BREAKING: Clinton Bombshell Revealed

Breaking news today on Sekulow as a Clinton campaign bombshell is revealed. Keeping you informed and engaged, now more than ever, this is Sekulow. This latest filing as it relates to one of Hillary Clinton's lawyers, Michael Sussman, all of these filings are details that the public is now finding out, as John Durham is alleging it, as parts of what was the Hillary Clinton campaign plan. To falsely accuse Donald Trump of collusion with Russia. We want to hear from you. Share and post your comments or call 1-800-684-3110. So what John Durham's pleading talks about is that Hillary Clinton's lawyer, Michael Sussman, took this information from the tech executives and pitched it to the FBI as evidence of Trump-Russia connections that simply weren't true and that the lawyer, Michael Sussman, and the tech executive knew not to be true.

And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. We're talking about the firm representing him having conflicts and the government, in this case that's the special counsel, letting him know and his attorneys know, hey, you might have serious conflicts because we've already had people that this firm represents and we expect to have people in the future that this firm represents so there could be conflicts. You need to know about it. So you can't then raise that later.

So that's the purpose. Why did this information come out on Friday afternoon? It was filed in federal court on February 11th. But what the information, the allegations and the information about these conflicts is what is making all of the news.

So take out, put that aside. Okay, so you got the indicted, you already knew about that Sussman. He's an indicted Clinton campaign attorney. Now he worked for the law firm, the outside firm representing the campaign.

His partner, former partner, is Mark Elias who joined the campaign after. So we have this information. What we know, and this is the 10,000 feet and throughout the show we're going to start breaking this down day by day, month by month, year by year. But there was technical data available utilized by the campaign attorney Sussman on the data in the executive office of the President dating back to 2014.

Trump Tower and the Trump apartment building on Central Park West. And what he did was he went to the FBI and another government agency. We don't know what other government agency that is yet. And he went to James Baker, the general counsel at the FBI.

That's a big deal. And he said, we have these pings, Trump Tower and the Trump organization, and I guess the executive office of the President ultimately. There's too many pings with Russian based websites, but they didn't include how many pings there were in general happening inside the White House.

Even under the Obama years, which in the millions, this was in a thousand. And so this again, another, they went to the FBI and said, so you need to investigate this. So the government filed a motion to inquire into a conflict of interest. This is relates to the lawyers that were representing Michael Sussman and maybe some other witnesses. So this is how this becomes comes to light. Now I'm racking my brain, Andy, we only got a minute here. Because during our representation of President Trump during the Russia investigation, none of this came to our attention as best I can recall.

Now I'm going to refresh myself more today to find that to remind myself. But this allegation, these allegations from the government here about the surveillance going on as to candidate Trump and then President Trump. I mean, it was in February that they went back. This is very serious. This is they were spying on the White House. There's no doubt about it, Jay. And I can tell you, your memory is correct.

We were never told by the Mueller investigators anything about what you have come up with and what we're talking about. Yeah. Yeah. I got to make sure I'm going to I'm refreshing my own recollection. I said I'm going to I'm going to pull some data this afternoon to make sure that we were not never told this.

Some information, you know, some of my files. But this is breathtaking what has happened here. We're going to stay live during the break.

Yeah, we're staying live during the break here. So if you're watching on Facebook or any of our other social media platforms, Rumble, YouTube, stay with us or ACLJ.org. We've got a lot to talk about because I want to raise an issue back in a moment. 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, 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. Alright, so there's a lot to take in, right folks? I mean, if you listen to our radio broadcast, we stayed live during the break for those watching. But also, we're going to start now from the top because it is a lot to take in and we want to take you beyond the headline. There's a lot of headlines out there.

I see one on TV right now. Clinton staff paid to get in Trump's service. What does that mean? Okay, let's start out. So September 19th, 2016, less than two months before the 2016 US Presidential election, Sussman, again, the outside counsel for the Clinton campaign, was serving as a general counsel in that role to the Clinton campaign, met with the FBI general counsel at FBI headquarters in Washington, DC. It provides the FBI general counsel, that's James Baker, with data and white papers that allegedly demonstrate a covert communications channel between the Trump organization and a Russian-based bank. So the reason why Sussman was indicted is here. The indictment alleges the defendant went into that meeting. So the Clinton campaign attorney goes into the meeting with the FBI general counsel and says, I'm not providing this, by the way, on behalf of any client. Now, it's about Trump, which is what got him in trouble, and he's working for one of his clients, is the Clinton campaign. That got him in trouble.

