Trump Achieves the Impossible: Stu Defends Douche Hall of Famer Chris Cuomo

February 09, 2017

WRITER

Say what you will about President Donald J. Trump, but there's not going to be one dull moment over the next four years.

In one of his latest tweets, the president scolded CNN's Chris Cuomo, a member of the Douche Hall of Fame, over his interview with Sen. Blumenthal (D-CT):

Chris Cuomo, in his interview with Sen. Blumenthal, never asked him about his long-term lie about his brave "service" in Vietnam. FAKE NEWS!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 9, 2017

There's only one problem: Cuomo did ask the question.

"I listened to the interview with Chris Cuomo and Senator Blumenthal. It was legitimately the first question he asked him was about his military service," Co-host Stu Burguiere said on radio Thursday.

Perhaps President Trump tuned in late to the interview and missed the lead question.

"Defending Chris Cuomo is physically painful for me. It actually hurts. Ligaments are pulled and organs shut down," Stu said.

"This guy is a douche. There's no doubt about that," Co-host Pat Gray chimed in.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

PAT: I mean, say what you will about Donald J. Trump, and we have. We've said plenty about him, both good and bad actually, but there's not going to be one dull moment over the next four years

STU: That's so true.

PAT: This guy tweeting random stuff at 3 o'clock in the morning every day, there's not going to be -- there's not going to be a lack of things to talk about.

STU: What was the tweet this morning, Jeffy, about the CNN interview?

JEFFY: One hour ago, Chris Cuomo, in his interview with Senator Blumenthal never asked him about his long-term lie about his brave service in Vietnam. Fake news.

STU: Now, this sadly is douche-on-douche violence.

JEFFY: I know.

STU: Being both Chris Cuomo and Donald Trump.

JEFFY: It's tough to stand up for them.

STU: But here's the thing, I listened to the interview with Chris Cuomo and Senator Blumenthal. It was legitimately the first question he asked him was about his military service.

PAT: Seriously.

JEFFY: Wow.

PAT: Not only he asked him, it was the first question he asked.

STU: Now, maybe Trump tuned in, in the middle and missed it or whatever.

PAT: Still come on, you don't check a single fact before you start tweeting?

STU: Look, I --

PAT: Oh, jeez.

STU: I don't know what to say about it. It's obviously completely unimportant as far as the future of the country. I don't know why Trump does this. I mean, Trump wins with his entire audience, right?

JEFFY: He sure does.

STU: If you didn't see the interview, you just believe, oh, man, Cuomo is avoiding that question.

PAT: Yes.

STU: Legitimately his first question was, a lot of people are saying that, you know, why should they trust you on this Gorsuch thing? You lied about your military service.

That was like -- and, of course, Blumenthal ducked the question, which, of course, he would do. And you might be able to fairly say, as even Chris Cuomo mentioned, you can fairly criticize him potentially for not following him on it or not going after him and chasing him down and trying -- but you can't say he didn't say it.

PAT: But you can't say he didn't ask.

STU: It was the first thing he said. So I don't know what the purpose of that is. I think maybe it's one of those things where you can make the media out to be sort of unbelievable and, you know, that they're making stuff up and they don't care about getting to the truth. Which is true so often, there is no need to make one up on Twitter.

PAT: That's right.

STU: You can find 30 examples a day where CNN does something distasteful to conservatives or it doesn't seem like they're actually looking for the truth on a particular story. But when you pick one where the guy legitimately -- I -- you know, defending Chris Cuomo is physically painful for me. It actually hurts. Ligaments are pulled and organs shut down.

PAT: This guy is a douche. There's no doubt about that.

STU: But why pick that one? I don't know.

PAT: I don't either.

STU: However, I think he does well with this stuff because strategically -- just talking specifically, I think it helps feed that narrative that the media doesn't do their job. And most people aren't going to check. Who is going to check that? Nobody.

PAT: Nobody. The other thing he was tweeting about was Nordstrom. Right?

STU: Yeah, that was a big thing.

PAT: He was upset with Nordstrom because apparently they dropped Ivanka's line from their stores. And I wonder, was it performing badly as Nordstrom had said or was it because of the immigration policy?

STU: Right.

JEFFY: It was because they treated her unfairly according to President Trump.

PAT: According to Trump.

STU: And whether you think that is unfair or not, that's another story. But I think it was legitimately connected to the immigration thing. They came out with a statement basically saying they disagreed with it. And then a couple days later, they just dropped the line. Come on.

PAT: That sounds a little more than coincidence, doesn't it?

JEFFY: Yes, it does.

STU: I doubt they were like, "Well, I just don't like the design on that shirt. I just don't like it. I'm not a paisley guy."

PAT: I liked it last week, but this week, I don't like it anymore.

STU: Wow. That is ugly. I don't like the color red anymore. I just don't like it. So I doubt that was it. It was one of those things that probably was tied. That's, of course, their right as a private company.

PAT: Yeah, it is. It is.

STU: I don't know if that's -- you can certainly be critical of the president for getting involved in that nonsense, from a perspective of, he's got more important things to do than his daughter's -- I mean, it's my daughter's birthday today. Happy birthday, Ainsley.

