you would say, well, yeah, if it's

restricted, like, let's say, you know, there's content that's, yeah, they don't put porn on YouTube, I don't think, but they don't, but it's stuff like, you know, sometimes there's violent videos.

There could be, like, you know, sometimes the story with,

let's say, even the Holocaust, right?

But with all the imagery, might be in restricted mode.

It's really meant more for parents

than anything else.

Correct.

But again, like

your video, while it has,

I mean, other than boring children to death, is not going to do anything harmful.

No, there's no swear words.

There's no swear words on it.

There's not even conspiracy.

I love the people who have been saying, oh, it's a conspiracy.

What conspiracy?

Everything we showed you was documented.

You can look into that.

Yeah.

I mean, in fact, I want you.

I engaged so many people who are just

haters, just haters that were like, ah, Claude Beck, you're an idiot.

That's great.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

I accept that.

Can you just tell me where we got it wrong?

I engaged over and over and over this weekend.

Just stick to the documents, the court documents, the sworn affidavits, the audio recordings.

Can you just

stick to those.

Don't make this about me.

Stick to those.

Can you tell me what's wrong with any of those?

Nope, not a word.

Audio recordings typically of officials on tape saying

they worked with the Clinton administrator, the Clinton people, to

hurt Donald Trump during the election.

This is a hidden recording, by the way, of them at dinner.

So it's not like they were like on stage for some reason to try to send a message or anything like that.

Play the tape again if we happen to have it still here.

It's in Ukrainian,

so you won't be able to understand it, but maybe you'll be able to understand the word Clinton

in there.

And we had the translation, by the way.

We had to go through multiple hoops to get the translation from an actual Ukrainian translation company.

Right.

Because there wasn't an English translation that existed of the video.

Which video, which is weird.

It's weird because it was on the front page of one of the papers in Ukraine.

This was part of a trial where they convicted two people

in Ukraine, two people.

I mean, you want to talk about closely related to the Obama administration, the guy who was running the anti-corruption

bureaucracy, really,

to run this bureau that they put in because they thought Ukraine was too corrupt.

Right.

Right.

And then they lost $7 billion.

And as the government was trying to investigate, the Anti-Corruption Bureau with Obama was like, no, no, no, no.

We don't need to investigate that.

Let's look the other way.

Wow.

Here's the video.

This is the audio.

Did those Russians help him?

Your people?

Speaking of Trump.

I think they did.

But I helped them too.

Not him.

I helped Hillary.

Yeah, right.

But then her position tottered.

Well, this is how they write about it, right?

Hillary's humanitarian aid.

Stop for a second.

What the hell does that even mean?

Her humanitarian aid.

They're bringing up, well,

her position teetered.

Yeah, well, her humanitarian aid.

Why would two officials in Ukraine be talking about the Clinton Foundation when they were talking about how corrupt they were in helping win the election or helping Hillary try to win the election.

How is that?

I mean,

think of that.

It's very strange.

It's almost as if the Clinton administration wasn't really a charity.

Right.

Right?

Like, I mean, you think about it.

How much?

I mean, maybe they're doing all sorts of incredible things right now, and I'm just missing them.

Yeah.

But I haven't heard word one from any journalist about all the things the Clinton Foundation has done for people since the election ended.

I mean, it's been three years.

I haven't heard that.

Are they even in operation anymore?

I don't even know.

I honestly don't even know.

Are they still in operation?

Are they still accepting donations?

Are they still doing things?

You know, I haven't heard Word One about the elections.

It's really weird because if you lost, wouldn't this be like your retirement thing to do if it was really a charity?

At least Jimmy Carter went and built houses.

Still building them now.

He's like 100 years old.

He's still nailing strings together.

It's strange.

It's almost like all those countries that gave money and then strangely got a meeting with the Secretary of State.

It's almost like that was the business.

Almost like it.

But definitely not.

No, not worth looking into.

No, okay.

No, not worth looking into.

So here are these guys on tape saying that they helped Hillary Clinton

and they don't know about the Russians.

I suppose they tried to help Trump, but these are Ukrainians.

