Could the Comey Debacle Bring Us a President Pence?

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.

From the moment the 33-year-old Thomas Jefferson arrived at the Continental Congress in Philadelphia in 1776, he was on the radical side. That caused John Adams to like him immediately. Then the Congress stuck Jefferson and Adams together on the five-man committee to write a formal statement justifying a break with Great Britain, and their mutual admiration society began.

Jefferson thought Adams should write the Declaration. But Adams protested, saying, “It can't come from me because I'm obnoxious and disliked." Adams reasoned that Jefferson was not obnoxious or disliked, therefore he should write it. Plus, he flattered Jefferson, by telling him he was a great writer. It was a master class in passing the buck.

So, over the next 17 days, Jefferson holed up in his room, applying his lawyer skills to the ideas of the Enlightenment. He borrowed freely from existing documents like the Virginia Declaration of Rights. He later wrote that “he was not striving for originality of principle or sentiment." Instead, he hoped his words served as “an expression of the American mind."

It's safe to say he achieved his goal.

The five-man committee changed about 25 percent of Jefferson's first draft of the Declaration before submitting it to Congress. Then, Congress altered about one-fifth of that draft. But most of the final Declaration's words are Jefferson's, including the most famous passage — the Preamble — which Congress left intact. The result is nothing less than America's mission statement, the words that ultimately bind the nation together. And words that we desperately need to rediscover because of our boiling partisan rage.

The Declaration is brilliant in structure and purpose. It was designed for multiple audiences: the King of Great Britain, the colonists, and the world. And it was designed for multiple purposes: rallying the troops, gaining foreign allies, and announcing the creation of a new country.

The Declaration is structured in five sections: the Introduction, Preamble, the Body composed of two parts, and the Conclusion. It's basically the most genius breakup letter ever written.

In the Introduction, step 1 is the notificationI think we need to break up. And to be fair, I feel I owe you an explanation...

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…

The Continental Congress felt they were entitled by “the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" to “dissolve the political bands," but they needed to prove the legitimacy of their cause. They were defying the world's most powerful nation and needed to motivate foreign allies to join the effort. So, they set their struggle within the entire “Course of human events." They're saying, this is no petty political spat — this is a major event in world history.

Step 2 is declaring what you believe in, your standardsHere's what I'm looking for in a healthy relationship...

This is the most famous part of the Declaration; the part school children recite — the Preamble:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That's as much as many Americans know of the Declaration. But the Preamble is the DNA of our nation, and it really needs to be taken as a whole:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The Preamble takes us through a logical progression: All men are created equal; God gives all humans certain inherent rights that cannot be denied; these include the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; to protect those rights, we have governments set up; but when a government fails to protect our inherent rights, people have the right to change or replace it.

Government is only there to protect the rights of mankind. They don't have any power unless we give it to them. That was an extraordinarily radical concept then and we're drifting away from it now.

The Preamble is the justification for revolution. But note how they don't mention Great Britain yet. And again, note how they frame it within a universal context. These are fundamental principles, not just squabbling between neighbors. These are the principles that make the Declaration just as relevant today. It's not just a dusty parchment that applied in 1776.

Step 3 is laying out your caseHere's why things didn't work out between us. It's not me, it's you...

This is Part 1 of the Body of the Declaration. It's the section where Jefferson gets to flex his lawyer muscles by listing 27 grievances against the British crown. This is the specific proof of their right to rebellion:

He has obstructed the administration of justice...

For imposing taxes on us without our consent...

For suspending our own legislatures...

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us...

Again, Congress presented these “causes which impel them to separation" in universal terms to appeal to an international audience. It's like they were saying, by joining our fight you'll be joining mankind's overall fight against tyranny.

Step 4 is demonstrating the actions you took I really tried to make this relationship work, and here's how...

This is Part 2 of the Body. It explains how the colonists attempted to plead their case directly to the British people, only to have the door slammed in their face:

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury...

They too have been deaf to the voice of justice... We must, therefore... hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

This basically wrapped up America's argument for independence — we haven't been treated justly, we tried to talk to you about it, but since you refuse to listen and things are only getting worse, we're done here.

