The Persecution of Gen. Flynn Continues

Today on Jay Sekulow Live, the Obama-Biden persecution of Michael Flynn continues, and our special advisor Rick Grenell joins us today on the broadcast. Live from Washington DC, Jay Sekulow Live. Phone lines are open for your questions right now. Call 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. Well, as we broke on yesterday's broadcast, and now just to kind of get into it a little bit more detail now that we've gone through the opinion, the persecution of Michael Flynn by the Obama-Biden administration continues by Peter Strzok and Lisa Page because the liberal, one of the last remaining liberal court of appeals, especially if President Trump gets re-elected, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, ruled 8-2. So you had the two judges that agreed with Flynn in the appeals court case before it went en banc, disagreeing with the majority here, but it was pretty clear we all predicted this en banc review would not be good for Mike Flynn. They basically danced around the question of whether Judge Sullivan did the right thing by appointing an outside counsel, this former retired judge, to argue against the government's position, and they just said it wasn't really ready for our review yet. To quote from the opinion, this is, again, it says, the petitioner sought to compel the district court to grant the Justice Department motion to dismiss, vacate its order appointing the micus curiae, that would be the former judge that Judge Sullivan wanted to argue against the Department of Justice, and reassign the case to another district judge as to any further proceedings because, again, under the DC, under the federal rules, it is so clear that Judge Sullivan became a party in this case. He was represented before the en banc panel. But in the initial panel's ruling, they said they granted the petition in part, issuing the writ to compel the district court to immediately grant the government's motion. The panel majority declined to mandate that the case be reassigned to a different judge, and in light of its grant of the writ to compel immediate dismissal, the panel majority vacated the appointment of a micus as moot.

So that's kind of, again, where we're starting from. That was the initial panel ruling. Then we get to the en banc majority ruling.

Changes completely. As to petitioner's first two requests to compel the immediate grant of the government motion and to vacate the district court's appointment of a micus, petitioner has not yet established that he has no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires. We also declined to mandate that the case be reassigned to a different district judge because petitioner has not established a clear and indisputable right to reassignment. What I don't understand is that the court would not address the appointment by Judge Sullivan of the amicus curis. They danced around that, and they danced around whether or not he was disqualified by being a party. See, they never mentioned that directly there, and they ignored that completely, even though the federal rules say that. This is what we expected, though, but it is the ongoing persecution of Mike Flynn. Now, he's got a great legal team, great lawyer in Sidney Powell, and this is still going to be tough for Judge Sullivan to deny this request.

But it's this ongoing, I call it than. It's like a persecution. We saw it of our Tea Party clients. We see it of a lot of people affiliated with President Trump who have done nothing wrong. And now we're seeing it with Mike Flynn, who continues to have this hanging over his head.

Well, there's an agenda there, Jordan, no doubt about it. And there's a couple of things about this ruling that I specifically want to get into. One, it seems there is no presumption of innocence. And two, the right to an impartial trial. Judge Henderson did a very good job of going through and showing how Judge Sullivan cannot give that.

But both of those things seem to be out the window. But Jordan, just off the top of the broadcast, I would tell you, you're not going to hear this a lot of places, but I think Judge Sullivan is one of the biggest losers here because he needed to be saved from himself. He has demonstrated an inability to do the right thing here. I think he needed to be saved by this appeals court.

They have declined to do it. Jordan, he is now once again back in the hot seat. He has a fundamental obligation to impart justice. And when the Article 2 branch that has the prosecutorial power and the defendant agree that there is no case, guess what?

The Article 3 branch cannot reinsert the case. That's what he's tried to do. Jordan, one more opportunity for him to do the right thing.

I'm not so sure he'll be able to do it, though. All right, folks, we come back. We will continue to take your phone calls, 1-800-684-3110.

If you've got questions about what happens to Mike Flynn next, that's 1-800-684-3110. Let me thank you. We had an amazing August matching challenge month. Thank you to all who donated to the ACLJ.

Thank you so much. We appreciate you. The challenges facing Americans are substantial. At a time when our values, our freedoms, our constitutional rights are under attack, it's more important than ever to stand with the American Center for Law and Justice. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines protecting your freedoms, defending your rights in courts, in Congress, and in the public arena.

And we have an exceptional track record of success. But here's the bottom line, we could not do our work without your support. We remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms. That remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side.

If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life-changing work. Become a member today, ACLJ.org.

Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice to defend the right to life. We've created a free, powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.

It's called Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, playing Parenthood's role in the abortion industry, and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life. Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. By the way, and you may have missed this last week, but Rick Grenell, who was a former acting director of national intelligence, former US ambassador to Germany, has joined the ACLJ as a special advisor for national security and foreign policy. He made his debut on radio last week.