But what we're learning is the much bigger picture here. In fact, the defendant, that's Sussman, the Clinton campaign attorney who's been indicted, had assembled and conveyed the allegations to the FBI on behalf of two specific clients, a tech company, a US-based Internet company, and the Clinton campaign, that he intentionally provided this information on behalf of Hillary Clinton's campaign. So that's what he's in trouble for. We need to put in context what they were saying they were investigating, what they were looking at, and this was this tie-in purportedly between the Trump campaign and this Russian bank. Right.

So this is what it looks like. So in 2016, you have a tech executive. They're working with the defendant, in this case, so the Clinton campaign attorney, and they retain them to basically research data.

They also use attorney research. And again, this is kind of raw data, so it's basically cell phone pings to websites, DNS information. If you know that lingo, you understand what I'm talking about.

If you don't, just understand it like this. Basically try to show that for an American company or for an American campaign, way too many dings going to Russia. But if you actually look further in this pleading that was filed, for example, this is quoting Durham, the more complete data that the tech executive and associates gathered but did not provide to the second government agency reflected that between 2014, this is the Obama years, and 2017, there were a total of 3 million lookups of Russian phone provider 1 and IP addresses that originated with US-based IP. More than 1,000 of those originated with IP addresses affiliated with Trump Tower.

That wasn't provided to the government. And what they further said, if you look at this, reflected that the DNS lookup involving the executive office of the President and Russian phone provider 1 began at least as early as 2014 during the Obama administration and years before Trump took office. This is another fact which the allegations omitted.

Completely omitted that this was an ongoing thing. Now, what is interesting here is the defendant's further claim, this is coming from John Durham's pleadings, the defendant's page 4, the defendant further claimed that these lookups demonstrated that Trump and or his associates were using supposedly rare Russian-made wireless phones in the vicinity of the White House and other locations. The special counsel's office has identified no support for these allegations. And that is in Durham's pleading to the court. Yes, and Mueller should have known that and probably did know that and did not disclose that to us in my estimation. There was exculpatory and exonerative material of the President that negated President Trump, that negated any suggestion of collusion with Russia or any connection with Russia. We were never given that information.

I don't even remember the name Sussman, Jay, to tell you the truth. I remember Sussman and Elias were well-known as Clinton campaign lawyers, but you're right, it never came up. Well, it did in the GPS fusion situation, so they did come up there. That's why I'm going to double-check our recollection, but as far as I can remember also, but I'm going to go check my files this afternoon, there was no mention of this exculpatory language or determination to us as the President's counsel. I want to explain this to you. So we know that you had, again, Fusion GPS hired by the firm for the Clinton campaign to produce the dossier.

Put the dossier to one side. Then they also went to a tech firm. This tech firm had contracts with the federal government. So the law firm goes to the tech firm, just like they did with Fusion GPS. You guys will keep funding your dossier work with Christopher Steele, but on top of that, the tech firm has this contract from the Obama years to reconcile data from the executive office of the President when it came to data breaches.

They were doing what looked like good faith work, but the tech firm agreed to contract with this law firm to do this. It provided DNS resolution services to the executive office of the President. Tech executive one and his associates exploited this arrangement by mining the executive office of the President. I just want you to understand who we're talking about. We're talking about mining the server within the server of the White House. So not just the White House, the President's server, his closest teams server, the people in the closest to the President. And they did this, the only reason they did this was for the purpose, this is a direct quote, of gathering derogatory information about Donald Trump.

Now here is what is unique. They lost the election. They didn't stop. They continued to go to the FBI.

The FBI general counsel reported directly to James Comey. Yes. And so they didn't just go and say, oh, we lost the election. So two months before they went, then they went in 2017 with more of the data from the executive office of the President, which means they utilized that contract of that tech company who had that contract, but paid them to spy only for the purpose of getting derogatory information about Donald Trump, of which there was none.

Yeah. So again, the special counsel's office, John Durham's office says they, you know, their investigation identified no support Harry for these allegations. I want to go to Harry first, and then I want to go to to fan Bennett to get what reaction could be up there in Washington. And this is huge news. Now, Ben Sistine, one of our associates just told me that in his review of the files that we have, and I'm going to review mine again, we had none of this information given to us, which is unbelievably outrageous that this was going on under Bob Mueller's watch. They had to know about this and they did not give us the exculpatory evidence.

I think that is correct. And certainly based on past history and past malfeasance by the FBI's office, I would suspect your recollection is absolutely correct, Jay. So I think the key question is why first did the FBI rely on these allegations coming from Michael Sussman? After all, he was a well-known attorney. So why, for instance, didn't Jim Baker simply Google Sussman's name and find out his intimate connection with the Clinton campaign?

