John Ziegler's Crazy Prediction Comes True (Sort Of): Bush 41 Will Vote for Clinton

September 22, 2016

Writer

John Ziegler with Mediaite.com and freespeechbroadcasting.com was on Glenn's radio program last week, suggesting that George W. Bush might endorse Hillary Clinton for president. Three or four days later his prediction came true --- sort of. Another George Bush --- George Bush 41 --- said he was voting for Hillary.

"Does this count, John?" Glenn asked.

"I'll take it, Glenn. One-third or one-halfway to a rather interesting prediction coming to fruition," Ziegler joked.

Standing by his intial prediction, Ziegler said George Bush 43 could still cast his vote for the Democratic nominee.

"If this thing is still close at the very, very end, I think that George W. Bush is going to feel a lot of pressure, both internally and externally, to do what he thinks is the right thing, which is to try to prevent Donald Trump from being president," Ziegler clarified.

Read below or listen to the full segment for answers to these bi-partisan questions:

• What would make Trump winning the White House an unprecedented situation?

• What favor might Bill Clinton ask of his brother from another mother?

• Is Barbara Bush voting for Trump?

• How much would TheBlaze pay for a pay-per-view interview with Babs?

• What did George W. Bush tell Glenn in the Oval Office?

• What one question could Lester Holt ask at the debate to sink Hillary?

• What's with American blue bloods?

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: John Ziegler from Mediaite.com and freespeechbroadcasting.com was on this program last week, and he suggested that George W. Bush might end up endorsing Hillary Clinton for president. Three or four days after he made that prediction, George Bush 41 said that he was voting for Hillary. We wanted to get him back on the phone.

Does this count, John?

JOHN: I'll take it, Glenn. One-third or one-halfway to a rather interesting prediction coming to fruition.

I -- just to clarify, my theory when you had me on last week was, look, if this thing is still close at the very, very end, I think that George W. Bush is going to feel a lot of pressure, both internally and externally, to do what he thinks is the right thing, which is to try to prevent Donald Trump from being president.

GLENN: But who does that -- who do you think that actually helps? Because you will immediately hear -- a lot of people, even me -- I mean, I'm not a fan of George W. Bush and his policies, you know, with prescription drugs and the border and everything else. He was not the right guy for many things. Constitutionally, the Patriot Act. So does this work for or against?

JOHN: Well, let's pretend it happens.

And, by the way, you know, as interesting as 41's vote for Hillary would be, how much would TheBlaze pay for the pay-per-view rights on the Barbara Bush interview on why she's not voting for Trump? That's what I really want to see. That's a 29.99 deal right there. I want to see Barbara Bush's interview because I think she would be the one to tell it like it really is.

GLENN: Right. Right. Yes.

JOHN: But if this were to happen -- if this is not the end of the Bush's involvement, but it's just the beginning -- and if George W. Bush really is willing to grab a bat at the bottom of the ninth inning with the score tied, and Bill Clinton calls him up and says, "Hey, I'm not sure we can get this runner home. We need your help, George" -- if that happens, you know, from his brother from another mother, then I think it would have an impact.

Now, would it be a complete game-ender? No. But the reality, Glenn, is you would then have an unprecedented situation. You would have a situation where a guy who has never held elected office, never won a major war, and would have every living president from both parties anti-endorsing him. I'm talking about obviously Donald Trump here.

Now, we live in an era where the establishment is not seen very highly, especially on the Republican side. But there are still enough furious people out there of both parties, I think, where that would make a difference.

Like, for instance, how he would win -- how Trump would win North Carolina if George Bush did that, I have no idea. There's a lot of very educated moderates in North Carolina, and I just don't see how he could win that. I think it would also impact New Hampshire, Maine, where the Bushes are still very well respected

GLENN: Yeah, well, if he loses the Carolinas or New Hampshire, he's pretty much done. Is that still true, Stu?

STU: Yeah. Carolina, for sure.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: And, by the way, one path to make Trump win North Carolina is have Black Lives Matter burn the cities down in it.

GLENN: Yes, that is.

STU: Because you want to see people push back against something, they'll do it there.

JOHN: You know, that's an interesting theory, and I've heard people say that. And it might be true.

Having lived in North Carolina though, I view North Carolina no longer as a Southern state. I think North Carolina is very wussified. I think the white people in North Carolina are as likely to say, "Oh, my gosh, we've got to help this Black Lives Matter thing," than they are to say, "Wow, this is repulsive. We've got to rush to Donald Trump." That's just my gut feeling, having lived there.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: So let me go here: We were talking about George Bush doing this. And we've pretty much come to the conclusion -- I mean, I sat with Donald Trump -- or, not Donald Trump. George Bush.

Do you know George by any chance, John?

JOHN: I don't. But my marriage is intact because I somehow got George W. Bush to take a picture with my wife and I backstage at The Tonight Show a couple years ago. And my wife is a huge fan. But I do not know the Bushes, no.

GLENN: Okay. Okay. So I don't really either. But I happened to be in the Oval once where George Bush was in kind of a testy mood towards people who didn't necessarily like him. And so I had finger pointed in my chest several times.

And he is -- he's rock solid on a few things. For instance, I made the point off the air that -- that George Bush said to me, "I don't care if I'm the most hated man in the next 50 years, I'm prepared for that because I know this is right."