And if those of you who watch the radio broadcast, by the way, the TV quality broadcast we put out every single day via Facebook, Periscope or YouTube, or now even on the ACLJ website and on the ACLJ app, you can actually watch the live video of the radio broadcast. Rick Grenell, the former acting director of national intelligence, will be joining us live in the second half hour to discuss the current director of national intelligence, John Ratcliffe's decision to stop the in-person briefings to members of Congress to minimize leaks because they believe that there have been so many leaks out of those briefings. It'll still be done on paper. Congress will still be, it'll satisfy the rules, but there's of course a lot of pushback from the Adam Schiff types who, by the way, will be getting that information. But it's some of those, like Adam Schiff, who the intelligence community have been most concerned about leaking this information. Their staff leaking this classified information. So don't, right from the bat, don't think that Congress is not going to get briefed.

They are. They're just not going to be briefed the same way because they believe that DNI believes that that was leading to potentially more dangerous leaks to the country and our electoral process. So we're going to hear directly from the person who had that job just previously, the former acting director of national intelligence, Rick Rinnell, our special advisor on, again, national security and foreign policy at the ACLJ. He'll be joining us throughout the broadcast during the week and also be writing for ACLJ.org.

His first piece should be up this week as well. So it'll be great to get his direct insight. And, you know, for all those of you who donated in August who are matching challenge, it's why we were able to bring on a former cabinet member of the Trump administration right away to the ACLJ when he became available. And we know that you care about these issues of national intelligence, the deep state, the unmasking.

Remember it was Rick Rinnell who unmasked the unmaskers. And he can speak directly today to this pushback Ratcliffe is getting from the left. So, you know, directly from the former acting DNI what it was like to do those briefings, why they were such a concern and why this decision is legit. You don't just have to take our word for it.

Take the word of the cabinet member who held this position and also the former US ambassador to Germany, also the longest serving US spokesperson at the United Nations. So Rick Rinnell joining us in the second half hour, but it's because of your support for the ACLJ and those matching challenge months that we can bring on experts as special special advisors to the ACLJ. And we're able to bring you the best information possible. And of course we work get to do the policy work behind the scenes as well with someone like that is just excellent. And it's all because of your support for the American Center for Law and Justice. I want to go to the phones ACLJ.org again to check out all this information because I think a good question comes up next from Wes in Tennessee on line one. Wes, welcome to Jay Sekulow Live. Hey, good morning.

First of all, I do have one other question I thought of. Is the concert that they have last night for your pop going to be replayed? It's up. So it's up. If you go to the Jay Sekulow Facebook page, we have to scroll down a little bit, but the concert is there guys, right? So it's up.

So they don't take the concert down. It's still there. You can still watch it, Wes. Okay, good. I want to see if he has as good a drumming skills as our mutual friend, Ben Spicil, who used to work for you guys. Oh yeah. We all know Ben. Yeah. Yeah.

Good guy. And so my question really quick was, and this is totally Monday morning quarterbacking, but you know, this originally this was set for the hearing, you know, with, uh, Judge Gleason and all that, and hearing in front of Judge Sullivan, I believe the first week of July. What, what in your opinion would be the best move? Is it to go and ask for that third person SCOTUS or would it be just to let it, let it play out, see what Sullivan does next and then go back to the, uh, to the DC circuit if it's not in their favor.

And one last question. Is it possible that he could rule to dismiss or find the motion to dismiss, but do it without prejudice? Well, I think that, listen, I think that first you're going, this is going back to the district court and they're going to, you're going to have Sidney Powell look at all of the options. So on the immediate, this goes back to the district court. Could you try to take an appeal to the Supreme Court potentially?

Uh, but you've got to kind of look at all of your options because right now the court would not really, you know, they, they said like on, on this appointment of amicus, I think that was key. They said they conclude that the mandamus is unavailable. So they wouldn't rule on whether judge Sullivan appointing that amicus, that former judge to come in fan and, uh, argue against the department of justice who said, we're dropping this. There was not legitimate. It was wrong and there was no legitimate purpose in even beginning this investigation. And so we're dropping the charges and usually, and then under the, the, the rules, uh, when the prosecution says, we're not going to prosecute the judge, uh, dismisses the case.

They don't bring in someone. There's no rule that allows them to do that, but this court refused to hear it. So you could look to the Supreme Court to try and get review of that matter. Uh, but I think it's Sidney Powell make the decision. However, she believes will most quickly end this persecution of Mike Flynn. Ultimately he will get justice. I have no doubt then he will get justice, but she will take the whatever route, uh, is going to end this the quickest. Yeah. She's the best person to make that legal tactical decision.

Jordan, I'm sure she'll make the right one. My concern is really more on the broader level that you just touched on. This case should have never gotten to this point.

And I'll just briefly remind people. I mean, we talked about it on yesterday's broadcast, but Jordan, way back on January 4th, 2017, the Washington field office said exactly that there is no case here. We are closing this case. Peter Strzok overturned that decision to get us where we are. And, and look, Jordan, just to throw it back to sort of the, the, the top line that I gave you in the first segment of the broadcast, uh, where is presumption of innocence in this case, the burden of proof in the United States of America always has to be on the prosecution. And when the prosecutors in this case, they're, they reside in the article two branch say that they do not have the evidence to proceed. And they don't think the case should have been brought in, uh, should have been brought in the first place because of the entrapment that was laid by James Comey. Uh, then the article three branch has no decision to be made.