I can't figure that out. This is two months before a national election. Both parties have selected their candidates. And so the only thing that I could say on behalf of Jim Baker is that he was incompetent. Perhaps the better inference was that he was in on the collusion. The thing that I don't get here, fan, is nobody this has never come to light until this pleading is filed by John Durham. Jay, I really think the reason for that is because of what Harry just alluded to, just how widespread, how many agencies, how many political parties, how many political operatives are implicated here. Look, I would harken back to what we said on this broadcast many times, Jay. This was always going to be a long game on behalf of John Durham.

And thank goodness it was. But here's one of my concerns from sort of the political perspective. You've been walking through it from a legal perspective. But Jay, there is significant congressional oversight needed here. And I'm just here to tell you that whether or not that congressional oversight takes place, it hinges almost completely on what happens during the midterms because this involves Capitol Hill too. And are they going to look into it into the depths that they should?

Jay, it's going to depend on November. But how do you not look into this? Well, I think that look at different media, and they're talking about it a totally different way. So if you go to conservative media outlets, this is a top story that is running every hour. But if you go other places, it's like this isn't even occurring. And I do think there's some, and I'll be honest about it, some of this is timing. You get years out from this. People are saying this is bigger than Watergate.

Maybe it will be. But the difference was that Watergate was happening in real time. And it, you know, it much easier to digest because the time period of phone calls, tapping, breaking into an office in a physical way. This is breaking into an office. This is the same as breaking in. It's the same as the Watergate team breaking into the DNC office at the Watergate. It's the same thing.

It's just now you don't have to physically break in anymore. We all know that. The most important thing we all have is data. And that data then can be utilized because in here it was manipulated to look like out of everywhere else in the country, there was way too much Russian activity going on at Trump Tower.

And then when Durham saw it at all, they realized that was like not even 1%. They didn't tell us during the probe that this was going on and that there was no evidence to support it, but that they were, they were getting data on the sitting President of the United States. Again, there was no no pretext legitimately for any of these investigations. 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, the 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, where you can learn more about our life-changing work. Become a member today. ACLJ.org. Welcome back to Secula.

I encourage you to share this with your friends and family. There's a lot more to get into here. We were just kind of scratching the surface for you on laying out a timeline here about how this Clinton campaign attorney who's been indicted for federal crimes involving this investigation, because he lied to the FBI about why he was even there. Why was he even providing this information to the FBI general counsel and another government agency? I don't know if the other government agency could be DOJ, which just oversees FBI. It could be another intel agency.

I don't know. But he went to a couple. And both times when he's going, he's saying, I'm just here as a private citizen. Let me just tell you, folks, he's a major attorney at a huge law firm.

That would have been red flag city. What's he doing showing up at a law enforcement agency as a private attorney at a huge law firm that has known ties to the Clinton campaign and saying, you know, it's info about Donald Trump. I'm just sharing it with you in good faith.

I'm not here representing anyone. Well, that's why he's legally in trouble already. So he's already in trouble for that.

He's in trouble. Paragraph seven of the of the pleading on page four, it says in this meeting with agency two, we don't know which agent we know the FBI. Well, the defendant also made a substantially similar false statement as he had made to the FBI general counsel. FBI general counsel reported to Jim Comey, by the way. And then it says in particular, the defendant asserted that he was not representing a particular client in conveying these allegations. In truth, and in fact, he was representing tech executive one, a fact, the defendant subsequently acknowledged under oath later in testimony before Congress.

And of course they were, he was billing the Clinton campaign. So the, the, the issue here though, is this information about the spying. Remember when the President, former President of the United States said they were spying on his campaign? This was, I think on 60 minutes back in October of 2020 during an interview.

Take a listen. The biggest scandal was when they spied on my campaign. They spied on my campaign. There's no real evidence of that. Of course there is.

It's all over the place. Leslie, they spied on my campaign and they got caught. Can I say something? You know, this is 60 minutes and we can't put on things we can't verify. No, you won't put it on because it's bad for Biden. We can't put on things we can't verify. Leslie, they spied on my campaign. Well, we can't verify that. It's been totally verified.

No. So Andy, did they spy on his campaign? Absolutely did.

There's no doubt about it. And paid for it. They spied on the campaign and, and, um, basically Sussman was an emissary of defeat, uh, an emissary of deceit and an emissary of fraud who let these, uh, the FBI astray. And the FBI did nothing to tell the sitting President of the United States what was going on, neither then nor to us during the investigation that Mueller conducted. And they had an obligation to do it. They were deceitful and they were wrong in not doing that. Misled us and misled the entire investigation into thinking that some collusion had occurred when Russia, with Russia, knowingly by Donald Trump, when in fact it never did. And these claims, which by the way, when President Trump was talking there too, remember the FISA warrants that were issued separate from this issue. I mean, they may have been tied together on the dossier, which was allowed the spying inside the Trump campaign, literally.

