Trey Gowdy slams Hillary Clinton lies

“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.

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.

PHOTOS: Inside Glenn's private White House tour

Image courtesy of the White House

In honor of Trump's 100th day in office, Glenn was invited to the White House for an exclusive interview with the President.

Naturally, Glenn's visit wasn't solely confined to the interview, and before long, Glenn and Trump were strolling through the majestic halls of the White House, trading interesting historical anecdotes while touring the iconic home. Glenn was blown away by the renovations that Trump and his team have made to the presidential residence and enthralled by the history that practically oozed out of the gleaming walls.

Want to join Glenn on this magical tour? Fortunately, Trump's gracious White House staff was kind enough to provide Glenn with photos of his journey through the historic residence so that he might share the experience with you.

So join Glenn for a stroll through 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue with the photo gallery below:

The Oval Office

Image courtesy of the White House

The Roosevelt Room

Image courtesy of the White House

The White House

Image courtesy of the White House

Media cover-up: Why Clinton deported six times more than Trump

Genaro Molina / Contributor | Getty Images

MSNBC and CNN want you to think the president is a new Hitler launching another Holocaust. But the actual deportation numbers are nowhere near what they claim.

Former MSNBC host Chris Matthews, in an interview with CNN’s Jim Acosta, compared Trump’s immigration policies to Adolf Hitler’s Holocaust. He claimed that Hitler didn’t bother with German law — he just hauled people off to death camps in Poland and Hungary. Apparently, that’s what Trump is doing now by deporting MS-13 gang members to El Salvador.

Symone Sanders took it a step further. The MSNBC host suggested that deporting gang-affiliated noncitizens is simply the first step toward deporting black Americans. I’ll wait while you try to do that math.

The debate is about control — weaponizing the courts, twisting language, and using moral panic to silence dissent.

Media mouthpieces like Sanders and Matthews are just the latest examples of the left’s Pavlovian tribalism when it comes to Trump and immigration. Just say the word “Trump,” and people froth at the mouth before they even hear the sentence. While the media cries “Hitler,” the numbers say otherwise. And numbers don’t lie — the narrative does.

Numbers don’t lie

The real “deporter in chief” isn’t Trump. It was President Bill Clinton, who sent back 12.3 million people during his presidency — 11.4 million returns and nearly 900,000 formal removals. President George W. Bush, likewise, presided over 10.3 million deportations — 8.3 million returns and two million removals. Even President Barack Obama, the progressive darling, oversaw 5.5 million deportations, including more than three million formal removals.

So how does Donald Trump stack up? Between 2017 and 2021, Trump deported somewhere between 1.5 million and two million people — dramatically fewer than Obama, Bush, or Clinton. In his current term so far, Trump has deported between 100,000 and 138,000 people. Yes, that’s assertive for a first term — but it's still fewer than Biden was deporting toward the end of his presidency.

The numbers simply don’t support the hysteria.

Who's the “dictator” here? Trump is deporting fewer people, with more legal oversight, and still being compared to history’s most reviled tyrant. Apparently, sending MS-13 gang members — violent criminals — back to their country of origin is now equivalent to genocide.

It’s not about immigration

This debate stopped being about immigration a long time ago. It’s now about control — about weaponizing the courts, twisting language, and using moral panic to silence dissent. It’s about turning Donald Trump into the villain of every story, facts be damned.

If the numbers mattered, we’d be having a very different national conversation. We’d be asking why Bill Clinton deported six times as many people as Trump and never got labeled a fascist. We’d be questioning why Barack Obama’s record-setting removals didn’t spark cries of ethnic cleansing. And we’d be wondering why Trump, whose enforcement was relatively modest by comparison, triggered lawsuits, media hysteria, and endless Nazi analogies.

But facts don’t drive this narrative. The villain does. And in this script, Trump plays the villain — even when he does far less than the so-called heroes who came before him.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Can Trump stop the blackouts that threaten America's future?

Allan Tannenbaum / Contributor | Getty Images

If America wants to remain a global leader in the coming decades, we need more energy fast.