And so presumption of innocence has gone out the window. And the other thing here, Jordan, uh, the, the right to an impartial trial. If you look at judge Henderson's descent in this case, he goes through example after example, after example of how judge Sullivan has tried to become a party and an advocate in the case, he is clearly Jordan, no longer an impartial, uh, participant in this process.

He has become an advocate on one side. So look, even if, you know, the, the, the panel, the court disagreed with me that the case was right for their dismissal. They should at least assign it to someone who can take a fair and impartial look at it. Look, I don't, I really don't think anybody can look at this and say, yes, if we're going to appoint someone impartial to look at this, judge Sullivan's our guy. He's the guy that hasn't made up his mind.

Jordan, he's clearly made up his mind on this one. I will point out, and we found this in a judge Henderson, who was part of the descent in this case. He was on the side of Mike Flynn on the side of, uh, of his argument along with a judge Rao.

Uh, and he pointed this out. He said, notwithstanding the July 30th order, granting en banc review recites quote upon consideration of the petition for rehearing en banc, uh, my colleagues in the majority now recognize their error and vacate the writ quote based on the suggestion of a member of this court to do so sua sponte. In other words, the majority granted judge Sullivan's petition for rehearing en banc in consideration of his petition. It was judge Sullivan who challenged the, the, the circuit court three judge panel decision en banc, not Mike Flynn and not sua sponte as the majority now said it did, trying to cover its tracks because the judge is quote not a party.

And if he was a party, he'd have to disqualify. But his petition for en banc review with no legal support whatsoever, therefore manifest first that he plainly appears to view himself as a party. Second and more important that his attempted action removes any doubt that the appearance of impartiality required all of the federal judges has been compromised beyond repair. That right there could open up the door to Supreme court review immediately.

That, that error, the fact that the en banc panel rewrote history and said, well, it was, it was Mike Flynn's appeal that was, you know, not, not ready for the en banc review. And in fact, it was judge Sullivan who brought that review. And that's how they dance around the idea that they're trying to not even acknowledge that judge Sullivan appealed, made an appeal because by making appeal, he became a party at that point. Certainly I think he was already before, but certainly when you make an appeal for a, uh, uh, for a court to hear it en banc, you're a party at that point when your lawyer makes that appeal for you.

I mean, that's, that's just like basics of, I think everybody understands that. So instead they tried to say they did this sua sponte. That means on their own, on their own, without, without a request from either in any parties, that's to try and cover judge Sullivan being a party, which ultimately makes him disqualified. It's one of the only ways really a judge is disqualified is, uh, you know, it's recusal you, you decide, but there are impartiality issues. And then there are, if you become a party, um, and those are clear, could that be heard by the Supreme court? Absolutely. But I do think that it'll be up to Sidney Powell. And she's got a great team focus just on Mike Flynn because their goal is to get this done for him as quickly as possible, whether or not the Supreme court route is the quickest as possible.

Uh, they will have to decide, but they are certainly we're finding ways within the, uh, decision, which we disagree with and the dissents, which we agree with where you could take this directly to the Supreme court. We'll continue to take your calls on this and more at 1-800-684-3110 and a big thank you to everyone who participated in our July and August matching challenge. We had two great months even during this pandemic. So let me just tell you how much we appreciate your financial support of the ACLJ. Thank you so much for all of you who donated, whether it was $5 or a thousand. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected.

Is there any hope for that culture to survive? And that's exactly what you were saying. When you stand with the American center for law and justice to defend the right to life, we've created a free powerful publication, offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ battle for the unborn it's called mission life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, play on parenthood's role in the abortion industry and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life.

Request your free copy of mission life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. The challenges facing Americans are substantial at a time when our values, our freedoms, our constitutional rights are under attack. It's more important than ever to stand with the American center for law and justice. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines, protecting your freedoms, defending your rights in courts, in Congress, and in the public arena.

And we have an exceptional track record of success. But here's the bottom line, we could not do our work without your support. We remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms. That remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American center for law and justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org, ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life-changing work.

Become a member today, ACLJ.org. So coming up, second half hour, the former acting director of national intelligence and US ambassador to Germany, now a special advisor to the American center for law and justice on national security and foreign policy will be joining us, Rick Rinnell, to talk about John Ratcliffe's decision, his letter to Congress and the congressional leaders holding my hand right now saying that, you know what, because of the leaks and the classified info that keeps coming out of Congress, we're going to do what we need to do under the law to keep you briefed on election security and other matters from the director of national intelligence. But we're going to do those briefings in writing, and what you're going to get in those is a finished intelligence product, not just, you know, half of it. So of course the Democrats like Schiff and others, they're up in arms, but they will be getting those briefings and they will still be able to ask follow-up requests and questions and information and can request in-person meetings and things like that. They will be able to do all of that.