Because it allowed the, once you get those warrants, remember all the unmasking, all of that. So that again, put that to a side too. I want you to listen to how absurd this stuff is. It's like the claims of the dossier, where if you're a legitimate law enforcement agent like James Baker, general counsel, for goodness sakes, the FBI, you would say, wow, this sounds like not even a good movie plot. This sounds that ridiculous.

Just listen to this. So this information, the defendant provided data, this assessment, which he claimed reflected purportedly suspicious DNS lookups by Trump entities like Trump Tower and his New York City apartment building of internet protocol addresses affiliated with a Russian mobile phone provider. This is where it gets even more kooky. The defendant further claimed that these rare, that these lookups demonstrated that Trump or his associates were using a rare Russian-made wireless phone in the vicinity of the White House and other locations, that they were using Russian tech as their phone while President of the United States. If you were the FBI general counsel, wouldn't you say, stop right there.

I could verify that in about eight seconds. But instead, you know, they continue to take these meetings, they continue to take the information, and they can remember, I think all of these are bad actors. But you also have the situation, we know what the FBI was doing during this time. It wasn't as if this was unknown. They had, you know, months later, you know, five months, four months later, well, first of all, they started Operation Crossfire Hurricane before, remember this, before the special counsel was appointed.

So that was ongoing. So the FBI is getting fed information from, and there's the whole Fusion GPS thing in here too. So they're getting this information.

It's like a false flag, fan. That's what bothers me here. And I know the Democratic-led House and Senate aren't going to do anything on this, but the Republicans should sure be talking about it because if they did it to Donald Trump, they'll do it to anybody.

Yeah, it should be concerning no matter who the target is. And Jay, I mean, I think they will if they take over the House come the fall, but I do think that's going to be determinative. One other thing I wanted to put into this though, Jay, I mean, we've talked a lot about, I mean, over many, many months about the corruption of the seventh floor of the FBI, people like James Comey and James Baker and Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.

But Jay, even if you fast forward, okay, so Donald Trump wins the election, takes the White House. Remember, I mean, this didn't stop. We know that the FBI under the direction of James Comey continued to send detailees over to the White House, and Jay, they were not loyal to the White House. They reported back to the FBI. We're still in litigation over that. So it wasn't even like there was an end point on this, Jay. It continued all the way to when he was the sitting President of the United States.

Now let's play. This is an interview with Nicole Wallace from MSNBC and James Comey. You look at this White House now and it's hard to imagine two FBI agents ending up in the same room. How did that happen?

I sent them. Something we probably wouldn't have done or maybe gotten away with in a more organized investigation, a more organized administration, in the George W. Bush administration, for example, or the Obama administration. There was process. And so if the FBI wanted to send agents into the White House itself to interview a senior official, you would work through the White House counsel and there'd be discussions and approvals and who would be there. And I thought it's early enough, let's just send a couple of guys over.

Early enough, let's just send a couple of guys over. They don't have their systems in place. And he knew exactly what was going on the entire time. And James Baker, his general counsel, was getting this information from Sussman about Russian phones, which, by the way, they didn't bother disclosing, as far as I can recall, to us during this entire matter. Now we've got a federal lawsuit that we're filed on behalf of the American Center for Law and Justice, that means all of you, and against the Federal Bureau of Investigation about them sending FBI agents over violating all these protocols. But this is just the beginning of what we're finding out on the Sussman matter.

And it doesn't get better with age here. That's the problem. Yeah, I want you to just take in this Russian phone idea. Because think about how they wanted to, last week we saw DHS put out that memo on anything that's dismiss or mal-information. And that's going to be terrorism now in the United States. And they literally had a Clinton campaign attorney go to the FBI and say, we have reason to believe that Donald Trump is using a rare Russian-made phone at the White House. No one saw this at the White House. Secret Service didn't see it. All the agents and security around the President. All the people that would provide the President with technology, encryption, and all of the layers. You don't think that a President who tweeted regularly, using his iPhone, by the way, like most people, it would have been seen immediately that he was using some weird phone? I mean, this was a guy who was on the phone and utilized it, unlike Obama and the previous President, in his hand. And rare Russian phone. That would have sent alarm bells off the FBI if these guys are lying.

A lot more. 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. Keeping you informed and engaged. Now more than ever, this is Sekulow. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow.

Welcome back to Sekulow. Let me encourage folks who are watching this broadcast on the various social media outlets where we broadcast you, where you watch us on the show, to share with your friends and family. I know I'm talking to a lot of you that are listening to the broadcast, but for those watching, this is important because, again, you're not going to get the kind of analysis that we're able to do in a three-minute cable news hit, which is how this has been discussed. And instead, you know, going through the dates, going through the information, some of the absurdities to these allegations. So let's start again from the dive.

