Could the Comey Debacle Bring Us a President Pence?

May 11, 2017

WRITER

The firing of James Comey is turning into a very big nightmare for Donald Trump. Apparently, this decision was not made because of emails from the Justice Department. According to The Washington Post, 30 sources have leaked information about what really caused Trump to fire the director of the FBI --- and it doesn't look good.

"Have you ever seen a White House leak like this?" Glenn asked Thursday on radio.

He then speculated about the possibility of Watergate-style hearings by August or September.

"Is there a chance, in your opinion, do you believe we could be looking at a President Pence by 2020?" Glenn asked.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: They're grilling the acting FBI director now. McCabe. He says that he believes they have adequate resources for the Russian investigation now. He says that the White House has not interfered to his knowledge at all in that investigation. And, remember, this is not a guy who is a Trump guy. He's a guy who, you know, I believe was -- was he Clinton or Obama-appointed? He's not a Republican appointed guy.

STU: It's interesting that -- because, you know, one of the reports was that Comey asked for money a week before -- more resources a week before this investigation. It's been denied by the Department of Justice. There are a couple of places that are reporting it. Who knows if it's true.

But I don't get the sense -- and I could be wrong on this. I don't get the sense that this means Trump has something he's hiding specifically on Russia.

GLENN: No.

STU: Or he's about -- like they were about to get him --

GLENN: I don't think that at all. I think Trump was personally motivated and against this guy.

STU: Personally annoyed. He was personally annoyed that he didn't back him enough. And it looks to I think every person outside the White House, at least your initial instinct is, wait a minute. This guy fired the guy who was in the middle of this information. Like, wait a minute. What's going on here?

And I think that's what the Democrats want you to believe. It may be true. I don't know. But to me, it comes off more as, he was annoyed by this guy, who he may have thought because of the letter he sent, you know, a few days before the election, was kind of on his side. Wasn't always saying things that were on his side. And it annoyed him. And that kind of -- and there is reporting to kind of back that up as well.

GLENN: By only 30 sources. But that's -- but that's all. Have you ever seen a White House leak like this?

STU: Not that I can remember. And a lot of people are trying to say --

GLENN: What is your guess? Where does this end, Stu? How does this end?

STU: Wow, I -- I don't know the answer to that. I really don't. I mean, I can't --

GLENN: If I said to you, we were in impeachment hearings, the -- the Senate was -- not in a trial, but we are in like Watergate-style hearings in August or September, would that surprise you at all?

STU: In August or September? That's really fast, but it's possible.

And let's just take this out -- because if you're thinking, like, "Oh -- you know, Trump is your guy, you're probably annoyed by that. But I think like -- the better way to look at it -- I always look at these things as personal motivations.

And what he's done with a lot of these moves -- when he calls people out publicly. And he says they're not doing a good job -- there are hundreds of people in the FBI that are viscerally loyal to James Comey.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: And those people are now motivated to act against the interests of the president of the United States.

GLENN: So stupid.

STU: And this is through several different parts of the administration and the infrastructure of the federal government.

So that's -- and that doesn't make what the -- I'm not saying they're going to make stuff up. I don't think that's the case. But they're motivated and they are looking to say to themselves, "This guy is screwing us, we need to get back at him." Or just, you know what, I'm -- it's not even that. That's the far reach. Right?

GLENN: If our FBI is like that, we're in trouble.

STU: And it's not just the FBI.

GLENN: Right. I know that. But in particular, here the FBI -- if they're doing an investigation. And they're like, "Pin it on him," that's bad.

STU: No. No.

GLENN: But I think they would be -- I think that you would be more motivated to turn over every single stone.

STU: Partially, because you have a personal loyalty to someone who you think is wronged and partially I think because you think to yourself, "Maybe there is something here where I didn't think there was."

You know, you're going to start seeing things through a different prism. And, you know, while Donald Trump may not have done anything wrong at all --

GLENN: I don't think he did.

STU: -- people like Michael Flynn did. They've been fired for it already.

GLENN: I really don't think Donald Trump -- I mean, you want to make him into this big evil super villain, I just don't think he is. I mean, go to The Economist today where he thought he invented priming the pump. He really thinks he came up with that economic theory, two days ago.

So I just don't think he is -- he's not that deep of a thinker. It doesn't mean he's not smart and everything else. He's just not that deep of a thinker. So I just don't see him with some master plan of coercion or working with the -- with the Russians behind the scenes. I think others around him may have been involved in things that weren't the best. And then they got involved back in with his campaign. And they were like, "I'm just not going to say anything." I think that happened. But I don't think there's collusion between -- I would be surprised if there's collusion. But we have to know. We have to know.

STU: Right.

And, look, the bottom line is, Republicans are generally speaking going to stand behind him, if his polls stay in the high 30s. There's a Quinnipiac poll today, I think it was 36 percent approval rating. That thing starts hitting the 20s, you're going to start seeing a lot of these people who have no spines and don't believe either side of this, they're going to start fleeing from him. And as that goes, it gets much more difficult for him to hold on to what he is holding on to.

So I think if --

GLENN: Is there a chance, in your opinion, do you believe we could be looking at a President Pence by 2020? Not elected, President Pence?

STU: I mean, it's funny you say that. Because you can put your money where your mouth is on that. And the odds are not -- like the odds are not crazy. Like you -- because you can go to these betting sites. PredictWise, I think has one on this.

GLENN: For the first time I think there is a chance that we're looking at an unelected President Pence by 2020.

STU: I think it's possible.

GLENN: I do.

STU: I generally think those things are unlikely.

GLENN: I do too. But I didn't think it was even possible. I didn't say probable. I said possible.

JEFFY: Possible.

STU: When will Trump leave office?

Okay. Right now. This is from -- this is a betting market summary.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: 2020 or later. So that means he fills the first term. It's 51 percent.

JEFFY: Wow.

STU: So just over half. They're saying there's a chance -- again, these are the betting markets. People are putting money on this.

GLENN: 49 percent say he's not going to make it through his first term.

STU: He's not going to make it through his first term.

GLENN: And I think there's a chance that he doesn't even make it to impeachment. I think there's a chance that he gets so surrounded by Indians. And they're like, "Don, it ain't going to work out well." And he's like, "Fine. Screw it." And he resigns to go back to do his -- whatever it is.

JEFFY: I had a much happier life.

GLENN: Yeah, I had a much happier life. I'm just not -- I just don't want to do it.

Whatever. I just don't want to do it. Whatever. I don't know what he would say.

STU: Right. He finds a way, I did my job. I got all this stuff done.

You know, he comes up with some justification and says bye.

GLENN: Right.

STU: It's not impossible. Again, there's no reason -- we're not there obviously. But it's an interesting thing that people are talking about it so openly.

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