It's just the regular kind of ordinary, but don't just take my word for it. We're going to talk about this and the problem with leaks with the former acting director of national intelligence who had the position just before John Radcliffe. That's Rick Rinnell, who's now with us. The ACLJ is a special advisor, so he'll be joining us in the second half hour. If you've got calls about that and you want to talk to a former acting director of national intelligence, Rick Rinnell, get your phone calls in now 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. Now on the Flynn matter, a lot of you are asking, okay, so what is his team going to do next? You know, as attorneys, we really respect Sidney Powell, his attorney. She's done a great job. And she spoke to Lou Dobbs, and she kind of went through the different ways they could look at. So just so you know, I mean, his team is, they got this, you know, Monday, they're going to look at, yesterday, they're going to look at every option available. And here she is talking to Lou Dobbs about what those options may entail. Is there any point at which the Chief Justice of the United States is so embarrassed and so ashamed of what has become of the federal judiciary and its obvious political corruption that without prompting from any quarter, he would reach down to the appellate court and to this district court judge and say, do what is right and end this now?

I wish he would, but I don't know that he'll do that without a petition for writ of certiorari, but that may be the direction we have to go in next. We're considering several alternatives right now. So I mean, there you go.

You've got several alternatives. I don't think we're gonna get more than that yet from Sidney Powell, but that's all laid out for you. So that's where it is right there. Let's go to the phones. 1-800-684-3110. Let's go to Patrick in Ohio on Line 3. Patrick, welcome to Jay Sekio Live.

You're on the air. Thank you, Jay. I have a question. Since Judge Sullivan will not honor the DOJ request, why is it nobody thought about having the DOJ file complaints at the Bar Association against Judge Sullivan and bring him up on a hearing?

Well, here's the weird part. So one is good luck with the DC Bar on that. But as a DC Bar member, I mean, no disrespect, but it's DC.

Where do you think it leans? Also, I don't think that's the right route because this went to appeals and so far the highest court that's heard this has said that he has not done anything wrong. So I don't think the Department of Justice would have a real strong just going there for the DC Bar.

And I stress this, Patrick, and I have no idea what they do. Maybe they decide Jordan's wrong on this. This is my quick analysis of your question, is remember that Judge Sullivan has not made his decision. He might, after all this, just go back and accept the DOJ's motion. He might, Sidney Powell might challenge again his attempt to bring in an amicus, but maybe he won't.

And he'll just say, you know what, I'll accept the motion and this is over. So I think you probably want to wait there to see what kind of actions Judge Sullivan is going to take in response to this en banc ruling, which, by the way, opened the door to Supreme Court review because the majority misled in their opinions, I would say, how that got to an en banc review. It was not an appeal by Mike Flynn. It was an appeal by Judge Sullivan himself to hear the case en banc, which means he is a party, which means he would be disqualified. So that alone, that issue could probably be brought before the Supreme Court. It will be up to Mike Flynn's legal team on whether or not that's going to get this resolved any quicker for Mike Flynn.

And again, because the bar matters, there's not anything there yet because you haven't had a court, now the highest court to weigh in has said, just continue to proceed and then you can challenge how the proceedings occurred. This is horrible for Mike Flynn, by the way. This should have been over and done with, over and done with, long ago.

It should have never, ever happened. It is the persecution ongoing of Mike Flynn, still with the tentacles of the Obama-Biden administration. Remember, they were all in the room. They all started this with Jim Comey. Even though he said, look legit, oh no, let's keep this going. Remember, Peter Strzok said, don't shut that one down, even though the FBI agents then said, we need to shut this down.

He said, no, no, no, no. Top, top floor of the FBI. They want to keep this open, even though every FBI agent that looked into it said, what Mike Flynn's doing is totally legal.

No problem here. Than? Yeah, top floor of the FBI. That was Peter Strzok overturning that decision. And you know, Jordan, I think one other thing that we should put on people's radar is that the Senate Judiciary Committee just interviewed the other FBI agent that went over to interview General Flynn with Peter Strzok.

His name is Joseph Pienka. And I have speculated on this broadcast before, Jordan, of course, I don't know, but we haven't heard anything from Joseph Pienka. And we know that James Comey who sent the agents over was biased.

We know that Peter Strzok was biased and overturned the recommendation of the DC field office. We haven't heard anything from Joseph Pienka. And I have speculated that maybe he wants to salvage his reputation, Jordan. So look, as all of these legal proceedings continue, and if Judge Sullivan doesn't do the right thing, and if there's not justice for General Flynn in that, I think we've got to make sure that the other people with personal firsthand direct awareness of what went on and who gave the orders, people like Agent Joseph Pienka, we need to hear their stories. And now Lindsey Graham's staff, Jordan, that story has been told by Pienka.

He's been interviewed by them. Eventually, I know we'll have access to the responses that he gave the entire picture here, Jordan, I guess this is the point I'm driving at. The entire picture here, it's coming into play and the American people are going to know it. They already know that Vice President Biden was one of the ones that requested the unmasking shortly after that Oval Office meeting. I hope that justice does not continue to be delayed for General Flynn. But one thing I'm sure of, Jordan, the truth is coming out and it's coming out sooner rather than later.

I mean, that is obviously the key here. We're going to be talking about these kind of issues too with the national intelligence briefings to Congress, the leaking, the problems there with Special Advisor for National Security and Foreign Policy to the ACLJ, former Acting Director of National Intelligence, Rick Rinnell. Those of you who watch the broadcast on Facebook and Periscope, make sure to share this because he's going to be joining us when he joins us on the air a couple of times a week. He'll be joining us via Skype, so he'll be there with videos. You'll be able to see it and people will know about it.