If you're just joining us, what are we talking about? We know on two different occasions, one before President Trump was elected, September of 2016, just a couple months before the election, and then after, February, right after he gets sworn in, 2017. Two different times. Clinton campaign attorney. They're outside general counsel.

That's a big deal. So you have internal attorneys? Well, they had their inside counsel, which was Mark Elias. The former partner of him.

Yeah, his former partner, and the outside. And so the firm, the attorney goes to the FBI general counsel and another government agency twice. So once before Trump's elected. When he goes before then, he says, we've got this information that ties President Trump because we've been able to mine Trump Tower.

So I want to take off this for a moment. And a Trump apartment building on Central Park West in New York City. And the Executive Office of the President.

Now, we've talked about the Executive Office of the President. They were exploiting a deal that a company had to do security work for the Executive Office of the President. Then they rehired that company, as they say, to build an inference and narrative tying Trump to Russia. So that company was double dipping.

But here's the second part. Why did the FBI not stop the attorney right there and say, how are you mining data on Trump Tower? How are you mining data on a private business in a private building with multiple businesses actually within it? I mean, it's not just the Trump organization. There's a lot of different companies in Trump Tower.

And also a private apartment building where people live. How did you get that information? Why were you able to mine that? I'm going to tell you something. Why wouldn't you stop right there and say, you're not the government.

You don't have warrants. Hey, Andy, why didn't James Comey, like walking over to the White House and sending agents, why didn't he send his counterintelligence expert, who happened to be Peter Strzok, over to the White House Council and say, hey, look, we've uncovered that this investigation was going on by these outside groups, which wasn't authorized by the FBI. And they were saying you were using these Russian phones, which we know is not true, but you need to know this was going on. They did not, as far as I can recall, they never did that.

They never did that. And you know why, Jay, because James Comey had an agenda and his agenda was to bring down Donald Trump, whether it was as candidate or subsequently as President, as director of the FBI, he had an agenda to bring down the President of the United States because he hated him and he was against him and against his policies. And he was determined to do everything he could, including lying, deceitful and, and cheating with that and not disclosing relevant information to us or to Mueller. During the investigation about Russia, not disclosing it to the lawyers, which is fundamental 101, what the prosecutor is supposed to do, exculpatory evidence. I think that's correct, but I think we are also assuming something that is not in evidence, and that is that the FBI is an honest law enforcement agency. I don't think they've demonstrated that. I think what we have in front of us is evidence that Jim Baker basically had an individual appear before him with self-incriminatory evidence that his law firm was mining private data.

And it strikes me that that is prima facie illegal. So why didn't the FBI launch an investigation on the law firm? Instead, they were worrying about a very rare Russian cell phone that supposedly President Trump was using in front of everybody as a candidate and then in office.

He was in the Oval Office with a Russian-made phone, which by the way, our iPhones are kind of Chinese-made phones. It's absurd, but there are more implications for names coming down the pike we're going to get to when we come back from the break. You don't want to miss it. 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 have 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. This is where things can get very interesting as this Durham investigation progresses. You got Adam Housley, a former reporter with Fox News, now private, but he just tweeted this out 20 minutes ago. So I'm reading his tweet again.

This is coming from him. High-level, nonpolitical sources telling me that the Durham investigation has a lot of names being looked at and a quote, two names to keep an eye on. Jake Sullivan, he's the national security advisor to President Biden.

And this is where it gets, I think this information too, it gets more solid because you can always still win these high-level names with the guys who are on TV every day. Colin Call, who was the national security advisor to Vice President Biden and is now an undersecretary at Defense, Department of Defense. He says they're both being looked at very closely, both of them nose deep.

This is Adam Housley's. Remember all of this information was then utilized to justify unmasking? Yes. By these offices. By these guys.

By these people that were putting in these requests. FISA warrants? FISA warrants that initially, those alone, those alone were spying on the Trump campaign.

Yeah. And don't forget that those FISA warrants that were issued became the subject of a reprimand from the FISA court, Andy, because of false data, affidavits supporting actually altered emails put in by an FBI lawyer. That's exactly right. And the responsibility for that goes through the highest channels of DOJ because they swore that the FISA affidavits and supports of the warrants contain true information and they misled the FISA court. The FISA court came back.

I remember distinctly the chief judge of the FISA court castigating the FBI for misleading the information, but providing misleading information that led to the issuance of warrants, which allowed spying on American citizens, Jay. That's exactly what it was. And yet, where did it go? Where did it go?

