GLENN: Yesterday, the media found a new word.
VOICE: Mr. Woolsey told several people contemporaneous, and I've spoken with them --
VOICE: There are contemporaneous notes that were backed up.
VOICE: There was other contemporaneous notes.
VOICE: Talking about contemporaneous issues.
VOICE: If the FBI is still doing, one, contemporaneous with anything they're doing. But I don't think we can --
VOICE: Have a discussion, contemporaneous.
VOICE: They're going to have a hard time proving it, because they didn't catch him contemporaneous.
VOICE: Having these type of contemporaneous memos.
VOICE: And we have Director Comey's contemporaneous notes. They're called 302s. They're contemporaneous memos.
VOICE: Bob Muller kept his contemporaneous notes.
VOICE: Contemporaneous notes of those conversations.
VOICE: What do Comey's contemporaneous memos say?
VOICE: Which is a nod, again, to how powerful contemporaneous.
VOICE: Those notes, the contemporaneous notes --
VOICE: They were contemporaneous at the time.
VOICE: One reason why lawyers take contemporary notes is --
GLENN: Contemporary.
VOICE: Rely on a contemporaneous.
VOICE: As close to a contemporaneous way.
VOICE: Where he has made contemporaneous memos.
VOICE: How contemporaneous is --
VOICE: Kind of contemporaneous at the time.
VOICE: The FBI director kept contained -- contemporaneous, sorry. It's hard to say that word.
PAT: Especially when I've never seen it before.
GLENN: Yeah. But that one made me feel better. That one made me feel better.
So they found this new word yesterday, and they found it for a very important reason. And we need to start with the definition of contemporaneous and why they're using that word, helping you understand your world a little bit more, when we come back.
[break]
VOICE: Mr. Woolsey told several people contemporaneous, and I've spoken with them.
VOICE: There are contemporaneous notes that would back up?
VOICE: There was other contemporaneous notes?
VOICE: We're just talking about contemporaneous issues.
VOICE: If the FBI is still doing, one, contemporaneous with anything they're doing. But I don't think we can afford --
VOICE: Not have a discussion, contemporaneous.
VOICE: They're going to have a hard time proving it, because they didn't catch him contemporaneous.
VOICE: Having these type of contemporaneous memos.
VOICE: And we have Director Comey's contemporaneous notes. They're called 302s. They're contemporaneous memos.
VOICE: Bob Muller kept his contemporaneous notes.
VOICE: Contemporaneous notes of those conversations.
VOICE: What do Comey's contemporaneous memos say?
VOICE: Which is a nod, again, to how powerful contemporaneous --
VOICE: Those notes, the contemporaneous notes --
VOICE: They were contemporaneous at the time.
VOICE: One reason why lawyers take contemporary notes.
(laughter)
VOICE: Rely on a contemporaneous.
VOICE: As close to a contemporaneous way.
VOICE: Where he has made contemporaneous memos.
VOICE: How contemporaneous is --
VOICE: Were kind of contemporaneous at the time.
VOICE: The FBI director kept contained -- contain -- contain -- contemporaneous. Sorry. God, it's hard to say that word. Contemporaneous.
STU: It is.
PAT: When you've never seen it, you don't know what it means.
GLENN: All right. So Merriam-Webster defines contemporaneous, existing, occurring, or beginning during the same time.
So a political event and cultural event that are happening at the same time. In this particular case, the -- the notes that are contrary, because the notes were taken at the same time as the meeting.
So there's a difference between notes that you go and you write, you know, a week or two later, as opposed to the notes that you take at the time.
Now, when I met with President Bush, I know that I could not take a pencil or paper, a telephone, anything in. No recording device.
However, I could record my reflections of feelings. That's what it was explained to me. And so I know that when you're with the president, if he's having an off the record talk with you, the rules are, you don't write anything down.
And so the minute -- you try to remember -- it's the most important meeting of your life. You try to remember everything that is being said to you. And the minute you get out of that meeting -- I mean, I remember -- I don't remember who was with me. Stu, I don't know if you were with me.
STU: No.
GLENN: But I had somebody standing outside of the gates of the White House with a pad and a pencil and a phone. And I, you know, vomited into the phone as much as I could. As much as I could remember. And then I started writing it all down so I could remember. That's what James Comey did. He left the meeting and he immediately wrote down what happened in the meeting.
Now, this is not something that James Comey just did for this meeting. He is known in the FBI as being very, very buttoned.
PAT: Also, very contemporaneous.
STU: Very, very contemporaneous.