People engage in, I think, a little bit more who watch the show. And you can also do watch the show now on our app. So even if you're not able to watch, maybe on a computer or a tablet, you can watch it through the ACLJ app, even on your phone.

And it's TV quality broadcast. So I encourage you folks, again, to check out ACLJ.org. If you've got calls and you want to talk to former Acting Director of National Intelligence, Rick Rinnell, we'll take your calls on that one, 800-684-3110. We'll continue to update you on the Michael Flynn matter as well. That's again, and we can do that through our, of course, at ACLJ.org. Check out our new app.

And remember, second half hour coming up with Rick Rinnell, talking about a lot of these intelligence decisions that have been made. Share, if you're watching on Facebook and Periscope, share this broadcast with your friends and family. And again, let me just thank everybody out there who donated to the ACLJ in July and August are Matching Challenge Month.

You make this happen, folks. Thank you. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines, protecting your freedoms, defending your rights in courts, in Congress, and in the public arena. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life-changing work.

Become a member today, ACLJ.org. Live from Washington, D.C., Jay Sekulow Live. And now, your host, Jordan Sekulow. So we have a bit of breaking news before Rick Rinnell joins us on the broadcast.

In the next segment of the broadcast, if you want to talk to him, 1-800-684-3110. The Department of Justice and the FBI — I'm holding up my hands for those of you watching on Facebook and Periscope — they just released a press release. This is dated today, September 1st, that the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation announced critical reforms to enhance compliance, oversight, and accountability at the FBI. These reforms will improve the FBI's internal compliance program, ensure the accuracy — this is key — of FISA applications, ensure the accuracy of FISA applications, and require proper oversight of FISA applications, targeting elected officials and campaigns.

So specifically, when FISA applications are targeting elected officials or campaigns and people running for office, so this is specific. There's two different memorandums — it'll be issued — memos is probably not the right word. They are lengthy, and it's just been released, so we'll probably get into this more later in the week, but that is breaking news. People have been waiting to see what kind of reforms, fan, that the FBI and Department of Justice — we've talked about this — Congress has not really been able to come up with an agreement on the reforms that are needed, so the FBI and Director Wray is, in conjunction with the DOJ, are putting the reforms in and making the reforms themselves. Yeah, very welcome news here, Jordan. Look, I, for one, am for structural changes in changes and reforms through the statute to the FISA court. I think that there ought to be an advocate in the room for any target of an American citizen of a FISA application, but look, just glancing through these memos, obviously I haven't read them completely, but I think they're touching on the right things that can be done without that statutory reform.

I mean, first of all, you've got to make sure that the people that are signing these applications, who are putting their name on the line to say that the information in the applications is accurate, which not only didn't happen in this case, Jordan, they knew the information was incorrect, and yet they proceeded with it. They perpetrated a lie to the FISA court, so good on Director Wray and the others involved here in putting this guidance out. I do think that more will need to be done, but Jordan, I would just say this. We can't wait for the statutory reform to make sure that the violations of the rights of American citizens that so clearly happen in this case do not happen again, so I hope this is robust as it looks initially, but I'll just tell you this. I'm glad they're not solely waiting on Congress.

This is too big of an issue to just wait for that statutory reform to come together. You know, folks, again, this is breaking news from the FBI, Department of Justice and the FBI. They're announcing these critical reforms to enhance compliance, oversight, and accountability at the FBI. It relates directly to the accuracy of FISA applications, and it requires proper oversight of FISA applications that target elected officials, so people who already hold office, and campaigns, so people like President Trump back in 2015, whose campaign was targeted through these FISA warrants that we know were based on bogus information in the dossier, and were even altered.

We've already seen someone plead guilty to doing that, altering emails to get continuing FISA warrants against Carter Page, who was a government asset, but they, of course, excluded that when they made the application to the FISA court. So, we will go through this. I don't want to say if this is enough.

I think it's always a great start to see changes. As Thanh said, we'd like to see some significant changes to FISA, but the memos are long. This just broke. Give us some time to analyze it, and we will come back to you on that. If you've got questions for former Acting Director of National Intelligence, Rick Grenell, he will be joining us in the next segment of the broadcast. We're going to be talking about this decision by the current Director of National Intelligence, John Radcliffe, to stop the in-person briefings to Congress, and to do it by writing, and this pushback he's getting, of course, from people like Adam Schiff, who are probably the top leakers and their staffs in Congress, because only a few members of Congress even would get these briefings, and yet, suddenly, all of the information would always be out there in the news, depending on if it helped the Democrats, it helped the left. You wouldn't get the other side of the info, like, about China, or what China was up to, or what other countries might be up to.

You just get what is Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, constantly, over and over and over again. So, who better to talk to than our Special Advisor on National Security and Foreign Policy, Rick Grenell, the former Acting Director of National Intelligence, about the problem with leaking, and these congressional, when you do these congressional reports with members of Congress. He'll be joining us in the next segment. As always, go to ACLJ.org, follow us on Facebook and Twitter. Here's the bottom line. We could not do our work without your support. We remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms.