Where has it gotten? Two and a half year, $40 million investigation to say there was no rush of collusion. But meanwhile, they didn't tell us all this other stuff was going on, as best as I can recall. Now, Fan, two names that came up in that tweet from Adam Housley, Jake Sullivan and Colin Cale. Cale was the vice President Biden's NSA.

Jay, this could be a huge, huge development. Adam Housley, probably most people know him. He's a very well-sourced reporter here in Washington, D.C. I don't know where he's getting this information, but Jay, everybody that's listened to this broadcast knows who Jake Sullivan is. He was the lead architect of the Iran deal at this point.

But probably a lot of people don't know Colin Cale. He currently serves at the Department of Defense. He's an undersecretary for policy. But Jay, that's less relevant than the fact of what he was during the Obama administration when all of this started. He was the national security adviser for then who?

Vice President Joe Biden. I mean, Jay, the levels to which this permeates the intelligence community, the administration, the legal community, it's breathtaking, Jay. No, Harry, it's breathtaking, but it's also a violation of fundamental principles of prosecution. They should have given us exculpatory evidence. I think you're precisely correct, but it's important to keep in mind that there are many deep state operatives still in the Presidential administration of Biden. There are deep state operatives coming from the Obama administration. If we look back, it's a laundry list of individuals.

Samantha Power, Susan Rice, possibly Sally Yates, Andrew McCabe, they were all involved apparently in unmasking. And in some cases, it's possible that we can adduce evidence that the FISA court, for instance, was an unwitting agent of the Clinton campaign. So the tentacles of this particular malfeasance in all likelihood go very, very deep. And I certainly hope that John Durham has the bandwidth and the strength to sustain this investigation, because I think this investigation could last for the next five to 10 years.

Well, really, I hope it doesn't. They need to get this reviewed quickly, but obviously this is going deeper than anybody anticipated. But that also meant that the Mueller's team knew, and we knew this, of course, early on, there was no Russia collusion. Yeah, and just to kind of get outside, so someone in the FBI, there's a former assistant director of the FBI did an interview about this, just taking in the information, explaining the DNS info. I want you to just listen, because it explains the DNS info, but since you have these private companies that have the access to it, they get hired again to exploit their access to the data.

This is a former assistant. And their contract with the White House, or the government service agency for the White House, and they exploit that data to then share it with the Clinton campaign. To build a narrative, quote, this is from Durham, an inference and narrative tying then-candidate Trump to Russia. Listen to Kwis Swecker, former assistant director of the FBI, Byte 9. Even the most secure tech systems still have some third-party involvement, and in this case, it was, well, I'm not going to say the name of the company, but it was a tech company that was sort of the keeper of the DNS, the domain names. So they analyzed, they got a data dump, or several, on that information, and again, used the government contractors to analyze it. So there's a lot of things wrong here.

I see a lot of potential charges, mail fraud, wire fraud, depending on how the information was communicated. I mean, this is going somewhere. There you go. I mean, again, these are government, former government, former assistant director of the FBI. You can see the complication in his own explanation. When you're trying to get this out into a soundbite, it's tough.

That's why we spent the whole show today continuing to go through and sometimes repeating, because you can't really get it out in one soundbite. But what he's trying to say there is these private companies have government contracts. They're government contractors. This government contractor decided to get paid to utilize their access in a different contract to build negative inferences and derogatory info on Donald Trump by the Clinton campaign.

And then the data was shared to the FBI under the pretext of just doing this as a good citizen, not on behalf of anybody. We had a great question come in from Armando on YouTube in a super chat that said, how much did Adam Schiff know? Which is interesting here, Than, because you think Adam Schiff was the one who said, I have all this evidence, I've seen it, of collusion. Is that what he was talking about?

Is this what he was talking about? Because we know the other didn't happen. Well, I mean, Jay, when he did get access to information, when he did have a so-called whistleblower come to him, he just chose to make up his own narrative anyway.

So I don't know. Maybe this is part of it. But, you know, to distill what Jordan said into maybe one soundbite that people could understand. I mean, this is using the apparatus of government to partner with one political party to destroy a political opponent.

And then, Jordan, I would say this, not just a political opponent, eventually the sitting President of the United States. That's what our ongoing litigation is about. Yeah.

And I think that that's important to point out. This starts a couple months before the campaign is over. Operation Crossfire Hurricane was already ongoing.

Yes. And then this continued. I mean, the Clinton campaign lawyer goes back. So I just want to remind you that he goes back after President Trump has sworn in and says, oh, we've got more DNS data. That's when they took the info and they took out the relevant part of the info, which would have shown these pings that came out of Trump Tower were a speck of how many of these pings were documented over a period of three or four years, including how many were coming out of the Obama White House.