PAT: Yeah.
GLENN: See, that comment is happening contemporaneous with this subject.
PAT: It is. It is.
GLENN: Thank you.
PAT: I was speaking contemporaneously.
GLENN: Yes, you were.
PAT: Yeah.
GLENN: And you were exhibiting contemporaneousness, if you will.
STU: Oh, yeah.
PAT: And I will. And I will.
GLENN: Anyway, so what he did was, whenever he was involved in a serious exchange for case or anything like that, he is known as taking copious, contemporaneous notes. I'm going to let you figure out copious yourself if you don't know. But he would take copious notes, as soon as he would leave meetings. And then he would file them away.
So we don't know if these notes are real. But it is definitely a shot back to the White House, saying, oh, really? You got tapes? Good. Because I've got contemporaneous notes.
And so whichever one is playing chicken here is making the other one sweat.
STU: Yeah, and they keep pointing that out, specifically, because like think of the alternate situation here. James Comey comes to testify, after he's been fired. And says, "Well, you know what, Trump told me in that meeting that he wanted me to back off the Flynn thing." I felt comfortable.
Well, that means nothing after he's been fired, right? I mean, if he's saying that now, everyone is going to say, "Well, look, he's just saying that now."
PAT: But if he supposedly wrote that down at the time --
STU: And it's filed at the time. So it's not even supposedly. It was filed in a way -- it was marked and it was known that it was the time it was filed, it's going to be a lot more powerful and credible. While he was still working for them. Where they were having meetings before and after this. Supposedly, he did this with every personal meeting he had with Trump.
PAT: Would you also record it, if you're going to do that, to have proof?
GLENN: No, you can't. You're asked --
PAT: Probably can't record your conversations with the president, yeah --
JEFFY: Well, you better hope there's no tapes.
GLENN: You're told --
STU: And their response to that comment from Trump was, oh, I hope there are.
You know, his side is saying, "Yes, please, bring on the tapes. If they exist, please bring them on."
And the rumor is, at least the speculation is that this -- this was leaked to the media so that the -- Congress would subpoena these things.
GLENN: Well, Jason Chaffetz has already said turn them over, or I will subpoena them.
STU: Yep.
GLENN: And they should be subpoenaed. The White House record should be subpoenaed. We should know all of these things. And we should be as transparent. And the media should shut their pie hole and let the system work. There's a clear way to make this work. There was a clear way to make the IRS investigation work, but we didn't follow it. And what happened?
STU: Uh-huh. Nothing.
GLENN: Nothing.
STU: Yeah.
GLENN: So let's follow the rule of law. And, you know, what is it, 70 percent of the American people now say appoint a special prosecutor? Look, I want a neutral special prosecutor. I don't want a guy who is hell-bent on destroying the president or anything else. I want somebody who is just going to look at the facts of this. And they don't have a horse in this race.
Please, for the good of the nation, we need to know, is the president a liar? Did the president -- is the president reckless with classified information?
If those things are true, we need to know it. And I mean -- when I say a liar, we know that -- I mean, we've seen this record. But when it comes down to the United States of America, are you lying to us, dude?
I mean, this is not about, you know -- this is not about your personal life or anything else. This isn't even about you.
And that's what's so sad about this is I think the president keeps thinking all of this is about him. And I do believe with the press, it is about him.
STU: Yeah, they -- I mean, they don't care. Many of them, at least don't care about what the truth here --
GLENN: Right.
STU: Many of them -- but, again, Jonah Goldberg brought this up, and I think said it correctly is that, you -- yes, of course, they want to take him down. There's no disagreement. You talked about this with Bill O'Reilly last week too. He's like, but, Beck, I can't believe you don't get that when they want to take you out. Well, of course, you get that. You absolutely get the media wants to take Trump out at all costs and will do whatever they have to do to do that.
GLENN: Yeah.
STU: However, if there is something legitimately to be criticized, you have to have the principle and spine to do it.
PAT: Now, you're speaking uranusly, right?
STU: Uranusly, yes.
PAT: Or contemporarily.
STU: Contemporaneously.
PAT: Yeah.
GLENN: Uranusly means you're speaking out of your butt.
STU: Yes. That's a good point.
GLENN: You're speaking uranusly, you're speaking out of your butt. And that happens a lot on this program.
STU: Absolutely.
PAT: No, that's the Webster's dictionary definition.
GLENN: That's Merriam. That's Merriam. The wife of, I don't know, Bill Webster or whatever. Merriam, she's got her own dictionary.
STU: Sure, these are all facts.