And they're admitting that they worked to help Hillary Clinton.

And the main guy who is speaking here is the guy who ran the anti-corruption bureau.

The guy who's like, yeah, I helped.

Yeah, you bet.

You bet.

That's the anti-corruption guy.

So here's the thing.

First of all,

I told you this a few weeks ago that it is really important that you sign up for

my newsletter at glenbeck.com.

Because that's a way that we have to directly contact you with no filter.

Nobody's cutting our communication.

It is important that you are a Blaze subscriber.

I almost, almost think maybe, possibly have the purse strings almost open to be able to get the

to get to be able to hire some investigative journalist and hole them up in a room like the New York Times does and really take this open because nobody's going to do it.

We're at the same position we were at at Fox.

Same place.

We have all the goods.

All it requires is some organization to take it on and actually do it.

And no one will.

Well,

we just, that's probably a million dollars to be able to do an investigation like this.

We need you to support us and please subscribe to the Blaze.

And it is the only way that I can guarantee that you will see our videos.

Our videos are now being blocked.

They are being throttled even on Twitter.

The president's people are being throttled.

Why?

Why do you fear this story?

Tell me that, Google.

What is wrong with this story?

We haven't violated any of your standards.

There's nothing offensive on it.

It's all documented.

There's no conspiracy here.

It's all documented.

Why are you so afraid of this?

Why is the media avoiding this?

And why is Google and Facebook doing everything they can to make sure that this word doesn't get out?

Join us at the Blaze, Blazetv.com

slash Glenn.

Do we still have the 20?

I'm just going to say GB20 off.

I don't think that's still active, but

you can try it.

Give it a whirl.

Or use Glenn, you'll get 10% off.

It's 10 or 20.

I don't know.

Try GB20 off.

See if it goes through because I think it should be 20 off.

It should be more than that today.

We want everybody to join us at Blaze.

Blazetv.com/slash Glenn.

Try GB20 off.

If not, just try promo code.

What is it, Glenn?

Yeah.

And that'll get you to the 10% off.

The best of the Glenn Beck program.

Hey, it's Glenn, and you're listening to the Glenn Beck program.

If you like what you're hearing on this show, make sure you check out Pat Gray Unleashed.

It's available wherever you download your favorite podcasts.

So I want to go to Dr.

Robert Epstein.

He is a guy who we have had on several times.

He is a guy that was a Clinton supporter

and voted for Clinton.

He's from the other side.

The other side has eaten him now because he dare cross the line and say, hey, there's something going on with Google and their algorithms.

And he has been watching the election, and

we've got to help this man raise enough money to be able to

document what this next election, what is happening with this next election.

Because Google, we know they have said, we can't let this happen again.

And he's the only one that is in the position to document this.

And he is not a fan, I don't think, of either side.

He just wants the truth.

Welcome to the program, Dr.

Robert Epson.

My pleasure, Glenn.

Nice to be back.

It's good to have you.

So I wanted just to touch base with you today because

we have some interesting things happening.

I produced the biggest video the Blaze has ever published.

It is a video that has more views on the platform by far than anything we've done in almost 10 years.

And yet, on YouTube and Facebook,

it's performing well, but not like that.

We now have two people who

have tweeted it, who have gigantic followings,

and they can't, one had engagement of 237

they have you know

millions of followers I have two million followers I can't get this thing over you know two thousand

likes

how do we prove that we're being throttled here

well

as as you may recall in 2016 I built a monitoring system which allowed me with people's permission to look over the shoulders of users around the country.

At that point, I had 95 field agents in 24 states and basically see what they were seeing on their screens as they were conducting searches on Google, Bing, and Yahoo.

So we preserved more than 13,000 election-related searches.

2018, we built a bigger system.

We preserved not only search results, but we also preserved search suggestions and answer boxes.

2020, we're going to build an enormous system with thousands of field agents, and we're going to preserve lots of things.

I'm not going to go through the whole list, but among other things, we are going to preserve tweets that will document, that will show without any doubt, that will quantify

what at Twitter is called shadow banning.

And that's what you and your colleagues are running into.