It just didn't matter. That's all it came to is when they actually did the research here, the research showed nothing. So they had to then falsify the research and they had to take out. That's where the dossier comes up. This again, remember on the other part of this, you have the same law firm paying Fusion GPS to assemble the dossier. So the defendant further claimed that these lookups, talking about the phone thing, demonstrated that Trump and or his associates were supposedly using this rare Russian-made wireless phones in the vicinity of the White House and other locations.

The special counsel's office. Now, this is not Bob Mueller. This is John Durham's office has identified no support for these allegations. So even the allegations contained in this information given to the FBI was false.

You think about that for a minute, Andy, it was the information they gave was false. False information and that was not disclosed to us who represented the President in an investigation determined by Bob Mueller to take him down for collusion with Russia. Why did Bob Mueller not read the law? Did Jim Quarles, his deputy, and all the others not read the law? Did they not understand that you're supposed to give exculpatory and exonerative information to the defendant in a case in which you are investigating him or prosecuting him? And I echo what fans say, which I think is very good, the misuse of the apparatus of government to achieve the ends of one political party.

In this case, the Democrats against Donald Trump, heinous, awful, corrupt, and rotten. Yeah, I just think, again, this is not a one-day story. It's not a one-day report. It's interesting, Dan, how it came out because it came out because Sussman wanted to use a law firm that his law firm had used in the past when the lawyers had issues. And that law firm is representing, which we don't even know, but many other people in this. And he says that not only that, but there's going to be even more people this law firm is included with. So it's about maybe getting a different law firm or at least the government telling him, hey, you got some serious conflicts here. This is exactly why the American Center for Law and Justice has filed a lawsuit against the Federal Bureau of Investigation. And in fact, there's a status conference coming up on that case on February 17th. And we're already reviewing PeriDoc record productions, but February 17th will be the next status report to the court. Your support of the ACLJ allows us to uncover all of this.

Go to ACLJ.org, support the work of the American Center for Law and Justice makes a huge difference. Again, I'm going to check my files this afternoon, but and Ben Sisney said he's checked his and we don't see it. And Andy can't recall it either.

I don't. And this is breathtaking that this was not disclosed to the President's lawyers. 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. 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. Welcome back to SecuO2. And again, we're getting through all this information. And more is coming out.

Yeah, there's more. Because you can start seeing, the media has already started doing this, conservative media outlets are doing this, tying the fact that Hillary Clinton is tweeting out just days before the Presidential election about this Trump-Russia connection with data. And it doesn't really go much further than that because ultimately what they were doing that under the guise of was that there was a Russian bank in Trump Tower and Alpha Bank, there was too much digital contact. It was all these kind of things that were like, again, most people would just hear, oh, working with Russia. That's why they did it like this.

They never really got past these crazy ideas that should have stopped the FBI in their tracks right there. You get a lawyer who they could have googled, by the way, after he met with them. Let's say that somehow James Baker doesn't know.

I don't believe he didn't know. And these guys are political appointees. Comes into his office and says, I'm not doing this, I'm after anybody, just good faith. Donald Trump's using a Russian-made phone. Maybe then you could have just done some research and said, by the way, this is the Clinton campaign lawyer.

And we'll figure out if Donald Trump's looking at the Russian phone. That's, you know, whatever. That's not what they do, though. They take this info and they keep pushing it up the chain.

Yeah. And then you got FISA warrants on Americans. The special counsel gets appointed. And all this information, like it looks like, gets pushed under the rug. Yeah, except Hillary Clinton tweeted out at that time this Russian bank leak.

And listen to Dana Perino talk about this, number 41. A tweet that might have seemed innocuous a little bit back in 2016. This is the candidate, Hillary Clinton, at the time. She wrote, computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump organization to a Russia-based bank. And then this statement from Jake Sullivan, who's now the national security adviser but worked for Hillary at the time.

He says this. This line of communication may help explain Trump's bizarre adoration of Vladimir Putin, an endorsement of so many pro-Kremlin positions throughout this campaign. It raises even more troubling questions in light of Russia's masterminding of hacking efforts that are clearly intended to hurt Hillary Clinton's campaign. Except the special counsel's office, John Durham, says that all this Russia stuff that they were dealing with, there was no evidence supporting this false narrative, yet Hillary Clinton was out there with it.

Now, what is amazing to me, and it's incensed that we were never given, to the best of my recollection, and I'm going to go back and report on this tomorrow because I'm going to pull my files, but Ben Sisney is saying no, we never got it. Andy, that we never were given this information, that this was going on at the same time that Bob Mueller was doing this investigation on Russia, and they knew at the outset there was nothing to this. Jay, I can tell you categorically, and my recollection is perfect on this, that Bob Mueller, nor Quarles, nor any member of their team, and there were 18 of them, have ever told us anything about this information that has surfaced in the Durham motion. Anything exonerative or exculpatory of the President's alleged ties or connections with the Russians.