That remains our top priority, especially now, during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you, and if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life-changing work.

Become a member today. ACLJ.org. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice to defend the right to life. We've created a free, powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.

It's called Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, a play on parenthood's role in the abortion industry, and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life.

Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. All right, so I want to get you briefed on this before we bring on the former acting director of national intelligence and our new special advisor at the ACLJ for national security and foreign policy, the former acting director of national intelligence, Rick Grenell. You might have missed that last week. It was right after during the Republican National Convention that he has come on as a special advisor to the ACLJ. He'll be appearing on a radio broadcast, doing most of that via Skype and video. So you'll be able to see it if you watch the broadcast and also writing at for us at ACLJ.org. That's what he'll be doing publicly that you'll be able to see and also assisting us on these foreign policy matters, national security matters. Of course, we work on a lot of these at the ACLJ, so it's great to have him as part of the team as a special advisor. He's about to join us and get connected.

Let me tell you what we're going to be discussing, so that if you want to talk to him on the air, you can. 1-800-684-3110. That's 1-800-684-3110. It is this letter.

It was dated August 28th, and it kind of started breaking over the weekend. It was from the Chairman, the Director of National Intelligence, John Radcliffe, to the fan. This went to basically, it's the gang of eight who gets intelligence briefings plus the four top leaders from both parties in the house. I guess the two top leaders and the four top in the house, the four top in the Senate. So it's 16 people total, right?

Yeah, that's right. And those are the leadership, Jordan, that would get all of these intelligence briefings. Typically, they have happened in person. Many times, Jordan, and this is actually one of the mechanics I think that we should ask Rick about, but typically, if you're a member of either of the Intel committees, you also would get to sit in on these briefings. It might depend a little bit on what the substance is, but yeah, this notification went out to those 16 leaders of both parties, Jordan, because both parties get these briefings.

And I would just tell you, just my first blush reaction to this was, well, of course, this is the right move because, Jordan, we know this has been an epidemic on Capitol Hill. I mean, honestly, these members have been going into these briefings with one purpose is to run out of the meeting a few minutes later, run to a camera and leak some of the information that we're talking about. And quite honestly, that's what director Comey did. Jordan, director Comey admitted he took down memos with sensitive information in it specifically for the purpose of leaking it. And the director of national intelligence has an obligation. It's a duty, actually an affirmative duty to protect this information. So if providing these briefings in writing to these leadership and these members of the committee will help minimize those leaks, I think it's incumbent on him to do it.

Let's play, some people can hear this is director Radcliffe. He's talking about this decision, why he made this decision. So of course he's getting pushback from the Democrats like Schiff saying this is the Trump administration trying to hide information, even though they're going to be getting full written reports, full written reports.

Take a listen by one. I'm going to continue to keep the promises that I made. I'm going to continue to follow the law. I'm going to continue to keep Congress informed, but we've had a pandemic of information being leaked out of the intelligence community.

And I'm going to take the measures to make sure that that stops. So there you go. And we've seen than the problems with these leaks over and over and over again, is that they're selective. We know that there's only certain amount of people that could be getting the information on the first hand.

And so you've got these 16 members. It seems mostly to be coming out of the left, Democrats. And when it's leaked out to the press, it's not the full picture. It's not the full, so you get the Russia part, but not how China's boosting Biden.

So you don't get that part. You don't get how other countries are trying to interfere with the election to boost Joe Biden's chances of victory. You just get the Russia part of the briefing. And that's what they leak out. And it's not that the Intel community is trying to hide the Russia part. It's that when they make the leaks, you don't get the full picture. And then that's what the media reports on what they have.

And so it looks like that's all it was talked about. Well, and it's filtered through the political motive of whoever is leaking it. And quite honestly, Jordan, it's become a game to see who can get either to the cameras or to the reporters first to get their narrative, their spin of the information out into the press first.

And look, you know, you and I talk about this a lot. There is room for a partisan debate in Washington, D.C. It's one of the strengths of our democratic republic that we can have differing opinions and we can debate them. But when it comes to sensitive information like is contained in these briefings, it has to go beyond politics. It can't be disseminated based on partisan reasoning. That has been happening.

And that's why some of these decisions to change the way it's disseminated have been made. All right. So the former acting director of National Intelligence Rick Rinnell is a special adviser to the American Center for Law and Justice.

He joined us last week officially and is joining us again today on the broadcast. Rick, let me ask you first about this. You've done these briefings before to these 16 members of Congress who can get these briefings. You've talked about the concern with leaks. We've all seen the concern about leaks. What do you think initially, just first reaction to John Radcliffe, who you preceded, his decision to do these now in writing because of the fear of leaks being used to try and interfere with the election?

Yeah, look, I really applaud what John Radcliffe has done here. He's trying to solve a problem. The problem that we have is the leaks. It's actually a crisis. It's really a bad situation.

I will tell you this. When I was at DNI, I had multiple career intelligence officials come to me and say, I actually don't want to brief Capitol Hill anymore. We had a briefing and we had multiple people opt out and say, you know, as a career person, I just don't want to do this. And when I really pushed to say why, they said, look, the information is being manipulated. It's being weaponized. It's being cherry picked. And what ends up happening is that that person then becomes part of the political folly between the two parties and that person's career is really impacted.

