Trey Gowdy slams Hillary Clinton lies

July 10, 2015

WRITER

“I’ve never had a subpoena” the Democratic candidate said in an interview. Really? Is this just a “right wing conspiracy” out to get her? Nope, plenty of Congressmen have subpoenaed the former Secretary of State, although most didn’t do it in a public manner. After he heard the lie, Trey Gowdy called her out. Once again, Hillary is playing every political trick in the book.

#BREAKING: Here’s the subpoena Hillary Clinton told @CNN she “never had.” It’s dated 3/4/15. http://t.co/gp1E32PkTz pic.twitter.com/7BaZ8IKdAg
— Speaker John Boehner (@SpeakerBoehner) July 8, 2015

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it may contain errors:

PAT: A CNN reporter did an interview with Hillary Clinton. And here's one of the things that she said during that interview.

HILLARY: I've never had a subpoena. Let's take a deep breath here.

PAT: Okay. Wait a minute.

HILLARY: I've never had a subpoena. Let's take a deep breath here.

PAT: She's never had a subpoena. Let's take a deep breath here. Like, can you please stop listening to these incredible lies that that are being told about me?

STU: Now, I know when she does an interview with BET and they ask the same question, she'll say, check yourself before you wreck yourself.

Because that what Hillary does. She alters her speech depending on the audience. So here she says take a deep breath. But essentially she was saying check yourself before you wreck yourself. She's never had a subpoena. People need to know the truth. So they released it then.

PAT: It's amazing too, that Boehner didn't make it public. Gowdy didn't make it public.

STU: Any given time they will slightly benefit her for the moment.

PAT: It's interesting. Because what's her thought process going into that, saying something like that, that I've never had a subpoena. Let's take a deep breath here.

What's the thought process? Because does she think -- does she believe Trey Gowdy will sit quietly, that he will be silent about this? John Boehner is going to -- if they were Democrats, she might rest easy on that belief that they might help her out on this. She can't believe that Gowdy and Boehner won't come forward with those subpoenas. Can she?

JEFFY: She rolls the dice. She figures, if they come clean with it, I just say, oh, that's right.

PAT: Maybe at this point, she thinks that gets lost in the shuffle. Or, I'm just going to push this off long enough. Not talk about it long enough. People will forget about it like they did with Benghazi. Like Obama with did the IRS scandal. Like we've done with everything that's come out in the last six years. Maybe. I don't know. It's kind of weird though. Because the Republicans aren't going to help her out with that. And they didn't.

STU: No. Maybe there's a calculation made that the media is going to help and that people have short attention spans. So don't admit to something on record so they can play you back saying it. Instead, you say I didn't get a subpoena. And what's going to have to happen to prove her lie? Well, you'll have to have her saying that and then show the subpoena. A two-step process the media will never engage in. My guess, maybe they'll show it. I didn't watch the news last night. Maybe they showed it on some of the channels. But it's not going to get a lot of attention, certainly. And they feel like, okay, you get another little bump. And it goes by the wayside again. This is another example of why they don't let her do interviews. This is her first national campaign since the campaign started. And, again, a horrible, pointless mistake. I mean, look, all you have to say is, you know, well, what about these subpoenas that you've been getting? Look, I don't know. The lawyers deal with all that stuff. I don't deal with it. What I'm telling you is I'm trustworthy. I'm the person -- I don't know all those legal details. That's not what I do.

To say a rock hard statement that you have no -- never received a subpoena is the worst possible thing you can do.

PAT: And it reminds me of what her husband did during the Lewinksy scandal.

BILL: I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again. I did not have sexual relations with that woman. Ms. Lewinksy. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time. Never. These allegations are false.

PAT: Oh.

BILL: And I need to go back to work for the American people.

PAT: Now, isn't it reminiscent of that? He was so resolute in that. You mentioned before, Stu. You believed him.

STU: I did. I legit believed him.

PAT: Of course, you were 12. How old were you?

STU: 1998.

PAT: '97, '98.

STU: So I was 22.

PAT: And you bought into it.

