Trey Gowdy’s Fiery Response on WH Staff Secretary Accused of Abuse Makes One Thing Clear

February 15, 2018

WRITER

What’s going on?

Led by Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), Congress is investigating why the White House employed former aide Rob Porter even though he had been accused of domestic abuse.

On today’s show, Pat and Stu talked about this story while sitting in for Glenn.

Remind me:

Porter, who served as White House staff secretary for the Trump administration for about a year, resigned last week when allegations from two of his ex-wives surfaced. One of them produced a photo of her blackened eye from the alleged abuse as evidence.

‘Not a Game-Player’: Is This Why Trey Gowdy Is Leaving Congress?

“These outrageous allegations are simply false,” Porter said in a statement, calling the claims a “coordinated smear campaign.”

What are Republicans saying?

Gowdy said his House Oversight Committee launched the investigation on Tuesday night. In an interview, he sounded determined to get to the bottom of things.

“You can call it official, you can call it unofficial — those words don’t mean anything to me,” Gowdy said in an interview with CNN. “What means something to me is I’m going to direct questions to the FBI that I expect them to answer.”

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan told reporters that he had been informed about the probe and that Porter’s employment by the White House indicated a “breakdown” in the screening process.

“If a person who commits domestic violence gets in government, then there’s a breakdown in the system,” Ryan said. “There’s a breakdown in the vetting system, and that breakdown needs to be addressed.”

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

PAT: Pat and Stu for Glenn. He's out with the flu today. 888-727-BECK.

Apparently Trey Gowdy has spoken out on this Rob Porter mess.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: Kind of interesting, what he had to say. Here it is.

VOICE: I'm well. Are you troubled by Rob Porter's employment in the White House?

VOICE: Yes. On two levels. Now, one is the interim security clearance issue. But even more importantly, I spent two decades believing women and children who alleged abuse, even sometimes when no one else did. So whether or not there's a security clearance at issue or not, I have real questions about how someone like this could be considered for employment, whether there's a security clearance or not. So, yeah, I'm troubled by almost every aspect of this.

VOICE: And so now that we know, according to yesterday, Chris Ray's testimony, that they told the White House four times, they gave the White House four separate -- four different installments of the report. Some of them complete. It included the allegations from the ex-wives of violence. So how could he still have a job at the White House?

VOICE: That's a great question. And one that I can't answer. I didn't hire him. But who knew what? When? And to what extent? Those are the questions that I think ought to be asked. And Congress has a role to play. I, but, quite frankly, so does the public and so does the media. Who knew, what, when, and to what extent. And if you knew it in 2017, and the bureau briefed him three times, then how in the hell was he still employed? The security clearance is a separate issue. I mean, it's an important issue, but it's separate.

How do you have any job, if you have credible allegations of domestic abuse? Again, I am biased toward the victim. I spent two decades believing them. But you don't have to be biased toward the victim to ask, how in the hell did this happen?

PAT: Wow. I mean, that's not good, coming from Trey Gowdy, a Republican. Some pretty solid points there.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: How do you -- how were you hired in the first place? When you did the background check and you should probably know about it then.

STU: Because there's two lines there, the idea that victims should be believed -- that's a weird statement to come from a guy -- a prosecutor. A guy who is involved in the legal system.

PAT: Yeah, that's not our justice system, by the way. Victims should be taken seriously. But not necessarily believed.

STU: Yeah. The opposite. Right?

PAT: It's the opposite.

STU: There should always be skepticism of an allegation.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: Because it's innocent until proven guilt. Proven guilt.

PAT: Uh-huh.

STU: Now, he's not necessarily talking about the legal standard here, however. And the standard of whether he should be working in the White House is a different one. The standard of what we feel as a generalized public, the court of public opinion, is a much lower standard, right? We judged things all the time on the left and the right, without all the information.

But I do think there has to be a process here. Some sort of process. It just seems that like, so far, this does not look good for him.

That being said, the -- the fact that Trey Gowdy, is out there saying, how the hell was this guy employed? I honestly think there is a good chance this leads to Kelly leaving.

PAT: Yeah, it seems like.

STU: Kelly, I think, has done a good job since he got in there. He just has not handled this one well. It would be interesting to see why that happened. Because he obviously is not incompetent. There have been people who have handled things in ways that are really incompetent. You see the people going after him. All the Lewandowskis and the Scaramuccis and all of them are going after Kelly, and a lot of them have axes to grind with him. But I think generally speaking, he's done a pretty good job for Trump. General Kelly. And he obviously has a really legitimate, you know, backstory and strong resume and history. It just seems like this one, he did not handle well. Maybe from a personal blindness of liking this guy. And not taking the accusations seriously enough early enough.

PAT: Seems that's about all it can be, right?

STU: Certainly he's not --

PAT: Maybe he believed the guy. Maybe Porter completely denied it. And he still is pretty much denying it, and Kelly believed him.

STU: Yeah. And I think that may very well be what happened here. But because it seemed like Trump had soured on him a little bit anyway. Didn't like the control. In addition to that, this did not go well, he's getting hammered in the press. He's doubled down on it. He's changed his timelines. He's not handled this well. And it may cost him his job.

PAT: And since Kelly has been in there, he doesn't like the control, but things have been more normal. So, yeah, it's too bad.

The Woodrow Wilson Mother's Day loophole

Stock Montage / Contributor, Xinhua News Agency / Contributor | Getty Images

I’ve got a potentially helpful revelation that’s gonna blow the lid off your plans for this Sunday. It’s Mother’s Day.

Yeah, that sacred day where you’re guilt-tripped into buying flowers, braving crowded brunch buffets, and pretending you didn’t forget to mail the card. But what if I told you… you don’t have to do it? That’s right, there’s a loophole, a get-out-of-Mother’s-Day-free card, and it’s stamped with the name of none other than… Woodrow Wilson (I hate that guy).

Back in 1914, ol’ Woody Wilson signed a proclamation that officially made Mother’s Day a national holiday. Second Sunday in May, every year. He said it was a day to “publicly express our love and reverence for the mothers of our country.” Sounds sweet, right? Until you peel back the curtain.

See, Wilson wasn’t some sentimental guy sitting around knitting doilies for his mom. No, no, no. This was a calculated move.

The idea for Mother’s Day had been floating around for decades, pushed by influential voices like Julia Ward Howe. By 1911, states were jumping on the bandwagon, but it took Wilson to make it federal. Why? Because he was a master of optics. This guy loved big, symbolic gestures to distract from the real stuff he was up to, like, oh, I don’t know, reshaping the entire federal government!

So here’s the deal: if you’re looking for an excuse to skip Mother’s Day, just lean into this. Say, “Sorry, Mom, I’m not celebrating a holiday cooked up by Woodrow Wilson!” I mean, think about it – this is the guy who gave us the Federal Reserve, the income tax, and don’t even get me started on his assault on basic liberties during World War I. You wanna trust THAT guy with your Sunday plans? I don’t think so! You tell your mom, “Look, I love you, but I’m not observing a Progressive holiday. I’m keeping my brunch money in protest.”

Now, I know what you might be thinking.

“Glenn, my mom’s gonna kill me if I try this.” Fair point. Moms can be scary. But hear me out: you can spin this. Tell her you’re honoring her EVERY DAY instead of some government-mandated holiday. You don’t need Wilson’s permission to love your mom! You can bake her a cake in June, call her in July, or, here’s a wild idea, visit her WITHOUT a Woodrow Wilson federal proclamation guilting you into it.

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.

Glenn's Show Prep