Basically, if Twitter personnel believe that you're violating any of their terms of service, which we're not,

well, you know, that's very subjective, though, on their part, very subjective.

What they do is they can either downrank you, and they admit this, by the way, they can either downrank you so people don't see you because you're not high in any lists.

You're popping up very, very low,

or actually shadow ban, which means you send out a tweet to your 2 million followers, but your 2 million followers aren't getting the tweet, period.

Or just a small portion of them are getting it.

But we now have a way of actually documenting this, recording it, quantifying it.

So we're going to have rock solid evidence in 2020.

If Twitter is doing this,

we are going to document it, prove it, and we're going to release our findings to the media and to a Federal Election Commission and to various authorities.

So we're going to be tracking all kinds of things with a very large panel of field agents in all 50 states, including shadow banning.

So we also are having a problem with YouTube and

it's not popping up the way it should in YouTube.

So

it's part of Google, right?

Yeah,

it's part of Google.

Are you going to be watching YouTube as well?

Positively.

We're going to be watching YouTube many, many different ways in which, in fact, five different ways in which Facebook suppresses material.

I'm not even going to tell you how many ways we're going to be monitoring.

No, don't.

Please don't.

Don't.

Google is the biggest threat there is to the free and fair election.

But I can tell you, I am positive that these companies,

if there's no monitoring system in place, these companies are going to go all out.

And together, I calculate that they can shift 15 million votes next year with no one knowing that they've done it and without leaving a paper trail for authorities to trace.

I'm having real problems getting my MySpace posts to even be seen.

No one's looking at them at all.

I don't know if you can look into that for me, Doctor.

So

the scary thing here is that this is such an obvious

shadow ban.

There's just no way these metrics are even right.

And they don't care.

They don't care that I'm on the air talking about them doing this.

They don't care that you're doing.

They don't care.

I mean, well, they don't care.

In fact,

we learned a lot about shadow banning in January of 2018 from a Project Veritas investigation.

And let me just read you a quote from

a former software engineer.

His last name is Vadrevu, V-A-D-R-E-V-U, V-A-D-R-E-V-U,

about shadow banning.

So here's a former Twitter software engineer.

Quote: The idea of a shadow ban is that you ban someone, but they don't know they've been banned because they keep posting and no one sees their content.

So they just think that no one is engaging with their content when in reality no one is seeing it, end quote.

So

Project Archos interviewed about half a dozen current and former employees of Twitter, and they all admitted that this occurs.

Then Forbes magazine did a fabulous piece.

I recommend people look that up, which is entitled, Is Twitter Really Censoring Free Speech?

Where Forbes went to Twitter and

asked these tough questions.

And in this wonderful article, they report

Twitter's responses.

Twitter,

like Google, like Facebook, they answer questions about content suppression, about censorship, in very creepy ways.

Because

Twitter said, no, we don't shadow ban, but oh, yes, we do downrank.

And we make decisions about how to protect

our users from content they shouldn't be seeing.

Right.

That is an amazing, it's an amazing quote.

I have it here.

Let's see.

There you go.

Now my computer screen is a bit more.

No external audits.

They will not allow any external committees

to come in and look over what they're doing.

They don't allow that.

And they will not release the demographic characteristics of the people they use to make decisions about suppressing content.

It's amazing.

Here's a quote.

Twitter does not shadow ban accounts.

We do take actions to downrank accounts that are abusive and mark them accordingly so that people can still click through and see the tweets if they so choose, which, of course, no one does, right?

Like, that's not the way people use Twitter.

They don't go, they don't click on the named accounts.

And we know this happens, right?

This is essentially their own mute feature.

I use it all the time.

I freaking love the mute feature, but I'm choosing to do it.

There's tons of people who are calling me a Nazi every single day that I don't see, but they think I see it.

Like, they're wondering.

They tweet all the time negative things to me.

And I'm just like, mute, mute, mute, mute.

I don't care.

But that should be something that the user does.

That should not be something that Twitter is doing for us.

Well, this is the problem, or I should say one of the big three problems.

The first one is the surveillance.