JOHN: Right.

GLENN: However, that being said, that was about terrorism and not about politics. The other thing that can be said about George Bush is he is G.O.P. through and through. How would George Bush do that and throw the party and Reince and everybody else completely under the bus?

JOHN: Well, his father apparently already is willing to do that.

GLENN: So you don't buy that this was a Kennedy that was having a private conversation and George H.W. Bush had no intent that that was supposed to get out?

JOHN: That's quite possible. But the reality is, there were a lot of people there, and, you know, the Bush team did not deny it. It's also -- I mean, you know how these blue bloods work. I mean, that would be a great betrayal if there was not at least some understanding that it was okay for this to get out. But it's the Kennedys. So who the heck knows?

So, look, I'm not pretending that -- I do not believe this is going to happen because I don't think it's going to be that close in the closing days. But I do believe that George W. Bush, to your point, Glenn, is a guy who cares more about the country than he cares about his own personal self-interest or reputation.

GLENN: Yeah.

JOHN: And oddly enough, I think the thing that would keep him from doing it is he probably has so much class that he would be -- he doesn't want to be perceived as doing this as revenge for his brother Jeb, or something along those lines.

GLENN: Yes, yes.

JOHN: I mean, that's where we are in this country. As you well know, when an act of courage and principle is ridiculed as somehow not being that because people want to rationalize it in whatever way they can. And, of course, the Trump fans are, you know, black belts in rationalization.

GLENN: Well, quite honestly, both sides are. I mean, Barack Obama supporters --

JOHN: Oh, absolutely they are. But I used to think that our side was better, Glenn.

GLENN: Yes, I did too.

JOHN: I really did. But you want to see rationalization, wait till White House spokesperson sean Hannity on a Friday night announces that, "Oh, by the way, the wall isn't going to happen," and the Trumpsters will rationalize that somehow that was a great idea too. So we're not living in a world where rationality makes any sense anymore. Has any value. The facts don't matter.

But, look, so my whole point on this thing is, I think the Bush family cares about the institution of the presidency. I think they care about the country. And I think that they know that Donald Trump has no business being president of the United States, regardless of what the other alternative is, when -- as liberal as she is, as horrible as she is, as corrupt as she is, as much of a liar as she is, at least she seems relatively qualified for the position from a traditional standpoint. And I think that that's where the Bushes are coming from. And I don't think that's illogical and I don't think that that's a situation where they're trying to pursue their own self-interests or get revenge for Jeb getting crushed in the primaries by this buffoon Donald Trump.

GLENN: Last question: You wrote in Mediaite the other day that you thought Condi Rice and Dick Cheney will start to come out.

JOHN: Well, no. Dick Cheney won't because his daughter obviously is running. And he's got his hands tied. I think that if this is not the end of the Bush's involvement, I think we will see Condoleezza Rice take a shot at Donald Trump's lack of foreign policy, jobs. And I'd love to see that.

By the way, since this is the last question, let me throw out another quirky prediction for you.

GLENN: Go ahead.

JOHN: I think that Trump's big chance on Monday and the worse thing that could happen for Hillary is if Lester Holt decides to ask the Colin Kaepernick question. I think that is potentially deadly on Monday for Hillary Clinton because that is one area where her hands are completely tied, and Donald Trump can hit a grand slam/home run on an issue that I believe the vast majority of the American people are on his side and not on hers. But she can't do anything about it because of the racial politics involved.

GLENN: How should she answer that?

JOHN: There's no good answer. She's got to give the greatest "I love free speech" answer in the history of the world, and I don't think she's capable of that.

GLENN: Yeah. No, we were just talking about this. This could be game-changing for Donald Trump. She better have a different strategy if she wants to win than the 17 Republicans that didn't want to hit him. And I don't know if she's capable of hitting him without looking horrible.

She's so horrible, that I don't know how she does it. However, I don't know how he hits her without looking like a big man beating up on an old lady.

JOHN: Well, if I was advising her, I would have one-liners. And I would -- by the way, if he decides to be presidential, I would hit him with, "It's interesting to see that you've decided to be low energy today, Donald." You know, go -- basically use some of his own medicine against him to provoke him into being unpresidential, which I think would probably be a tactic that would work.

But I don't believe that we're a substantive people anymore. I think substantively, she will win the debate, but it's always about style points in this day and age. And so who the heck knows.

I do think the media will protect her from a disaster. But overall, she'll probably win the debate. And I don't think it's -- but it probably won't matter very much because very few people are in a situation where they want to change their minds at this point anyway.

GLENN: John, thank you very much. Talk to you again.

JOHN: Thanks, Glenn.

GLENN: God bless. You bet.

John Ziegler.

I think he's fantastic. What an interesting mind he has.

Featured Image: Advanced copies of '41: A Portrait of My Father,' by Former U.S. President George W. Bush, are stacked in the George Bush Presidential Library Center on the Texas A&M University campus on November 11, 2014 in College Station, TX. Bush gave a talk about the book moderated by former White House chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr., who also served as Secretary of Transportation for U.S. President George H.W. Bush. (Photo by Drew Anthony Smith/Getty Images)

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.

Glenn's Show Prep