My mind is perfectly fine and sound on that reality. We were never given any information. They were determined to find a goal for their narrative to implicate the President in connection with the Russians that did not exist. So when Perkins Coie and their lawyers, this one doesn't work, this Russia phone thing, then they go to the dossier. Or maybe they were doing it simultaneously. I want you to understand the tweet they're talking about from Hillary Clinton seven days before the election. There were two. There's a second tweet.

Second tweet, same day. It's time for Trump to answer serious questions about his ties to Russia. Four things you need to know about the Trump Organization's secret server to communicate with Russian alpha bank. One, Donald Trump has a secret server.

Yes, Donald Trump. Now, this is Hillary Clinton talking about private servers, by the way. That's what she was putting in context. She was pushing back on the fact that she had people take vats to their phones and her server. Remember the whole whitewashing of the server, the data. That the server was set up to communicate privately with a Putin tied bank. And when a reporter asked about it, the Trump campaign shut it down because it wasn't true.

One week later, they created a new server with a different name for the same purpose. As we purported, none of this was ever verified. In fact, it's all been debunked. All of it has been debunked as salacious. First it was salacious and unverified. Now we know it's just not true. Yeah, Wisconsin has identified no support for these allegations.

None. So she's throwing this out there last minute. This is when the campaign started taking a turn for the worse. Hillary Clinton was leading the polls up until about four or five days out. So they started seeing this internally. Oh, we're slipping. We could actually lose to Donald Trump.

So they just took every possible piece of junk they had and threw it at the wall. Now there might be some consequences for what they thought at the time was just playing dirty politics. But now you've got, if Adam Hulsley's right and you're looking at the current National Security Advisor and Deputy Secretary of State, this is serious, Harry. I think it's serious and I think I would go beyond Adam Hulsley because it's very important to note that Hillary Clinton was accusing the Trump campaign of misconduct that she was engaged in herself and that the Clinton campaign actually financed. And so today a poll from the Washington Times suggests that even 66 percent of Democrats believe that Hillary Clinton, not necessarily Jake Sullivan, should be investigated for her misconduct with regards to the Russia collusion scandal. So this news is beginning to seep through to the broader public.

So let me go to Than. So Than, what is, I mean, you're dealing with people that are at the top of the Biden administration right now. What are the consequences here? I mean, if there's indictments, that's one thing. Well, Jay, I mean, I think, yeah, I think the consequences should be significant. Some of this is going to depend on the political will and the political attention, quite frankly, of the American people. I mean, Jordan alluded to this earlier, Jay, sometimes the strategy for people to get caught in things like this is just to push it as far down the road so that people will forget.

But I would tell you this. This is what I'm hearing from people on Capitol Hill. Jay, this looks like an insurance plan. And I use those words carefully because that is what Peter Strzok and Lisa Page said that they had, an insurance plan. If you go through the facts that you and Jordan and Andy have laid out, what does that look like to you?

It looks like an insurance plan. And, Jay, when James Comey said, just flippantly, I just sent him over because I thought I could get away with it. I think that was him deploying it, Jay. Remember, I mean, all this talk about Trump trying to destroy our election process and sowing doubt in our elections. You understand, Hillary Clinton's lawyer, he tries it once, two months before the election.

He comes back a month after Donald Trump has taken the oath of office with more. As Stan talked about in the insurance plan, they were trying to remove a duly elected President of the United States. First, they lost the election. No, they didn't allege anything was wrong in the election.

But there's all these Russia ties that would make him unfit to serve. And then, ultimately, they got what they wanted, which was as much as they could get was a special counsel. So they get a special counsel going after him.

What they couldn't control, ultimately, was the special counsel, once they did all their research, found nothing. Yeah. This comes at the heels, by the way, of last week. People were in jail for solitary confinement over this kind of stuff. Yes, clearly. People like Paul Manafort. Paul Manafort, yeah. I mean, people's lives ruined.

While President Trump was never tied to him, but you do have to question, how did this influence people's vote in the last election? Well, remember, the United States issued this terrorism threat to the U.S. homeland last week, saying it's fueled by misinformation and misleading narratives. Really? I guess so. And it looks like we got one uncovering right now. We're going to have more on this tomorrow. I'm going to go check my files, and Andy's going to recheck his recollection.

But I do not recall this ever, ever coming up to us as exculpatory information during this course of the investigation for two and a half years with Robert Mueller, the Office of Special Counsel on the Russia probe. So you want to tune in tomorrow, folks, and, of course, support the work of the ACLJ. You can do that by donating online at ACLJ.org. 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.