STU: Yeah. And here's the reason. Not because I thought Bill Clinton was trustworthy. Even at the moment, I knew that. But my thought was, nobody would have the balls to say it like that if they knew the possibility existed that they could get caught.

PAT: That's -- yes. I still didn't believe him. But I thought, wow -- it made me wavered a little bit. As much as I disliked Clinton, it made me waver just a little bit in my belief that he did that because I thought, come on. You can't make a statement that definitive.

STU: Right. It's not that I had a high opinion of Bill Clinton. Just from a personal survival standpoint, most people wouldn't do that.

PAT: Right. And it hadn't been done before, to my knowledge.

STU: Yeah. Not yet. Now, Anthony Weiner did it too. Same exact thing, and I still didn't believe Anthony Weiner. Though it did cross my mind, he couldn't have possibly taken this picture because he continually is making so many statements about it --

PAT: Are you talking about the Weiner statement, oh, I wish that was mine? I wish was me. Look at that guy.

JEFFY: That's the one that sold me. That maybe it isn't his.

STU: Because think of the psychosis that goes into making that statement. It's a picture that you know is you. To lie about it being you, and then compliment yourself so awkwardly that I wish I really looked like that. When you knew it was you. That's psychotic.

PAT: Look at that donnus (phonetic). I can only dream of looking like that.

STU: I would use the word cannoli as I said that. But, still, I understand what you're going for. And I think the point here is that there's a certain type of -- of person that, I don't know if you want to call it -- just that -- you're almost exiting your own body. And you're able to lie that dramatically about, you know, your situation. Another person who I will put in that category, although I don't have a personal example is Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

PAT: Oh, my gosh.

STU: She will say anything. It doesn't matter how absurd it is. How ridiculous. If it benefits her at that second, sure, they're going to fact-check it in five seconds and once you're off the air and everyone will know you're lying, but, man, does she not care. There's a personal power in that. It's like Anthony Robins used to those personal power infomercials where he would tell you to believe in yourself. There's a personal power Debbier Wasserman could teach people to not feel bad about being so dishonest. That's an incredible thing that most people can't pull off convincingly. She will look dead into the camera and say the opposite of the truth, knowing she's doing it and it doesn't matter. It's an amazing talent.

PAT: We have to play that clip of her that we played yesterday on Pat & Stu. Because it's astounding. It will be a great example of what you're talking about. She will look you straight in the face and lie. But, of course, we've learned over the past six years, so can Obama. I mean, the Democrats have become so unbelievably adept at their lies that I think they convince a lot of people that they're telling the truth. And it seems to work with at least half of the American people. If you want someone you can trust, if you want someone who will look you in the eye and tell you the truth, somebody that usually doesn't waver.

'Rage against the dying of the light': Charlie Kirk lived that mandate

PHILL MAGAKOE / Contributor | Getty Images

Kirk’s tragic death challenges us to rise above fear and anger, to rebuild bridges where others build walls, and to fight for the America he believed in.

I’ve only felt this weight once before. It was 2001, just as my radio show was about to begin. The World Trade Center fell, and I was called to speak immediately. I spent the day and night by my bedside, praying for words that could meet the moment.

Yesterday, I found myself in the same position. September 11, 2025. The assassination of Charlie Kirk. A friend. A warrior for truth.

Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins.

Moments like this make words feel inadequate. Yet sometimes, words from another time speak directly to our own. In 1947, Dylan Thomas, watching his father slip toward death, penned lines that now resonate far beyond his own grief:

Do not go gentle into that good night. / Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Thomas was pleading for his father to resist the impending darkness of death. But those words have become a mandate for all of us: Do not surrender. Do not bow to shadows. Even when the battle feels unwinnable.

Charlie Kirk lived that mandate. He knew the cost of speaking unpopular truths. He knew the fury of those who sought to silence him. And yet he pressed on. In his life, he embodied a defiance rooted not in anger, but in principle.

Picking up his torch

Washington, Jefferson, Adams — our history was started by men who raged against an empire, knowing the gallows might await. Lincoln raged against slavery. Martin Luther King Jr. raged against segregation. Every generation faces a call to resist surrender.