Second is the

censorship.

And the third is manipulation.

And here we're talking about the censorship problem.

And

you don't know what you don't know.

So censorship is so dangerous because

if material is being suppressed, content is being suppressed, how would you know that?

And of course, what I study is how

these kinds of activities shift people's thinking, beliefs, attitudes, and of course shifts their voting preferences.

And it is astonishing the impact that these kinds of manipulations have on people's thinking and behavior and on their votes.

And again, you don't know what you don't know.

You know, it's really interesting because I read the New York Times, I listen to the daily every day, you know, because I want to be informed on what they are talking about.

I need to understand all sides of an issue, and I want to see what, you know, what they are publishing or what they aren't publishing and what their spin is when they do.

And it is incredible to me that there are many people who are on the right who don't necessarily know.

They'll blame the New York Times for never covering such, and they will have, but it's the New York Times, it's not the mainstream media.

However, the mainstream media in bulk, they don't watch, listen, or pay any attention to what people on the other side are saying and report it as fact or even just this is the way half the country feels.

And after the last election, I had a friend come down who was a liberal and paid no attention to the other side.

And we told him about about all of the different things that had happened in the Obama administration, like the IRS investigation.

He had never even heard of it.

And so they can report things, but by the way they report it or by the way they downplay it, et cetera, et cetera, half the country

isn't even aware of what the other half thinks.

That's a real problem.

Well, this also is

a worse problem than any censorship in history because when these big tech companies suppress material, there's no way to counteract it.

In other words,

Google has no competition, has no competitor really anywhere in the world.

Neither does Facebook.

Neither does Twitter.

I mean,

if these platforms want to suppress material, you can't counteract it.

In other words,

if the newspaper published on one side of Pittsburgh wants to suppress something, well,

chances are there's a newspaper, something or other on the other side of Pittsburgh where they're going to bring that material out.

But

you can't counteract it when Google, Facebook, or Twitter suppresses material.

There's no way to counteract it.

In fact, generally, unless someone like me builds monitoring systems, you can't even detect what they're doing.

Robert, I can't thank you enough for all of the hard work that you are putting through.

If you would like to donate,

please donate.

And if there happens to be wealthy people that are listening right now, please donate generously to mygoogleresearch.com, mygoogleresearch.com.

This is the guy who's actually just searching for answers and the truth.

It is legitimate research.

And

right now, he happens to be on the outs with the left because that's, you know, who's generally controlling these companies.

But he'd do the same if it was controlled by the right.

please donate my to mygoogle research.com thank you doctor i appreciate it we'll talk to you again thanks go you bet

this is the best of the glenn beck program

Hey, it's Glenn.

And if you like what you hear on the program, you should check out Pat Gray Unleashed.

His podcast is available wherever you download your favorite podcast.

Hi, it's Glenn.

If you're a subscriber to the podcast, can you do us a favor and rate us on iTunes?

If you're not a subscriber, become one today and listen on your own time.

You can subscribe on iTunes.

Thanks.

And Congressman Chris Stewart joins us now as he's getting on an airplane to, God forbid, go back to Washington, D.C.

Chris,

he's not on yet.

Okay, hang on just a second.

You know what it is?

Google.

Facebook.

There's the screen with our phones.

I'm curious to ask Chris,

obviously, these latest developments, what he's seen, what he can talk to us about, because he can't talk to us about a lot of it.

Right.

He's on the Intelli.

He's going through security.

He's taking off his belt and shoes.

So, yeah,

when he picks his phone back up out of the little round cup,

we'll have him on.

Because has he seen the second whistleblower?

He's seen the second whistleblower, and we want to talk to him about that.

That'll be interesting.

I don't know how much he can talk about with that.

I think he can, I don't know.

They say this is like not only the smoking gun, it's the second smoking gun.

Yeah, like they're not the first one.

The first one wasn't really smoking.

Now, is the smoking gun when Rudy Giuliani was on television saying he was going to do these things?

I kind of thought that was a smoking gun, that they were doing it.

That was kind of an interesting turn of events.

