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.

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.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

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?

A Costly Election

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.

Poilievre's Downfall

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.