It is our turn. Charlie’s violent death feels like a knockout punch. Yet if his life meant anything, it means this: Silence in the face of darkness is not an option.

He did not go gently. He spoke. He challenged. He stood. And now, the mantle falls to us. To me. To you. To every American.

We cannot drift into the shadows. We cannot sit quietly while freedom fades. This is our moment to rage — not with hatred, not with vengeance, but with courage. Rage against lies, against apathy, against the despair that tells us to do nothing. Because there is always something you can do.

Even small acts — defiance, faith, kindness — are light in the darkness. Reaching out to those who mourn. Speaking truth in a world drowning in deceit. These are the flames that hold back the night. Charlie carried that torch. He laid it down yesterday. It is ours to pick up.

The light may dim, but it always does before dawn. Commit today: I will not sleep as freedom fades. I will not retreat as darkness encroaches. I will not be silent as evil forces claim dominion. I have no king but Christ. And I know whom I serve, as did Charlie.

Two turning points, decades apart

On Wednesday, the world changed again. Two tragedies, separated by decades, bound by the same question: Who are we? Is this worth saving? What kind of people will we choose to be?

Imagine a world where more of us choose to be peacemakers. Not passive, not silent, but builders of bridges where others erect walls. Respect and listening transform even the bitterest of foes. Charlie Kirk embodied this principle.

He did not strike the weak; he challenged the powerful. He reached across divides of politics, culture, and faith. He changed hearts. He sparked healing. And healing is what our nation needs.

At the center of all this is one truth: Every person is a child of God, deserving of dignity. Change will not happen in Washington or on social media. It begins at home, where loneliness and isolation threaten our souls. Family is the antidote. Imperfect, yes — but still the strongest source of stability and meaning.

Mark Wilson / Staff | Getty Images

Forgiveness, fidelity, faithfulness, and honor are not dusty words. They are the foundation of civilization. Strong families produce strong citizens. And today, Charlie’s family mourns. They must become our family too. We must stand as guardians of his legacy, shining examples of the courage he lived by.

A time for courage

I knew Charlie. I know how he would want us to respond: Multiply his courage. Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins. Out of darkness, great and glorious things will sprout — but we must be worthy of them.

Charlie Kirk lived defiantly. He stood in truth. He changed the world. And now, his torch is in our hands. Rage, not in violence, but in unwavering pursuit of truth and goodness. Rage against the dying of the light.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck resurrects the 9-12 Project to support Charlie Kirk's family

Glenn Beck is once again calling on his loyal listeners and viewers to come together and channel the same unity and purpose that defined the historic 9-12 Project. That movement, born in the wake of national challenges, brought millions together to revive core values of faith, hope, and charity.

Glenn created the original 9-12 Project in early 2009 to bring Americans back to where they were in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. In those moments, we weren't Democrats and Republicans, conservative or liberal, Red States or Blue States, we were united as one, as America. The original 9-12 Project aimed to root America back in the founding principles of this country that united us during those darkest of days.

This new initiative draws directly from that legacy, focusing on supporting the family of Charlie Kirk in these dark days following his tragic murder.

The revival of the 9-12 Project aims to secure the long-term well-being of Charlie Kirk's wife and children. All donations will go straight to meeting their immediate and future needs. If the family deems the funds surplus to their requirements, Charlie's wife has the option to redirect them toward the vital work of Turning Point USA.

This campaign is more than just financial support—it's a profound gesture of appreciation for Kirk's tireless dedication to the cause of liberty. It embodies the unbreakable bond of our community, proving that when we stand united, we can make a real difference.
Glenn Beck invites you to join this effort. Show your solidarity by donating today and honoring Charlie Kirk and his family in this meaningful way.

You can learn more about the 9-12 Project and donate HERE

The critical difference: Rights from the Creator, not the state

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) recently delivered a lecture that should alarm every American. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he argued that believing rights come from a Creator rather than government is the same belief held by Iran’s theocratic regime.

Kaine claimed that the principles underpinning Iran’s dictatorship — the same regime that persecutes Sunnis, Jews, Christians, and other minorities — are also the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

That claim exposes either a profound misunderstanding or a reckless indifference to America’s founding. Rights do not come from government. They never did. They come from the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims without qualification. Jefferson didn’t hedge. Rights are unalienable — built into every human being.