Now, there is more to it, I guess, with the money being withheld, and maybe we'll learn more about that.

We still haven't, but there's still, you know, I do want to ask Chris if he's also seen the full testimony or was present of this person, of the people talking about Volcker and the other people involved here talking about the text that came out last week.

Oh, yeah, yeah.

Because if you remember, this was like when some of the Trump officials were saying things like, look, you know, it's my, is it my understanding that we're supposed to withhold this security assessment,

the money, essentially, for in until this investigation starts?

And then the other guy's like, oh, no, you misunderstand what the Trump administration would like to do.

We want to do only the best things with unicorns and puppy dogs it's like one of those things of where you could tell both of them are trying to get on record they're not actually talking to each other they're just both texting to get on record but predictably after this testimony happened the democrats bring out everything that i would assume is the worst most damning information and we haven't heard anything from the other side of it republicans Universally that have seen this information seem to be coming out and saying, if you see the full testimony, you're going to understand what was going on.

Why don't they release the full testimony?

And the Democrats haven't.

So that's interesting, and it's an interesting point, but you know, it's also predictably partisan lines.

This is breaking on.

I wonder if Chris has any more insight.

Obviously, he is a Republican, but he seems to be pretty honest.

He's putting his belt and his shoes back on right now.

Welcome, Congressman Chris Stewart.

How are you, sir?

I got to get my shoes here, Glenn.

Just give me another minute.

All right.

All right.

So, Chris,

good.

Did you see the whistleblower report, and can you talk about it?

Yes, and somewhat.

Okay.

We've seen it.

I think much of it has been released.

There's been some redacted portions, but this is pretty much in a public realm, so we can talk about almost all of it except for some small portions.

Okay, so go ahead.

Tell us your POV.

I mean, this seems like just another guy who's saying, yep, that phone call happened.

Well, we know that.

Right?

You're talking about the second whistleblower.

Second whistleblower.

Yeah.

Yeah, yeah.

Well, no, it was obvious.

I mean, I said yesterday on some media that I thought this was going to come forward because it was obvious that this guy had been having some conversation.

This guy or girl had been having conversations and that

they were interested in talking about it.

But as I said yesterday, what difference does it make?

All they can say is, as you started to say, Glenn, yep,

I listened or I read the transcript.

And yep, that's a phone call.

Well, again, we already have that information.

You or any of your listeners could read that in seven seconds.

And other than that,

what can he tell us that's helpful at all?

And the answer to that is nothing.

We can read it.

We can make our own judgment.

I don't need

some secret analyst who tells me what this means.

It's very simple what it means.

Anyone can read it themselves.

All right.

So tell me about,

if you can, the text messages that were last week they were revealed.

Can you talk about those at all?

Yeah, although a little more limited because it was an executive session and

we have to be, you know, have to be careful on it.

But this is just the bottom line on this.

And this is so malicious and it's so deliberate because what they have done is they've taken little snippets of it,

not even an entire short text in its entirety.

but little pieces here and there and they leak that because once again this is an executive session and it's not supposed to be released and it creates an impression that is absolutely 100% contrary to the facts or the entirety of this hearing.

And that is, Mr.

Volcker and others came and they said there clearly was no quid pro quo.

There clearly was no linkage.

He has very plausible, very, very reasonable explanations for the timing of the meetings, you know, the timing of their intention to withhold this

agent of Ukraine that was based entirely.

on them trying to pressure Angela Merkel and others in the EU.

And these guys will take little pieces of it, they'll leak it to the media.

The media, of course, runs with it.

And by the time the truth comes out, when they'll release a transcript that will show in its entirety what it actually means, the damage is already done.

So, Chris,

I did a special last week.

I don't know if you've seen it,

but I laid a chalkboard out, and it took me about 50 minutes.

Everything in it, we have verified sources on.

There wasn't a bit of conjecture, or maybe this happened, or whatever.

100% based on fact.

And it outlines that the Democrats did in Ukraine exactly everything that they are accusing Donald Trump on.

And yet, no one in the media cares to cover this.

We're being throttled like nobody's business.

