GLENN: Yesterday, the media found a new word.
VOICE: Mr. Woolsey told several people contemporaneous, and I've spoken with them --
VOICE: There are contemporaneous notes that were backed up.
VOICE: There was other contemporaneous notes.
VOICE: Talking about contemporaneous issues.
VOICE: If the FBI is still doing, one, contemporaneous with anything they're doing. But I don't think we can --
VOICE: Have a discussion, contemporaneous.
VOICE: They're going to have a hard time proving it, because they didn't catch him contemporaneous.
VOICE: Having these type of contemporaneous memos.
VOICE: And we have Director Comey's contemporaneous notes. They're called 302s. They're contemporaneous memos.
VOICE: Bob Muller kept his contemporaneous notes.
VOICE: Contemporaneous notes of those conversations.
VOICE: What do Comey's contemporaneous memos say?
VOICE: Which is a nod, again, to how powerful contemporaneous.
VOICE: Those notes, the contemporaneous notes --
VOICE: They were contemporaneous at the time.
VOICE: One reason why lawyers take contemporary notes is --
GLENN: Contemporary.
VOICE: Rely on a contemporaneous.
VOICE: As close to a contemporaneous way.
VOICE: Where he has made contemporaneous memos.
VOICE: How contemporaneous is --
VOICE: Kind of contemporaneous at the time.
VOICE: The FBI director kept contained -- contemporaneous, sorry. It's hard to say that word.
PAT: Especially when I've never seen it before.
GLENN: Yeah. But that one made me feel better. That one made me feel better.
So they found this new word yesterday, and they found it for a very important reason. And we need to start with the definition of contemporaneous and why they're using that word, helping you understand your world a little bit more, when we come back.
[break]
VOICE: Mr. Woolsey told several people contemporaneous, and I've spoken with them.
VOICE: There are contemporaneous notes that would back up?
VOICE: There was other contemporaneous notes?
VOICE: We're just talking about contemporaneous issues.
VOICE: If the FBI is still doing, one, contemporaneous with anything they're doing. But I don't think we can afford --
VOICE: Not have a discussion, contemporaneous.
VOICE: They're going to have a hard time proving it, because they didn't catch him contemporaneous.
VOICE: Having these type of contemporaneous memos.
VOICE: And we have Director Comey's contemporaneous notes. They're called 302s. They're contemporaneous memos.
VOICE: Bob Muller kept his contemporaneous notes.
VOICE: Contemporaneous notes of those conversations.
VOICE: What do Comey's contemporaneous memos say?
VOICE: Which is a nod, again, to how powerful contemporaneous --
VOICE: Those notes, the contemporaneous notes --
VOICE: They were contemporaneous at the time.
VOICE: One reason why lawyers take contemporary notes.
(laughter)
VOICE: Rely on a contemporaneous.
VOICE: As close to a contemporaneous way.
VOICE: Where he has made contemporaneous memos.
VOICE: How contemporaneous is --
VOICE: Were kind of contemporaneous at the time.
VOICE: The FBI director kept contained -- contain -- contain -- contemporaneous. Sorry. God, it's hard to say that word. Contemporaneous.
STU: It is.
PAT: When you've never seen it, you don't know what it means.
GLENN: All right. So Merriam-Webster defines contemporaneous, existing, occurring, or beginning during the same time.
So a political event and cultural event that are happening at the same time. In this particular case, the -- the notes that are contrary, because the notes were taken at the same time as the meeting.
So there's a difference between notes that you go and you write, you know, a week or two later, as opposed to the notes that you take at the time.
Now, when I met with President Bush, I know that I could not take a pencil or paper, a telephone, anything in. No recording device.
However, I could record my reflections of feelings. That's what it was explained to me. And so I know that when you're with the president, if he's having an off the record talk with you, the rules are, you don't write anything down.
And so the minute -- you try to remember -- it's the most important meeting of your life. You try to remember everything that is being said to you. And the minute you get out of that meeting -- I mean, I remember -- I don't remember who was with me. Stu, I don't know if you were with me.
STU: No.
GLENN: But I had somebody standing outside of the gates of the White House with a pad and a pencil and a phone. And I, you know, vomited into the phone as much as I could. As much as I could remember. And then I started writing it all down so I could remember. That's what James Comey did. He left the meeting and he immediately wrote down what happened in the meeting.
Now, this is not something that James Comey just did for this meeting. He is known in the FBI as being very, very buttoned.
PAT: Also, very contemporaneous.
STU: Very, very contemporaneous.
PAT: Yeah.
GLENN: See, that comment is happening contemporaneous with this subject.
PAT: It is. It is.
GLENN: Thank you.
PAT: I was speaking contemporaneously.
GLENN: Yes, you were.
PAT: Yeah.
GLENN: And you were exhibiting contemporaneousness, if you will.
STU: Oh, yeah.
PAT: And I will. And I will.
GLENN: Anyway, so what he did was, whenever he was involved in a serious exchange for case or anything like that, he is known as taking copious, contemporaneous notes. I'm going to let you figure out copious yourself if you don't know. But he would take copious notes, as soon as he would leave meetings. And then he would file them away.
So we don't know if these notes are real. But it is definitely a shot back to the White House, saying, oh, really? You got tapes? Good. Because I've got contemporaneous notes.