This foundation stands worlds apart from Iran. Its leaders invoke God but grant rights only through clerical interpretation. Freedom of speech, property, religion, and even life itself depend on obedience to the ruling clerics. Step outside their dictates, and those so-called rights vanish.

This is not a trivial difference. It is the essence of liberty versus tyranny. In America, rights belong to the individual. The government’s role is to secure them, not define them. In Iran, rights serve the state. They empower rulers, not the people.

From Muhammad to Marx

The same confusion applies to Marxist regimes. The Soviet Union’s constitutions promised citizens rights — work, health care, education, freedom of speech — but always with fine print. If you spoke out against the party, those rights evaporated. If you practiced religion openly, you were charged with treason. Property and voting were allowed as long as they were filtered and controlled by the state — and could be revoked at any moment. Rights were conditional, granted through obedience.

Kaine seems to be advocating a similar approach — whether consciously or not. By claiming that natural rights are somehow comparable to sharia law, he ignores the critical distinction between inherent rights and conditional privileges. He dismisses the very principle that made America a beacon of freedom.

Jefferson and the founders understood this clearly. “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” they wrote. No government, no cleric, no king can revoke them. They exist by virtue of humanity itself. The government exists to protect them, not ration them.

This is not a theological quibble. It is the entire basis of our government. Confuse the source of rights, and tyranny hides behind piety or ideology. The people are disempowered. Clerics, bureaucrats, or politicians become arbiters of what rights citizens may enjoy.

John Greim / Contributor | Getty Images

Gifts from God, not the state

Kaine’s statement reflects either a profound ignorance of this principle or an ideological bias that favors state power over individual liberty. Either way, Americans must recognize the danger. Understanding the origin of rights is not academic — it is the difference between freedom and submission, between the American experiment and theocratic or totalitarian rule.

Rights are not gifts from the state. They are gifts from God, secured by reason, protected by law, and defended by the people. Every American must understand this. Because when rights come from government instead of the Creator, freedom disappears.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

POLL: Is Gen Z’s anger over housing driving them toward socialism?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

A recent poll conducted by Justin Haskins, a long-time friend of the show, has uncovered alarming trends among young Americans aged 18-39, revealing a generation grappling with deep frustrations over economic hardships, housing affordability, and a perceived rigged system that favors the wealthy, corporations, and older generations. While nearly half of these likely voters approve of President Trump, seeing him as an anti-establishment figure, over 70% support nationalizing major industries, such as healthcare, energy, and big tech, to promote "equity." Shockingly, 53% want a democratic socialist to win the 2028 presidential election, including a third of Trump voters and conservatives in this age group. Many cite skyrocketing housing costs, unfair taxation on the middle class, and a sense of being "stuck" or in crisis as driving forces, with 62% believing the economy is tilted against them and 55% backing laws to confiscate "excess wealth" like second homes or luxury items to help first-time buyers.

This blend of Trump support and socialist leanings suggests a volatile mix: admiration for disruptors who challenge the status quo, coupled with a desire for radical redistribution to address personal struggles. Yet, it raises profound questions about the roots of this discontent—Is it a failure of education on history's lessons about socialism's failures? Media indoctrination? Or genuine systemic barriers? And what does it portend for the nation’s trajectory—greater division, a shift toward authoritarian policies, or an opportunity for renewal through timeless values like hard work and individual responsibility?

Glenn wants to know what YOU think: Where do Gen Z's socialist sympathies come from? What does it mean for the future of America? Make your voice heard in the poll below:

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism comes from perceived economic frustrations like unaffordable housing and a rigged system favoring the wealthy and corporations?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism, including many Trump supporters, is due to a lack of education about the historical failures of socialist systems?

Do you think that these poll results indicate a growing generational divide that could lead to more political instability and authoritarian tendencies in America's future?

Do you think that this poll implies that America's long-term stability relies on older generations teaching Gen Z and younger to prioritize self-reliance, free-market ideals, and personal accountability?

Glenn's Show Prep