It's the biggest video we have done in almost the 10-year history of the Blaze.

On the platform, it's gigantic, but we are being throttled down.

You know, Charlie Kirk said he gets

about 150,000 views of everything that he does.

When he retweeted this link, it got 237.

And I'm wondering where anyone is

on

turning this around back on the Democrats.

Is there anybody who is on this trail?

Well, we're trying, Glenn.

I mean, there's a number of us who are trying.

And I was actually listening to you earlier as I was running and you talking about this 50-minute chalkboard and the lack of response on Twitter.

And I would ask, I mean, I'm not terribly surprised.

In fact, frankly, I would have been surprised if you wouldn't have had that kind of response from them and that kind of throttling.

I don't think it's muted, but it's clearly throttled.

But this is just one example.

And Glenn, let me give you another one that we've been talking about for years that is ignored.

I mean, the Democrats are making this argument that the president needs to be impeached and removed from office because of one sentence in one conversation that he readily made available.

He released that thing within a few days of anyone asking for it.

On the other hand, nurses this story, Hillary Rodden Clinton and the DNC paid a foreign agent who then worked with other Russian agents to do what?

To dig up dirt on their political opponent in order to affect the outcome of an election, which is the rumid you hear all the time regarding President Trump, what he said in Ukraine.

We know that they did that.

They did it far more brazenly.

And when does the media ever talk about that?

I just think it's one more example.

Your experience here is just one more example of them.

Look, to call them biased is an incredible understatement.

They're advocates now, and they're dishonest advocates.

And

I don't know what to say.

We just have to accept it and do what we can.

Well, so the only solution here is

that the Senate, because you can't in the House, that the Senate starts to look into this corruption

with the Democrats.

I mean,

why are we playing defense when we should be playing offense?

Why isn't the Senate taking this on and saying, you know what,

we'd like to find out exactly what was happening in Ukraine?

And you go ahead and investigate the president.

We're going to be investigating what was happening in Ukraine and why people went to prison or were convicted.

I think it was overturned, but it's back in court today.

But they were convicted for interfering in the U.S.

election.

We have them on tape

on the video.

We have a tape of the guy who was the head of the Anti-Corruption Bureau in Ukraine.

actually admitting to helping Hillary Clinton win the election.

Or, I mean, you know, tried to win the election.

Well, and as you said, they're in the House.

I mean, I'm as powerless as a kitten in the House, being in the minority, unfortunately, which is why we got to change that.

But as you said, the Senate, Lindsey Graham, and others in the Senate do have the authority to investigate this.

And I think Lindsey's indicated more than a willingness to do that.

And there's one other tool that we have that I think may be more effective, and that is Attorney General Barr.

Oh, my gosh, this guy is a hero to me because he is fearless.

He's committed.

He's not out to make a name or a reputation.

He's been there, done that, doesn't need to do it again.

And I believe he is, as I said, committed to investigating not only the origins of the FISA warrant and the other, as we know, the other activities going back to 2016 in Russia, but I think.

I think you'd be surprised if he didn't look at Ukraine as well.

That FISA warrant is going to fall apart.

We have documented evidence, Chris.

Please watch

that video.

We have documented evidence that a DNC operative

put all of this information together and sent it to Michael Issakoff.

Now, I'm not saying that Michael knew

that he was being used, but in that text message or that email, she's alluding to the steel dossier, which is one of the things, if I'm not mistaken, that was used

for the FISA report, was an article from Michael Issakoff.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, for sure, Glenn.

I mean, look, this was talking about circular reasoning or circular law.

This was a FISA document based on the Steele dossier, which I just described, the origins of that too.

By the way, painfully...

Painfully hidden under there was the fact that they knew that it was paid for by the DNC.

But in a footnote,

I defy anyone to read that footnote where they describe where they got this information and who funded it and to actually understand who did it.

It's a very clear effort

to be deceitful and deceptive in that.

But then as additional evidence, what do they use?

As you just said, Michael Isakoff's reporting.

Where did he get his information from?

From Christopher Steele.

So, I mean, their backup is the same document.