Step 5 is stating your intent — So, I think it's best if we go our separate ways. And my decision is final...

This is the powerful Conclusion. If people know any part of the Declaration besides the Preamble, this is it:

...that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved...

They left no room for doubt. The relationship was over, and America was going to reboot, on its own, with all the rights of an independent nation.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The message was clear — this was no pitchfork mob. These were serious men who had carefully thought through the issues before taking action. They were putting everything on the line for this cause.

The Declaration of Independence is a landmark in the history of democracy because it was the first formal statement of a people announcing their right to choose their own government. That seems so obvious to us now, but in 1776 it was radical and unprecedented.

In 1825, Jefferson wrote that the purpose of the Declaration was “not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of… but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm… to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take."

You're not going to do better than the Declaration of Independence. Sure, it worked as a means of breaking away from Great Britain, but its genius is that its principles of equality, inherent rights, and self-government work for all time — as long as we actually know and pursue those principles.

On June 7, 1776, the Second Continental Congress met in Philadelphia at the Pennsylvania State House, better known today as Independence Hall. Virginia delegate Richard Henry Lee introduced a motion calling for the colonies' independence. The “Lee Resolution" was short and sweet:

Resolved, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.

Intense debate followed, and the Congress voted 7 to 5 (with New York abstaining) to postpone a vote on Lee's Resolution. They called a recess for three weeks. In the meantime, the delegates felt they needed to explain what they were doing in writing. So, before the recess, they appointed a five-man committee to come up with a formal statement justifying a break with Great Britain. They appointed two men from New England — Roger Sherman and John Adams; two from the middle colonies — Robert Livingston and Benjamin Franklin; and one Southerner — Thomas Jefferson. The responsibility for writing what would become the Declaration of Independence fell to Jefferson.

In the rotunda of the National Archives building in Washington, D.C., there are three original documents on permanent display: the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence. These are the three pillars of the United States, yet America barely seems to know them anymore. We need to get reacquainted — quickly.

In a letter to his friend John Adams in 1816, Jefferson wrote: “I like the dreams of the future, better than the history of the past."

America used to be a forward-looking nation of dreamers. We still are in spots, but the national attitude that we hear broadcast loudest across media is not looking toward the future with optimism and hope. In late 2017, a national poll found 59% of Americans think we are currently at the “lowest point in our nation's history that they can remember."

America spends far too much time looking to the past for blame and excuse. And let's be honest, even the Right is often more concerned with “owning the left" than helping point anyone toward the practical principles of the Declaration of Independence. America has clearly lost touch with who we are as a nation. We have a national identity crisis.

The Declaration of Independence is America's thesis statement, and without it America doesn't exist.

It is urgent that we get reacquainted with the Declaration of Independence because postmodernism would have us believe that we've evolved beyond the America of our founding documents, and thus they're irrelevant to the present and the future. But the Declaration of Independence is America's thesis statement, and without it America doesn't exist.

Today, much of the nation is so addicted to partisan indignation that "day-to-day" indignation isn't enough to feed the addiction. So, we're reaching into America's past to help us get our fix. In 2016, Democrats in the Louisiana state legislature tabled a bill that would have required fourth through sixth graders to recite the opening lines of the Declaration. They didn't table it because they thought it would be too difficult or too patriotic. They tabled it because the requirement would include the phrase “all men are created equal" and the progressives in the Louisiana legislature didn't want the children to have to recite a lie. Representative Barbara Norton said, “One thing that I do know is, all men are not created equal. When I think back in 1776, July the fourth, African Americans were slaves. And for you to bring a bill to request that our children will recite the Declaration, I think it's a little bit unfair to us. To ask our children to recite something that's not the truth. And for you to ask those children to repeat the Declaration stating that all men's are free. I think that's unfair."

Remarkable — an elected representative saying it wouldn't be fair for students to have to recite the Declaration because “all men are not created equal." Another Louisiana Democrat explained that the government born out of the Declaration “was used against races of people." I guess they missed that part in school where they might have learned that the same government later made slavery illegal and amended the Constitution to guarantee all men equal protection under the law. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were an admission of guilt by the nation regarding slavery, and an effort to right the wrongs.