And so whichever one is playing chicken here is making the other one sweat.
STU: Yeah, and they keep pointing that out, specifically, because like think of the alternate situation here. James Comey comes to testify, after he's been fired. And says, "Well, you know what, Trump told me in that meeting that he wanted me to back off the Flynn thing." I felt comfortable.
Well, that means nothing after he's been fired, right? I mean, if he's saying that now, everyone is going to say, "Well, look, he's just saying that now."
PAT: But if he supposedly wrote that down at the time --
STU: And it's filed at the time. So it's not even supposedly. It was filed in a way -- it was marked and it was known that it was the time it was filed, it's going to be a lot more powerful and credible. While he was still working for them. Where they were having meetings before and after this. Supposedly, he did this with every personal meeting he had with Trump.
PAT: Would you also record it, if you're going to do that, to have proof?
GLENN: No, you can't. You're asked --
PAT: Probably can't record your conversations with the president, yeah --
JEFFY: Well, you better hope there's no tapes.
GLENN: You're told --
STU: And their response to that comment from Trump was, oh, I hope there are.
You know, his side is saying, "Yes, please, bring on the tapes. If they exist, please bring them on."
And the rumor is, at least the speculation is that this -- this was leaked to the media so that the -- Congress would subpoena these things.
GLENN: Well, Jason Chaffetz has already said turn them over, or I will subpoena them.
STU: Yep.
GLENN: And they should be subpoenaed. The White House record should be subpoenaed. We should know all of these things. And we should be as transparent. And the media should shut their pie hole and let the system work. There's a clear way to make this work. There was a clear way to make the IRS investigation work, but we didn't follow it. And what happened?
STU: Uh-huh. Nothing.
GLENN: Nothing.
STU: Yeah.
GLENN: So let's follow the rule of law. And, you know, what is it, 70 percent of the American people now say appoint a special prosecutor? Look, I want a neutral special prosecutor. I don't want a guy who is hell-bent on destroying the president or anything else. I want somebody who is just going to look at the facts of this. And they don't have a horse in this race.
Please, for the good of the nation, we need to know, is the president a liar? Did the president -- is the president reckless with classified information?
If those things are true, we need to know it. And I mean -- when I say a liar, we know that -- I mean, we've seen this record. But when it comes down to the United States of America, are you lying to us, dude?
I mean, this is not about, you know -- this is not about your personal life or anything else. This isn't even about you.
And that's what's so sad about this is I think the president keeps thinking all of this is about him. And I do believe with the press, it is about him.
STU: Yeah, they -- I mean, they don't care. Many of them, at least don't care about what the truth here --
GLENN: Right.
STU: Many of them -- but, again, Jonah Goldberg brought this up, and I think said it correctly is that, you -- yes, of course, they want to take him down. There's no disagreement. You talked about this with Bill O'Reilly last week too. He's like, but, Beck, I can't believe you don't get that when they want to take you out. Well, of course, you get that. You absolutely get the media wants to take Trump out at all costs and will do whatever they have to do to do that.
GLENN: Yeah.
STU: However, if there is something legitimately to be criticized, you have to have the principle and spine to do it.
PAT: Now, you're speaking uranusly, right?
STU: Uranusly, yes.
PAT: Or contemporarily.
STU: Contemporaneously.
PAT: Yeah.
GLENN: Uranusly means you're speaking out of your butt.
STU: Yes. That's a good point.
GLENN: You're speaking uranusly, you're speaking out of your butt. And that happens a lot on this program.
STU: Absolutely.
PAT: No, that's the Webster's dictionary definition.
GLENN: That's Merriam. That's Merriam. The wife of, I don't know, Bill Webster or whatever. Merriam, she's got her own dictionary.
STU: Sure, these are all facts.
PAT: The whole family had dictionaries. It's really kind of weird.
GLENN: There was Bill and the other Webster, famous one. And then Merriam, who was a sweetheart of a gal.
PAT: Right.
STU: And we should point out, and we have several times today -- again, think of the chain that this has come down here. This is a Comey ally who didn't give the memo to the New York Times, who read over the phone a memo to the New York Times.
The New York Times took notes over what he read. Did they read the entire thing? Did they read only the parts that they liked? Were there other parts of the memo that made Trump look really good?
We don't know any of that. That information went to the New York Times reporter. Do we blindly believe everything the New York Times says? Absolutely not.
Did the New York Times print the entire memo? No. We haven't seen it yet. The reporter hasn't even seen it yet. Nobody outside of the FBI has actually seen this thing yet. The other side of it is, this is not going to be the only memo. If it does exist, which you can't believe they just -- but it's possible, right? It's a Comey ally. It's not impossible they just made it. We saw that with the Rather situation, that someone who was going up against George W. Bush literally made something up. It's not impossible.
But if it does exist, it's not going to be the only one. Comey was well-known for this practice. He was well-known for creating paper trails when he believed something was going wrong, when he was made uncomfortable. He was a guy who documented what happened with his interactions with this president.
GLENN: Quite honestly, it's not the way we meant it, but it's turning out to be the same thing: Don't screw with the justice and intelligence agencies. Don't piss them off. They will find out what you're doing, and they will destroy you with it.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Did Canadians just vote in their doom?
On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.
Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.
So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?
Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)
GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images
The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.
For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.
At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.
PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images
What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?
Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.
Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.
This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.