It was just leaked to a reporter, and they claim that that is a secondary source when clearly it's not, and they knew that it wasn't

chris thank you so much we'll talk to you again thanks for the hard work you're doing on this i appreciate it

this is the best of the glenn beck program

like listening to this podcast if you're not a subscriber become one now on iTunes and while you're there do us a favor and rate the show So

I went to Joker and not knowing what to expect,

but after hearing so many people talk about it, I was expecting the most violent movie ever filmed.

And I was quite surprised.

On the way there, I even

said to myself, if it turns out to be...

that kind of gratuitous violence where it's man's inhumanity to man, I'm leaving and I'll walk walk out because I just don't want to put that into me.

I just don't, I don't like,

I just don't like watching, you know,

torture.

Pretty much any Mel Gibson movie.

There's a part where they're always just torturing Mel and he's hanging from chains and

you're like, okay, I got it, I got it, I got it.

So I expected Joker to be really, really, really twisted.

And what I found was

the opposite in many ways.

This

movie is unlike any superhero or any comic book movie I've ever seen.

This one is

realistic.

This takes place in the 1970s.

They even open with the old Warner Brothers logo from the 70s.

It looks like it's made on film, at least at the beginning.

I mean, it is really,

really, really well done.

Joaquin

Phoenix is brilliant in this movie.

But what I didn't expect was that for the first three quarters of the movie,

I would find myself saying,

this is a tragedy.

This is so incredibly sad

because he's clearly disturbed.

And Joaquin Phoenix really plays this very, very well.

And

he plays a character who is a clown.

And in the first scene, I won't give anything away.

The first scene opens with him getting, you know, mugged by some kids.

He's doing a you know a clown thing on the street.

And

he gets mugged and beaten by these kids.

And you come to find out that that's kind of the life he lives.

He has lived this life where he's always been picked on, always been bullied.

He's obviously, clearly, very mentally unstable.

He had already been

in Arkham

when he was younger.

He lives with his mom.

He has no real life, none whatsoever.

And nobody sees him, and nobody listens to him.

And when they do, they beat him up.

And you will go through the first

three quarters of this movie,

I think, feeling really bad for him.

And I don't like movies that turn the villain into the good guy and the good guys into a bad guy, which I thought was where they were going with it.

It's not.

And I was greatly relieved of that.

I don't know the director and the writer's POV.

I don't know what they were trying to do, but the Joker pretty much is leading, you know, in the end.

We all know that he, you know, becomes a leader.

Wait, what?

That's total spoiler alert.

I know, and he hates Batman.

Oh, my.

Okay.

Thanks for giving the whole.

I don't have to watch the sequel.

But this is, this is

Occupy Wall Street.

This is Antifa.

Yeah.

I've heard that from several people who said the politics of this are not

they've been advertised.

No, very left.

He's a left-winger, essentially.

Well, he's or at least the group seems to be.

Here's where you could see it as left: is if you think that the left cares about people,

but

really,

because he's he is genuine on

just, can't we be nice to each other?

The social media commentary that at least I got from it, they don't talk about social media.

It was taken in the 70s.

But

to me, his rant is about us.

You know, nobody's nice to each other.

Why is everybody mean to one another?

Why does everybody just say horrible things about one another?

That's not what the crowd is doing.

The crowd is getting, you know, the anti-rich

hate the wealthy, hate those in power, disrupt the system, burn it all down.

That's not what he's saying.

And I would guess in future movies, I'm hoping he is asked to be playing the Joker again in sequels because I thought he was brilliant.

He deserves an Oscar for sure.

But

he's going to end up again, again, I think, just being used and beaten because he's he's clearly insane and not smart enough to be putting things together.

He's not like the Joker that we've all seen where he's this mastermind, right?

He's not, he's not.

That's interesting.

I mean, it does seem like the media is ridiculous, right?

They make these fake controversies out of everything.

And this was the, you know, the initial push on this was, well, it's going to cause mass shootings.

Well, if it does, it'll be because of the left.

Because it is a message of the left, not the right.

It's antipha.

They keep saying it's incels.

