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.

In light of the national conversation surrounding the rights of free speech, religion and self-defense, Mercury One is thrilled to announce a brand new initiative launching this Father's Day weekend: a three-day museum exhibition in Dallas, Texas focused on the rights and responsibilities of American citizens.

This event seeks to answer three fundamental questions:

  1. As Americans, what responsibility do we shoulder when it comes to defending our rights?
  2. Do we as a nation still agree on the core principles and values laid out by our founding fathers?
  3. How can we move forward amidst uncertainty surrounding the intent of our founding ideals?

Attendees will be able to view historical artifacts and documents that reveal what has made America unique and the most innovative nation on earth. Here's a hint: it all goes back to the core principles and values this nation was founded on as laid out in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.

Exhibits will show what the world was like before mankind had rights and how Americans realized there was a better way to govern. Throughout the weekend, Glenn Beck, David Barton, Stu Burguiere, Doc Thompson, Jeffy Fisher and Brad Staggs will lead private tours through the museum, each providing their own unique perspectives on our rights and responsibilities.

Schedule a private tour or purchase general admission ticket below:

Dates:
June 15-17

Location:

Mercury Studios

6301 Riverside Drive, Irving, TX 75039

Learn more about the event here.

About Mercury One: Mercury One is a 501(c)(3) charity founded in 2011 by Glenn Beck. Mercury One was built to inspire the world in the same way the United States space program shaped America's national destiny and the world. The organization seeks to restore the human spirit by helping individuals and communities help themselves through honor, faith, courage, hope and love. In the words of Glenn Beck:

We don't stand between government aid and people in need. We stand with people in need so they no longer need the government

Some of Mercury One's core initiatives include assisting our nation's veterans, providing aid to those in crisis and restoring the lives of Christians and other persecuted religious minorities. When evil prevails, the best way to overcome it is for regular people to do good. Mercury One is committed to helping sustain the good actions of regular people who want to make a difference through humanitarian aid and education initiatives. Mercury One will stand, speak and act when no one else will.

Support Mercury One's mission to restore the human spirit by making an online donation or calling 972-499-4747. Together, we can make a difference.

What happened?

A New York judge ruled Tuesday that a 30-year-old still living in his parents' home must move out, CNN reported.

Failure to launch …

Michael Rotondo, who had been living in a room in his parents' house for eight years, claims that he is owed a six-month notice even though they gave him five notices about moving out and offered to help him find a place and to help pay for repairs on his car.

RELATED: It's sad 'free-range parenting' has to be legislated, it used to be common sense

“I think the notice is sufficient," New York State Supreme Court Judge Donald Greenwood said.

What did the son say?

Rotondo “has never been expected to contribute to household expenses, or assisted with chores and the maintenance of the premises, and claims that this is simply a component of his living agreement," he claimed in court filings.

He told reporters that he plans to appeal the “ridiculous" ruling.

Reform Conservatism and Reaganomics: A middle road?

SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

Senator Marco Rubio broke Republican ranks recently when he criticized the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act by stating that “there's no evidence whatsoever that the money's been massively poured back into the American worker." Rubio is wrong on this point, as millions of workers have received major raises, while the corporate tax cuts have led to a spike in capital expenditure (investment on new projects) of 39 percent. However, the Florida senator is revisiting an idea that was front and center in the conservative movement before Donald Trump rode down an escalator in June of 2015: reform conservatism.

RELATED: The problem with asking what has conservatism conserved

The "reformicons," like Rubio, supported moving away from conservative or supply-side orthodoxy and toward policies such as the expansion of the child and earned income tax credits. On the other hand, longstanding conservative economic theory indicates that corporate tax cuts, by lowering disincentives on investment, will lead to long-run economic growth that will end up being much more beneficial to the middle class than tax credits.

But asking people to choose between free market economic orthodoxy and policies guided towards addressing inequality and the concerns of the middle class is a false dichotomy.

Instead of advocating policies that many conservatives might dismiss as redistributionist, reformicons should look at the ways government action hinders economic opportunity and exacerbates income inequality. Changing policies that worsen inequality satisfies limited government conservatives' desire for free markets and reformicons' quest for a more egalitarian America. Furthermore, pushing for market policies that reduce the unequal distribution of wealth would help attract left-leaning people and millennials to small government principles.

Criminal justice reform is an area that reformicons and free marketers should come together around. The drug war has been a disaster, and the burden of this misguided government approach have fallen on impoverished minority communities disproportionately, in the form of mass incarceration and lower social mobility. Not only has the drug war been terrible for these communities, it's proved costly to the taxpayer––well over a trillion dollars has gone into the drug war since its inception, and $80 billion dollars a year goes into mass incarceration.

Prioritizing retraining and rehabilitation instead of overcriminalization would help address inequality, fitting reformicons' goals, and promote a better-trained workforce and lower government spending, appealing to basic conservative preferences.

Government regulations tend to disproportionately hurt small businesses and new or would-be entrepreneurs. In no area is this more egregious than occupational licensing––the practice of requiring a government-issued license to perform a job. The percentage of jobs that require licenses has risen from five percent to 30 percent since 1950. Ostensibly justified by public health concerns, occupational licensing laws have, broadly, been shown to neither promote public health nor improve the quality of service. Instead, they serve to provide a 15 percent wage boost to licensed barbers and florists, while, thanks to the hundreds of hours and expensive fees required to attain the licenses, suppressing low-income entrepreneurship, and costing the economy $200 billion dollars annually.

Those economic losses tend to primarily hurt low-income people who both can't start businesses and have to pay more for essential services. Rolling back occupational licenses will satisfy the business wing's desire for deregulation and a more free market and the reformicons' support for addressing income inequality and increasing opportunity.

The favoritism at play in the complex tax code perpetuates inequality.

Tax expenditures form another opportunity for common ground between the Rubio types and the mainstream. Tax deductions and exclusions, both on the individual and corporate sides of the tax code, remain in place after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Itemized deductions on the individual side disproportionately benefit the wealthy, while corporate tax expenditures help well-connected corporations and sectors, such as the fossil fuel industry.

The favoritism at play in the complex tax code perpetuates inequality. Additionally, a more complicated tax code is less conducive to economic growth than one with lower tax rates and fewer exemptions. Therefore, a simpler tax code with fewer deductions and exclusions would not only create a more level playing field, as the reformicons desire, but also additional economic growth.

A forward-thinking economic program for the Republican Party should marry the best ideas put forward by both supply-siders and reform conservatives. It's possible to take the issues of income inequality and lack of social mobility seriously, while also keeping mainstay conservative economic ideas about the importance of less cumbersome regulations and lower taxes.

Alex Muresianu is a Young Voices Advocate studying economics at Tufts University. He is a contributor for Lone Conservative, and his writing has appeared in Townhall and The Daily Caller. He can be found on Twitter @ahardtospell.

Is this what inclusivity and tolerance look like? Fox News host Tomi Lahren was at a weekend brunch with her mom in Minnesota when other patrons started yelling obscenities and harassing her. After a confrontation, someone threw a drink at her, the moment captured on video for social media.

RELATED: Glenn Addresses Tomi Lahren's Pro-Choice Stance on 'The View'

On today's show, Pat and Jeffy talked about this uncomfortable moment and why it shows that supposedly “tolerant" liberals have to resort to physical violence in response to ideas they don't like.