And so what I think that John Radcliffe is trying to do is respond to career intelligence officials who want to give information, who want to give the warnings to politicians, but are dealing with the reality that politicians are manipulating the intelligence and manipulating individuals. And so I really like that that this is going to be done in written form. Now, it's not going to solve every problem. And we should also be very clear that this is not just a problem with the Democrats. It's the current problem is with the Democrats.

But when Barack Obama was President, we had a lot of Republicans that were leaking. That's really important to point out that both sides do it, depending on who's in office. But I'm hoping that the written form is going to do two things. One, it's going to send a signal to reporters that they really do need to ask if they're getting partial verbal information, they need to ask whether or not there's a fuller context in the written form, because that should for true journalists, that should stop a lot of the partisan leaks. We certainly have cheerleaders in the in the press corps that don't really care about the truth and are just advocates for one side or the other.

And so that's it's not going to impact them. But we know who those reporters are. And most people just dismiss their writings as advocacy. So I'm hoping the written form is going to do have a chilling effect on at least the the leaks and the leaks that somehow get into the hands of real journalists. Yeah, I mean, this is again, I think that that's such a huge issue.

And I think you're right to point out, Rick, it's a bipartisan problem. Lately, we've been seeing it mostly because from the Democrats and this leaking. And so it's like, you leak the rush of trying to interfere with the elections and trying to help Trump, but you don't put they don't put out that China is also engaged in the same kind of campaign to help prop up Biden.

So the reporters get half the story and it becomes a Russia story again. What do you think about this pushback from those like Schiff? Like, I'm sure you had to do those briefings. And we've always suspected, as the attorneys who represented President Trump, that Schiff and his office were probably some of the top offenders when it came to this season that we're living in, if you will, and the Russia information and then leaking that information. And so he seems to be the one most outraged, which is interesting. Yeah, look, he is absolutely the leaker in chief. And we've tested this, you know, he and his team don't realize it, but we know exactly who leaks because sometimes information is only given to one person just to test it. And so the entire intelligence community, the career intelligence officials know who's leaking. They're outraged. I mean, you can pull any current you can pull any current career intelligence official. And they just are so angry at Adam Schiff for what he does.

Let me give you this example. He's on this whole Russia, Russia, Russia, you know, narrative. And the fact is, is that Russian propaganda, which he won't use the word propaganda. We've somehow moved away from propaganda and we call it election interference.

But the reality is, is that this is Russian propaganda, largely if not exclusively done on social media. They are trying to take a nugget of information and exploit it, get us to fight amongst each other. This is about our policy debates. This has nothing to do with actual votes or the election. It's policy debates.

Unlike the Chinese, where I have to tell you, the Chinese have a very aggressive system of going after our politicians, leveraging votes and pushing hard. So this is a problem that we have with the Russian propaganda. It's a crisis.

Longer in the next segment, the broadcast as well. Take some of your questions as well. 1-800-684-3110. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected. Is there any hope for that culture to survive? And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice to defend the right to life. We've created a free, powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.

It's called Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, Planned Parenthood's role in the abortion industry, and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life.

Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. The challenges facing Americans are substantial. At a time when our values, our freedoms, our constitutional rights are under attack, it's more important than ever to stand with the American Center for Law and Justice. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines, protecting your freedoms, defending your rights, in courts, in Congress, and in the public arena.

And we have an exceptional track record of success. But here's the bottom line, we could not do our work without your support. We remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms.

That remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life-changing work.

Become a member today, ACLJ.org. All right, welcome back to JCECIO Live. We are joined by our newest addition and a special advisor to the ACLJ for National Security and Foreign Policy, Rick Rinnell. You may have been watching or listening last week when Rick joined us for the first time to announce that he'd be coming on as a special advisor to the ACLJ. He, again, just finished serving as Acting Director of National Intelligence, now John Ratcliffe in that position. Rick will be joining us a couple of times throughout the week on the radio broadcast, but you can also watch him because he's joining us via Skype and see it that way as well. And he'll be writing, and his first piece will go up on the ACLJ's website this week at ACLJ.org. Rick, we've got questions coming in from some of our audience that have been holding on, that have wanted to talk to you since they knew you were going to be on the air today.

Let me go to Jerry in Rhode Island on Live 5. Jerry, what is your question for the former Acting Director of National Intelligence, Rick Rinnell? I want to thank him for being part of it and educating us.

Thank him for his fidelity and integrity of illuminating the mud and the swamp. What can be done to people who are identified as the Leakers, whether it be the Gang of Eight, or the Gang of Sixteen, or their staff? What can be done to these people pulling their clearances?