PAT: The whole family had dictionaries. It's really kind of weird.
GLENN: There was Bill and the other Webster, famous one. And then Merriam, who was a sweetheart of a gal.
PAT: Right.
STU: And we should point out, and we have several times today -- again, think of the chain that this has come down here. This is a Comey ally who didn't give the memo to the New York Times, who read over the phone a memo to the New York Times.
The New York Times took notes over what he read. Did they read the entire thing? Did they read only the parts that they liked? Were there other parts of the memo that made Trump look really good?
We don't know any of that. That information went to the New York Times reporter. Do we blindly believe everything the New York Times says? Absolutely not.
Did the New York Times print the entire memo? No. We haven't seen it yet. The reporter hasn't even seen it yet. Nobody outside of the FBI has actually seen this thing yet. The other side of it is, this is not going to be the only memo. If it does exist, which you can't believe they just -- but it's possible, right? It's a Comey ally. It's not impossible they just made it. We saw that with the Rather situation, that someone who was going up against George W. Bush literally made something up. It's not impossible.
But if it does exist, it's not going to be the only one. Comey was well-known for this practice. He was well-known for creating paper trails when he believed something was going wrong, when he was made uncomfortable. He was a guy who documented what happened with his interactions with this president.
GLENN: Quite honestly, it's not the way we meant it, but it's turning out to be the same thing: Don't screw with the justice and intelligence agencies. Don't piss them off. They will find out what you're doing, and they will destroy you with it.
This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.
The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.
The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.
Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?
Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.
Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.
Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?
If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.
I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.
I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.
I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.
And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.
Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.
In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.
That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.
No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.
Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?
If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.
The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.
This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.
The Jerusalem Post recently named me one of the strongest Christian voices in support of Israel.
And yet, my support is not blind loyalty. It’s not a rubber stamp for any government or policy. I support Israel because I believe it is my duty — first as a Christian, but even if I weren’t a believer, I would still support her as a man of reason, morality, and common sense.
It is a lone beacon of shared values in the Middle East. It is a bulwark standing against radical Islam — the same evil that seeks to dismantle our own nation from within.
And my support is not rooted in politics. It is rooted in something simpler and older than politics: a people’s moral and historical right to their homeland, and their right to live in peace.
Let’s make it personal: if someone told me again and again that they wanted to kill me and my entire family — and then acted on that threat — would I not defend myself? Wouldn’t you? If Hamas were Canada, and we were Israel, and they did to us what Hamas has done to them, there wouldn’t be a single building left standing north of our border. That’s not a question of morality.
That’s just the truth. All people — every people — have a God-given right to protect themselves. And Israel is doing exactly that.
My support for Israel’s right to finish the fight against Hamas comes after eighty years of rejected peace offers and failed two-state solutions. Hamas has never hidden its mission — the eradication of Israel. That’s not a political disagreement.
That’s not a land dispute. That is an annihilationist ideology. And while I do not believe this is America’s war to fight, I do believe — with every fiber of my being — that it is Israel’s right, and moral duty, to defend her people.
Criticism of military tactics is fair. That’s not antisemitism. But denying Israel’s right to exist, or excusing — even celebrating — the barbarity of Hamas? That’s something far darker.
We saw it on October 7th — the face of evil itself. Women and children slaughtered. Babies burned alive. Innocent people raped and dragged through the streets. And now, to see our own fellow citizens march in defense of that evil… that is nothing short of a moral collapse.
If the chants in our streets were, “Hamas, return the hostages — Israel, stop the bombing,” we could have a conversation.
What we hear is open sympathy for genocidal hatred. And that is a chasm — not just from decency, but from humanity itself. And here lies the danger: that same hatred is taking root here — in Dearborn, in London, in Paris — not as horror, but as heroism. If we are not vigilant, the enemy Israel faces today will be the enemy the free world faces tomorrow.
This isn’t about politics. It’s about truth. It’s about the courage to call evil by its name and to say “Never again” — and mean it.
And you don’t have to open a Bible to understand this. But if you do — if you are a believer — then this issue cuts even deeper. Because the question becomes: what did God promise, and does He keep His word?
He told Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you.” He promised to make Abraham the father of many nations and to give him “the whole land of Canaan.” And though Abraham had other sons, God reaffirmed that promise through Isaac. And then again through Isaac’s son, Jacob — Israel — saying: “The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I give to you and to your descendants after you.”
That’s an everlasting promise.
And from those descendants came a child — born in Bethlehem — who claimed to be the Savior of the world. Jesus never rejected His title as “son of David,” the great King of Israel.
