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.

Science did it again. It only took 270 million years, but this week, scientists finally solved the mystery that has kept the world up at night. We finally know where octopuses come from: outer space. That explains why they look like the aliens in just about every alien movie ever made.

RELATED: Changes in technology can be cause for concern, but THIS is amazing

It turns out octopuses were aliens that evolved on another planet. Scientists haven't determined which one yet, but they've definitely narrowed it down to one of the planets in one of the galaxies. Hundreds of millions of years ago (give or take a hundred), these evolved octopus aliens arrived on Earth in the form of cryopreserved eggs. Now, this part is just speculation, but it's possible their alien planet was on the verge of destruction, so Mom and Dad Octopus self-sacrificially placed Junior in one of these cryopreserved eggs and blasted him off the planet to save their kind.

This alien-octopus research, co-authored by a group of 33 scientists, was published in the Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology journal. I'm sure you keep that on your nightstand like I do.

Anyway, these scientists say octopuses evolved very rapidly over 270 million years. Which sounds slow, but in evolutionary terms, 270 million years is like light speed. And the only explanation for their breakneck evolution is that they're aliens. The report says, “The genome of the Octopus shows a staggering level of complexity with 33,000 protein-coding genes — more than is present in Homo sapiens."

Lucky for us, they landed in the water. Otherwise, we might be octopus pets.

They mention that the octopus' large brain, sophisticated nervous system, camera-like eyes, flexible bodies and ability to change color and shape all point to its alien nature. Octopuses developed those capabilities rather suddenly in evolution, whereas we're still trying to figure out the TV remote.

These biological enhancements are so far ahead of regular evolution that the octopuses must have either time-traveled from the future, or “more realistically" according to scientists, crash-landed on earth in those cryopreserved egg thingies. The report says the eggs arrived here in “icy bolides." I had to look up what a “bolide" is, and turns out it's a fancy word for a meteor.

So, to recap: a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, an alien race of octopuses packed their sperm-bank samples in some meteors and shot them toward Earth. Lucky for us, they landed in the water. Otherwise, we might be octopus pets.

President Trump's approval rating is rising, and Democrats — hilariously — can't seem to figure out what's going on. A few months ago Democrats enjoyed a sixteen point lead over Republicans, but now — according to CNN's recent national survey — that lead is down to just THREE points. National data from Reuters shows it as being even worse.

The Democratic advantage moving towards the halfway mark into 2018 shows that Republicans are only ONE point behind. The president's public approval rating is rising, and Democrats are nervously looking at each other like… “umm guys, what are we doing wrong here?"

I'm going to give Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi a little hint. We know that the Left has enjoyed a “special relationship" with the media, but they might want to have a sit down with their propaganda machine. The mainstream media is completely out of control, and Americans are sick of it. We're DONE with the media.

RELATED: The mainstream media wants you to believe Trump is waging war on immigrants — here's the truth

Look what has been going on just this week. The president called MS-13 gang members animals, but that's not the story the media jumped on. They thought it was more clickable to say that Trump was calling all immigrants animals instead. In the Middle East, the media rushed to vilify Israel instead of Hamas. They chose to defend a terror organization rather than one of our oldest allies.

Think about that. The media is so anti-Trump that they've chosen a violent street gang AND A GLOBAL TERROR ORGANIZATION as their torch-bearing heroes. Come on, Democrats. Are you seriously baffled why the American people are turning their backs on you?

Still not enough evidence? Here's the New York Times just yesterday. Charles Blow wrote a piece called "A Blue Wave of Moral Restoration" where he tried to make the case that the president and Republicans were the enemy, but — fear not — Democrat morality was here to save the day.

Here are some of these cases Blow tries to make for why Trump is unfit to be President:

No person who treats women the way Trump does and brags on tape about sexually assaulting them should be president.

Ok, fine. You can make that argument if you want to, but why weren't you making this same argument for Bill Clinton? Never mind, I actually know the reason. Because you were too busy trying to bury the Juanita Broaddrick story.

Let's move on:

No person who has demonstrated himself to be a pathological liar should be president.

Do the words, “You can keep your doctor" mean anything to the New York Times or Charles Blow? I might have saved the best for last:

No person enveloped by a cloud of corruption should be president.

I can only think of three words for a response to this: Hillary Frigging Clinton.

Try displaying a little consistency.

If the media really wants Donald Trump gone and the Democrats to take over, they might want to try displaying a little consistency. But hey, maybe that's just too much to ask.

How about starting with not glorifying terrorist organizations and murderous street gangs. Could we at least begin there?

If not… good luck in the midterms.

In the weeks following President Trump's decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, the mainstream media was quick to criticize the president's pro-Israel stance and make dire predictions of violent backlash in the Middle East. Fast forward to this week's opening of the US Embassy in Jerusalem and the simultaneous Palestinian “protests" in Gaza.

RELATED: Just another day in Iran: Parliment chants death to America after Trump pulls out of nuclear deal

Predictably, the mainstream media chastised Israel for what they called “state-sanctioned terrorism" when the IDF stepped in to protect their country from so-called peaceful Palestinian protesters. Hamas leaders later admitted that at least 50 of the 62 Palestinians killed in the clashes were Hamas terrorists.

“In our post-modern media age, there is no truth and nobody even seems to be looking for it …. This is shamefully clear in the media especially this week with their coverage of the conflict between the border of Israel and the Gaza strip," said Glenn on today's show. He added, “The main media narrative this week is about how the IDF is just killing innocent protesters, while Hamas officials have confirmed on TV that 50 of the 62 people killed were working for Hamas."

The mainstream media views the Palestinians as the oppressed people who just want to share the land and peacefully coexist with the people of Israel. “They can't seem to comprehend that in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, only one side is actively trying to destroy the other," surmised Glenn.

Watch the video above to hear Glenn debunk the “peaceful Palestinian protest" fallacy.

Here are a few headlines regarding the protests in Israel: 'Global protests grow after Israeli killing of Palestinian demonstrators,' the Guardian. 'Israel kills dozens at Gaza Border,' the New York Times. 'Palestinians mourn dead in Gaza as protests continue,' CNN. 'Over 50 Palestinians in massive protest are killed by Israeli military, bloodiest day in Gaza since 2014 war,' ABC News. 'Gaza begins to bury its dead after deadliest day in years,' BBC.

RELATED: Here's why Israel used lethal force during mass protests in Gaza yesterday

In each, the spoken or unspoken subject of the sentence and villain of the story is Israel. Innocent Palestinians murdered by the cruel Israelis. This is the narrative that the mainstream media has promulgated. Few have mentioned that the majority of the “protestors" that died were members of Hamas, the militant (and highly anti-Semetic) Sunni-Islamist organization that has been labeled a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the U.S. State Department.

A senior Hamas official told reporters that 50 of the 59 people killed in Monday's protests were members of Hamas, and the remainder were “from the people." So…they were all Hamas.

As usual, mention of such membership has been left out of the mainstream media's anti-Israel, pro-Islam narrative.

As usual, mention of such membership has been left out of the mainstream media's anti-Israel, pro-Islam narrative. Maybe they think of Palestinians as underdogs and they love a good scrap. Well, they aren't underdogs. But their outburst have been glorified for so long that it's near impossible to disagree with that narrative.