Yeah, Jerry, it's such a great question. I will tell you this, is that Senator Mike Lee and I are working on an opinion piece that will call for some changes to be made, because we both see the situation as a real problem. I think the answer to your question is there's a variety of things that can be done. One, the people who are supplying the information, the intelligence officials, it's illegal to supply this information. We have tools and we do find out who does this, and they are punished. Sometimes you don't hear about it, sometimes it does slip out when we do, but we do make changes and we have ways in which we can figure out not only who leaked it, but who is the one who actually sent it to a reporter, because there's ways to give certain aspects of information only to certain people so that we know where it's coming from. I think the question on pulling clearances is something that is very complicated, but certainly the team is always looking at that. If there's a repeat offender, there needs to be discussions about what to do on those. Lastly, let me just say, I keep hearing Adam Schiff say that he can vouch for the fact that neither he or his staff have leaked any information.

I don't know how one person can guarantee that somebody else is not leaking. First of all, I don't believe that Adam Schiff's team has not been leaking, and for Adam Schiff to go out and say that he knows that his entire team has never leaked, that right there shows you that he's just making a political statement and that he doesn't know whether or not that that's actually true. You know, Thad Bennett is our Director of Government Affairs. Rick, he's in Washington, D.C., and he was not on with us the first time you were on last week, but he's joining us today. I know he's got a question for you on this as well, because he's our lead on government affairs, dealing with all the members of Congress.

Than? Yeah, Rick, great to see you again. Thrilled to have you as part of the team.

Thanks for being here. I wanted to get to this claim that we're hearing from Capitol Hill, that really the reason for converting to these written briefings is to avoid the question and answers. I've been in this room many times when the question and answer session happens, and largely I don't see a lot of value added through that session, but I just wanted to get your experience of dealing with these briefings. Do you think the ultimate goal should be to get back to the verbal briefing so you can engage in that question and answer, or is that really just another opportunity for members of Congress to get in front of the camera? What's your view on whether or not we should get back to that in the end?

Yeah, I think it's a good question. Well, look, the goal is to give politicians the most up-to-date information so that they can, as policymakers, make the best policy. So intelligence is an estimate, and so we need to give the estimates of what we're knowing and hearing to policymakers. That is unequivocal.

That absolutely needs to happen in order to have the best country and the safest country that we can have. So there's no question that the intelligence will always go to the politicians. The question is the tactic.

How do you do it? And I don't buy into this whole tactic that it has to be verbal. It can be written. As long as the information is presented to the politicians, they can gripe about the tactic, but that's all it is, is just in what form is the information coming in. What we've found is that the verbal form is a real problem because of the leaks. We're going to try to minimize that by putting it into a written, thorough, contextual piece. And so reporters are now on notice that there will be a full context and that they should not take any verbal one-sided view. And we'll see who the responsible reporters are in terms of this information. At the end of the day, what we have to do is make sure that the information is given to politicians.

They don't get to determine how it's given, but that it is absolutely given so that they can make their best decisions. Yeah, it says in the letter, Rick, this meets all the obligations for the Director of National Intelligence on the briefings, that this meets those obligations. You still answer all these congressional questions. They're called CDAs, Congressionally Directed Actions. And there's sometimes, I think, 540 a year.

Those still get answered. And as final question, Rick, a final question to you, because it really points to this, and I think this is the key, it's that they will now and the reporters will know that every one of those Democrats and Republicans in the future too, but especially now with the Democrats seeming like the ones who are leaking to try and affect the election, is that every reporter knows they're going to get written finished intelligence products in writing, full context. So it's not just verbal and it's not just this is what I kind of heard. And if those reporters do get leaks, they know that's not the full, that's not necessarily the full story.

And so there's some protection there. That is such a great point and a great question because the reality is, is that when we get information coming in, sometimes that's untested. Sometimes it's just gossip. It's people talking and we don't know. When that particular information leaks out, that's not good because it's unverified intelligence and that should never leak because it's untested.

It's just maybe some random person talking. We don't know who. We have a process to test that, to verify it and put it out there. And by the way, that's also, it's important to note that any questions that the politicians have, they can pick up the phone. There's a huge legislative affairs office at all of the intelligence agencies to receive these questions and answer them. If they really want to know the truth and they want their answers, they can get them very easily.

You don't need a live Q and A where it's just verbal and there's no written form. So Rick Grinnell, former acting director of national intelligence, former US ambassador to Germany. He is now a special advisor for the American Center for Law and Justice. Be joining us a couple of times a week on radio.

I think this time and next time will be a Friday of this week. He's joining us live. He's doing it via Skype. So if you want to watch, you can watch as well as listen of course on our radio broadcast and his first written piece will go up on ACLJ.org this week as well.

So look out for that. Of course, we'll let you know about it and we'll always kind of clip and post these interviews directly with our newest special advisor, newest member of the team at the American Center for Law and Justice. Rick, it's always great to have you. Thank you. Thanks, Jordan.

All right, folks. I did want to thank everybody who donated in July and August during our matching challenge months, during the pandemic. Those of you who are financially able to, whether it was $5 or $1,000, thank you so much. We met our goals and even exceeded our goals because of you and it's how we bring this expertise to you. So thank you so much to all of our supporters who support us at ACLJ.org. We really appreciate you.

Talk to you tomorrow. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines, protecting your freedoms, defending your rights in courts, in Congress, and in the public arena. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life-changing work. Become a member today, ACLJ.org.