PAT: And it's your birthday today. Happy birthday, Stu.

STU: Thank you very much. But as much as you love your daughter, talking about her clothing line as president of the United States is probably not -- should not be --

PAT: Does Ainsley have -- your daughter, does she have a clothing line yet?

STU: She does. She does.

PAT: She does? Okay.

STU: It's only at Neiman though. So go to Neiman Marcus, you can pick that up. The Ainsley line.

PAT: Nice.

STU: Yeah, a lot of Elsa. Which we did not get the licensing rights for, so fingers crossed they don't hear this.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: But a lot of Else going on in that clothing line.

So I don't -- I don't like the idea that he's criticizing private companies. I didn't like it when Barack Obama would do it. I don't think that's the role for the president. It certainly brings up conflict of interest stuff, which is unnecessary for him to have to deal with in the middle of trying to have to deal with many things -- as we have said on the show -- many things that have been good so far. So why put yourself in that position? I just don't know -- I wonder if President Trump has decided I'm going to every day come out with something that's going to make the media go crazy and have them all distracted. And I will do the opposite.

That's sort of that idea of the master media manipulator that everybody has kind of thrown out there. And if it's true, it does seem to work.

Sometimes -- I don't like how it's done, but it does seem to be an effective tool.

PAT: And if it does work and it gets him through his presidency and helps make him successful, it will be interesting to see if that forever changes the way the office of the presidency is used.

JEFFY: The way it's done, yeah.

PAT: Because people will see that -- the next guy is going to see that -- or girl. The next guy or woman will see, "Well, what Trump worked, so I'm going to try it too." And maybe they'll just use the office that way.

He's setting a precedent here. And if it works, I think it will be used in the future.

STU: Yeah. I mean, I think so.

And you could adjust the way it's done and make -- it's certainly a tool that is useful.

PAT: Uh-huh.

STU: And you're even seeing -- I mean, Elizabeth Warren is doing the same thing. I'm going to resist -- you're going to resist the guy you've been working with for the past six years, really? Jeff Sessions is the thing you're going to resist? The guy you probably had lunch with 12 times over the past four years. That's going to be a big resistance movement? It's obviously nonsense.

But these people go to social media. They go in front of the cameras. They try to get these things going. And it probably does work. And I think because most people have lies. Right? They're not in the middle of this. No one is watching Chris Cuomo in the morning, checking whether he said these things. No one is thinking whether Jeff Sessions or Elizabeth Warren were having coffee last week and joking about how this was all going to happen. We were all going to have these little arguments, and at the end, it's all going to go through. You know, it's silly. But for whatever reason, the American people, especially those that aren't engaged in the process, they eat it up.

The Woodrow Wilson strategy to get out of Mother’s Day

Stock Montage / Contributor, Xinhua News Agency / Contributor | Getty Images

I’ve got a potentially helpful revelation that’s gonna blow the lid off your plans for this Sunday. It’s Mother’s Day.

Yeah, that sacred day where you’re guilt-tripped into buying flowers, braving crowded brunch buffets, and pretending you didn’t forget to mail the card. But what if I told you… you don’t have to do it? That’s right, there’s a loophole, a get-out-of-Mother’s-Day-free card, and it’s stamped with the name of none other than… Woodrow Wilson (I hate that guy).

Back in 1914, ol’ Woody Wilson signed a proclamation that officially made Mother’s Day a national holiday. Second Sunday in May, every year. He said it was a day to “publicly express our love and reverence for the mothers of our country.” Sounds sweet, right? Until you peel back the curtain.

See, Wilson wasn’t some sentimental guy sitting around knitting doilies for his mom. No, no, no. This was a calculated move.

The idea for Mother’s Day had been floating around for decades, pushed by influential voices like Julia Ward Howe. By 1911, states were jumping on the bandwagon, but it took Wilson to make it federal. Why? Because he was a master of optics. This guy loved big, symbolic gestures to distract from the real stuff he was up to, like, oh, I don’t know, reshaping the entire federal government!

So here’s the deal: if you’re looking for an excuse to skip Mother’s Day, just lean into this. Say, “Sorry, Mom, I’m not celebrating a holiday cooked up by Woodrow Wilson!” I mean, think about it – this is the guy who gave us the Federal Reserve, the income tax, and don’t even get me started on his assault on basic liberties during World War I. You wanna trust THAT guy with your Sunday plans? I don’t think so! You tell your mom, “Look, I love you, but I’m not observing a Progressive holiday. I’m keeping my brunch money in protest.”

Now, I know what you might be thinking.

“Glenn, my mom’s gonna kill me if I try this.” Fair point. Moms can be scary. But hear me out: you can spin this. Tell her you’re honoring her EVERY DAY instead of some government-mandated holiday. You don’t need Wilson’s permission to love your mom! You can bake her a cake in June, call her in July, or, here’s a wild idea, visit her WITHOUT a Woodrow Wilson federal proclamation guilting you into it.

Shocking Christian massacres unveiled

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?

Should Starbase become its own city?

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Glenn's Show Prep