Yet, the progressive logic goes something like this: many of the men who signed the Declaration of Independence, including Thomas Jefferson who wrote it, owned slaves; slavery is evil; therefore, the Declaration of Independence is not valid because it was created by evil slave owners.

It's a sad reality that the left has a very hard time appreciating the universal merits of the Declaration of Independence because they're so hung up on the long-dead issue of slavery. And just to be clear — because people love to take things out of context — of course slavery was horrible. Yes, it is a total stain on our history. But defending the Declaration of Independence is not an effort to excuse any aspect of slavery.

Okay then, people might say, how could the Founders approve the phrase “All men are created equal," when many of them owned slaves? How did they miss that?

They didn't miss it. In fact, Thomas Jefferson included an anti-slavery passage in his first draft of the Declaration. The paragraph blasted King George for condoning slavery and preventing the American Colonies from passing legislation to ban slavery:

He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights to life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere... Determined to keep open a market where men should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce.

We don't say “execrable" that much anymore. It means, utterly detestable, abominable, abhorrent — basically very bad.

Jefferson was upset when Georgia and North Carolina threw up the biggest resistance to that paragraph. Ultimately, those two states twisted Congress' arm to delete the paragraph.

Still, how could a man calling the slave trade “execrable" be a slaveowner himself? No doubt about it, Jefferson was a flawed human being. He even had slaves from his estate in Virginia attending him while he was in Philadelphia, in the very apartment where he was writing the Declaration.

Many of the Southern Founders deeply believed in the principles of the Declaration yet couldn't bring themselves to upend the basis of their livelihood. By 1806, Virginia law made it more difficult for slave owners to free their slaves, especially if the owner had significant debts as Jefferson did.

At the same time, the Founders were not idiots. They understood the ramifications of signing on to the principles described so eloquently in the Declaration. They understood that logically, slavery would eventually have to be abolished in America because it was unjust, and the words they were committing to paper said as much. Remember, John Adams was on the committee of five that worked on the Declaration and he later said that the Revolution would never be complete until the slaves were free.

Also, the same generation that signed the Declaration started the process of abolition by banning the importation of slaves in 1807. Jefferson was President at the time and he urged Congress to pass the law.

America has an obvious road map that, as a nation, we're not consulting often enough.

The Declaration took a major step toward crippling the institution of slavery. It made the argument for the first time about the fundamental rights of all humans which completely undermined slavery. Planting the seeds to end slavery is not nearly commendable enough for leftist critics, but you can't discount the fact that the seeds were planted. It's like they started an expiration clock for slavery by approving the Declaration. Everything that happened almost a century later to end slavery, and then a century after that with the Civil Rights movement, flowed from the principles voiced in the Declaration.

Ironically for a movement that calls itself progressive, it is obsessed with retrying and judging the past over and over. Progressives consider this a better use of time than actually putting past abuses in the rearview and striving not to be defined by ancestral failures.

It can be very constructive to look to the past, but not when it's used to flog each other in the present. Examining history is useful in providing a road map for the future. And America has an obvious road map that, as a nation, we're not consulting often enough. But it's right there, the original, under glass. The ink is fading, but the words won't die — as long as we continue to discuss them.

'Good Morning Texas' gives exclusive preview of Mercury One museum

Screen shot from Good Morning Texas

Mercury One is holding a special exhibition over the 4th of July weekend, using hundreds of artifacts, documents and augmented reality experiences to showcase the history of slavery — including slavery today — and a path forward. Good Morning Texas reporter Paige McCoy Smith went through the exhibit for an exclusive preview with Mercury One's chief operating officer Michael Little on Tuesday.

Watch the video below to see the full preview.

Click here to purchase tickets to the museum (running from July 4 - 7).

Over the weekend, journalist Andy Ngo and several other apparent right-leaning people were brutally beaten by masked-gangs of Antifa protesters in Portland, Oregon. Short for "antifascist," Antifa claims to be fighting for social justice and tolerance — by forcibly and violently silencing anyone with opposing opinions. Ngo, who was kicked, punched, and sprayed with an unknown substance, is currently still in the hospital with a "brain bleed" as a result of the savage attack. Watch the video to get the details from Glenn.