It's going to make incels essentially involuntary, involuntary celibates, I believe it is.

Just used to be the losers.

Well,

it might.

I mean, look, if you are unstable

and you go to see this, you will relate to him.

It's the same way that people would relate to Edward Norton and Fight Club, right?

Where like you kind kind of like, there's these anti-heroes that wind up being heroes to certain segments of the society.

He's not a hero in any way.

But that, but neither, I mean, could

you know Edward Norton, I mean, again, spoiler alert, was a terrorist.

It's impossible to see him as anything else if you actually watch the movie seriously.

Not Edward Norton, the person, by the way, I'm talking about his character in this particular movie.

And, you know, it's one of those things where that happens a lot.

What's his face?

What was the one where

Anonymous was using it?

Guy Fawkes, right?

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Guy Fox was not a good guy.

But Guy Fox, that was 1600s.

But the movie was not 1600s.

The movie came out relatively recently and was used as a symbol for a lot of...

But he was for Occupy Wall Street, and that fits.

They weren't good.

Well, but they,

every mass shooter says that they're heroic in some way, right?

Like, I know.

Everybody thinks, you know, Hitler thought he he was heroic, right?

Everybody thinks they're heroic or comes up with a way to justify their heroic.

I personally think that if we all saw Joker and we could all be adults, we could have a very good conversation.

I think it's a great conversation starter.

You know, it's one that you can walk out of and say,

so what does that say about society?

Who is he talking about?

And have a real conversation because it's I mean, how many of these shooters do we know are crazy?

They're not they're they're they're not getting proper care, you know, and they feel isolated and bullied.

Well, that's what's really happening.

Our society is sick, it's sick, and I think this is the movie of our day.

I really do.

I think I don't, I don't know what to

compare it to,

but it is

I think it's the the

maybe Saturday night fever of the 70s where it was it just encapsulated that time and it was like that's that's that year

this is now

so two questions for you yeah number one I like movies that do challenge me make me think maybe have conversations after however that needs to be paired with it actually being a freaking good movie okay so here's how I

by itself, is it a good movie?

Here's how I reviewed it.

This is a great film.

100%

great,

one of the better films made.

It is also one of the best movies I've seen in a long time.

Wow.

Yeah.

Okay.

So

do not go to it thinking that you're going to be preached to.

No, you're not going to be preached to.

You can take it if you want to find it.

You can add additional layers of conversation if you want to, but you don't have to.

You don't have to.

It's a good movie.

Yeah, it's a good movie.

Nobody's preaching to you.

It's still a Gotham movie, but it is the least Batman.

It's probably the lowest body count Batman,

even on television.

I mean, from Adam West.

I mean, it's a, for a movie in today's world of, you know, violent movies, this is a very low body count.

Okay.

My second question is more personal.

Yeah.

I find myself falling into a very familiar pattern, which is I don't don't like superhero movies, and then everyone starts talking about a superhero movie, and I think, ah, maybe this one's going to be good.

And then I go to see it, and it sucks.

This one's not a superhero movie.

Did you like the Batman, Christopher Nolan, Batman?

I liked Batman Begins.

I remember really liking the, that was the, is that the one before the one with Heath Ledger?

The one before that

was very dark, and I liked it.

Right.

That's that's Christopher Nolan.

Yeah.

Christopher Nolan

did the best Batman,

you know, the Batman series.

It was very dark.

Yeah, yeah.

And it was realistic-ish.

You know what I mean?

Yeah.

This is,

you could say,

you could say that this is not in Gotham.

It's in New York City, and there is no Batman.

And

you would be comfortable even the way he dresses

in the outfit with the green hair.

You would go, I could see that.

It's a realistic original movie.

It's the most realistic Batman

or any super movie that I've ever seen.

If you make me go see this movie and it sucks, I am holding you personally responsible.

It's going on your record.

You will be noted.

I just want everybody else to know I'm only giving this review, so he will go to this movie.

It's awful.

It's awful.

Don't fool me again.

You always.

No, you've got to go.

You got to go to it.

I think you will like it.

All right.

The Blaze Radio Network.

on demand.