It's no secret that Glenn is an advocate for the safe and ethical use of AI, not because he wants it, but because he knows it’s coming whether we like it or not. Our only option is to shape AI on our terms, not those of our adversaries. America has to win the AI Race if we want to maintain our stability and security, and to do that, we need more energy.

AI demands dozens—if not hundreds—of new server farms, each requiring vast amounts of electricity. The problem is, America lacks the power plants to generate the required electricity, nor do we have a power grid capable of handling the added load. We must overcome these hurdles quickly to outpace China and other foreign competitors.

Outdated Power Grid

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Our power grid is ancient, slowly buckling under the stress of our modern machines. AAI’s energy demands could collapse it without a major upgrade. The last significant overhaul occurred under FDR nearly a century ago, when he connected rural America to electricity. Since then, we’ve patched the system piecemeal, but it’s still the same grid from the 1930s. Over 70 percent of the powerlines are 30 years old or older, and circuit breakers and other vital components are in similar condition. Most people wouldn't trust a dishwasher that was 30 years old, and yet much of our grid relies on technology from the era of VHS tapes.

Upgrading the grid would prevent cascading failures, rolling blackouts, and even EMP attacks. It would also enable new AI server farms while ensuring reliable power for all.

A Need for Energy

JONATHAN NACKSTRAND / Stringer | Getty Images

Earlier this month, former Google CEO Eric Schmidt appeared before Congress as part of an AI panel and claimed that by 2030, the U.S. will need to add 96 gigawatts to our national power production to meet AI-driven demand. While some experts question this figure, the message is clear: We must rapidly expand power production. But where will this energy come from?

As much as eco nuts would love to power the world with sunshine and rainbows, we need a much more reliable and significantly more efficient power source if we want to meet our electricity goals. Nuclear power—efficient, powerful, and clean—is the answer. It’s time to shed outdated fears of atomic energy and embrace the superior electricity source. Building and maintaining new nuclear plants, along with upgraded infrastructure, would create thousands of high-paying American jobs. Nuclear energy will fuel AI, boost the economy, and modernize America’s decaying infrastructure.

A Bold Step into the Future

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor | Getty Images

This is President Trump’s chance to leave a historic mark on America, restoring our role as global leaders and innovators. Just as FDR’s power grid and plants made America the dominant force of the 20th century, Trump could upgrade our infrastructure to secure dominance in the 21st century. Visionary leadership must cut red tape and spark excitement in the industry. This is how Trump can make America great again.

POLL: Is K2-18b proof of alien LIFE in the cosmos?

Print Collector / Contributor | Getty Images

Are we alone in the universe?

It's no secret that Glenn keeps one eye on the cosmos, searching for any signs of ET. Late last week, a team of astronomers at the University of Cambridge made an exciting discovery that could change how we view the universe. The astronomers were monitoring a distant planet, K2-18b, when the James Webb Space Telescope detected dimethyl sulfide and dimethyl disulfide, two atmospheric gases believed only to be generated by living organisms. The planet, which is just over two and a half times larger than Earth, orbits within the "habitable zone" of its star, meaning the presence of liquid water on its surface is possible, further supporting the possibility that life exists on this distant world.

Unfortunately, humans won't be able to visit K2-18b to see for ourselves anytime soon, as the planet is about 124 light-years from Earth. This means that even if we had rockets that could travel at the speed of light, it would still take 124 years to reach the potentially verdant planet. Even if humans made the long trek to K2-18b, they would be faced with an even more intense challenge upon arrival: Gravity. Assuming K2-18b has a similar density to Earth, its increased size would also mean it would have increased gravity, two and a half times as much gravity, to be exact. This would make it very difficult, if not impossible, for humans to live or explore the surface without serious technological support. But who knows, give Elon Musk and SpaceX a few years, and we might be ready to seek out new life (and maybe even new civilizations).

But Glenn wants to know what you think. Could K2-18b harbor life on its distant surface? Could alien astronomers be peering back at us from across the cosmos? Would you be willing to boldly go where no man has gone before? Let us know in the poll below:

Could there be life on K2-18b?

Could there be an alien civilization thriving on K2-18b?

Will humans develop the technology to one day explore distant worlds?

Would you sign up for a trip to an alien world?

Is K2-18b just another cold rock in space?