He said plainly that He came “for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” And when He returns, Scripture says He will return as “the Lion of the tribe of Judah.” And where do you think He will go? Back to His homeland — Israel.
Tamir Kalifa / Stringer | Getty Images
And what will He find when He gets there? His brothers — or his brothers’ enemies? Will the roads where He once walked be preserved? Or will they lie in rubble, as Gaza does today? If what He finds looks like the aftermath of October 7th, then tell me — what will be my defense as a Christian?
Some Christians argue that God’s promises to Israel have been transferred exclusively to the Church. I don’t believe that. But even if you do, then ask yourself this: if we’ve inherited the promises, do we not also inherit the land? Can we claim the birthright and then, like Esau, treat it as worthless when the world tries to steal it?
So, when terrorists come to slaughter Israelis simply for living in the land promised to Abraham, will we stand by? Or will we step forward — into the line of fire — and say,
“Take me instead”?
Because this is not just about Israel’s right to exist.
It’s about whether we still know the difference between good and evil.
It’s about whether we still have the courage to stand where God stands.
And if we cannot — if we will not — then maybe the question isn’t whether Israel will survive. Maybe the question is whether we will.
Chicago, Portland, and other American cities are showing us what happens when the rule of law breaks down. These cities have become openly lawless — and that’s not hyperbole.
When a governor declares she doesn’t believe federal agents about a credible threat to their lives, when Chicago orders its police not to assist federal officers, and when cartels print wanted posters offering bounties for the deaths of U.S. immigration agents, you’re looking at a country flirting with anarchy.
This isn’t a matter of partisan politics. The struggle we’re watching now is not between Democrats and Republicans. It’s between good and evil, right and wrong, self‑government and chaos.
For generations, Americans have inherited a republic based on law, liberty, and moral responsibility. That legacy is now under assault by extremists who openly seek to collapse the system and replace it with something darker.
Antifa, well‑financed by the left, isn’t an isolated fringe any more than Occupy Wall Street was. As with Occupy, big money and global interests are quietly aligned with “anti‑establishment” radicals. The goal is disruption, not reform.
And they’ve learned how to condition us. Twenty‑five years ago, few Americans would have supported drag shows in elementary schools, biological males in women’s sports, forced vaccinations, or government partnerships with mega‑corporations to decide which businesses live or die. Few would have tolerated cartels threatening federal agents or tolerated mobs doxxing political opponents. Yet today, many shrug — or cheer.
How did we get here? What evidence convinced so many people to reverse themselves on fundamental questions of morality, liberty, and law? Those long laboring to disrupt our republic have sought to condition people to believe that the ends justify the means.
Promoting “tolerance” justifies women losing to biological men in sports. “Compassion” justifies harboring illegal immigrants, even violent criminals. Whatever deluded ideals Antifa espouses is supposed to somehow justify targeting federal agents and overturning the rule of law. Our culture has been conditioned for this moment.
That’s why the debate over using troops to restore order in American cities matters so much. I’ve never supported soldiers executing civilian law, and I still don’t. But we need to speak honestly about what the Constitution allows and why. The Posse Comitatus Act sharply limits the use of the military for domestic policing. The Insurrection Act, however, exists for rare emergencies — when federal law truly can’t be enforced by ordinary means and when mobs, cartels, or coordinated violence block the courts.
Even then, the Constitution demands limits: a public proclamation ordering offenders to disperse, transparency about the mission, a narrow scope, temporary duration, and judicial oversight.
Soldiers fight wars. Cops enforce laws. We blur that line at our peril.
But we also cannot allow intimidation of federal officers or tolerate local officials who openly obstruct federal enforcement. Both extremes — lawlessness on one side and militarization on the other — endanger the republic.
The only way out is the Constitution itself. Protect civil liberty. Enforce the rule of law. Demand transparency. Reject the temptation to justify any tactic because “our side” is winning. We’ve already seen how fear after 9/11 led to the Patriot Act and years of surveillance.
KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor | Getty Images
Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic. The left cannot be allowed to shut down enforcement, and the right cannot be allowed to abandon constitutional restraint.
The real threat to the republic isn’t just the mobs or the cartels. It’s us — citizens who stop caring about truth and constitutional limits. Anything can be justified when fear takes over. Everything collapses when enough people decide “the ends justify the means.”
We must choose differently. Uphold the rule of law. Guard civil liberties. And remember that the only way to preserve a government of, by, and for the people is to act like the people still want it.
This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.
