CNN Covers for Clinton Spying

Today on Sekulow, CNN covers for Clinton spying on Trump. Keeping you informed and engaged. Now more than ever, this is Sekulow. We want to hear from you.

Share and post your comments or call 1-800-684-3110. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. As we reported yesterday, just kind of basic to get it out there as a reminder for you, there's an allegation in a new pleading filed by special counsel Durham. And the matter he is looking at with the Clinton campaign involvement with this idea that the Trump campaign was somehow tied to Russia and all those debunked theories. And in that pleading was an allegation that basically the Clinton campaign through their law firm that was representing the campaign and the attorney that was serving as their general outside counsel paid an internet company to infiltrate Trump's servers both at the Trump Tower building and a Trump apartment building on Central Park West in New York as well as the executive office of the President. And then took that information twice to the FBI and CIA. Now we know the CIA was the other government agency. Yesterday that was not clear.

Now it is. Once it was the first time it was a couple months before the election. The second time it was a month after the President had taken, President Trump had taken the oath of office. That attorney has been indicted. He's in some trouble. But now we've got the pushback. The pushback from the left and he couldn't do it. It took them about, let's see, four days to do it. From Friday to Monday evening to figure out how to respond to this pleading.

And I want to go to one part right away. It was in Brian Stelter's daily email. Now this is coming from the disaster that is CNN right now. But he says, quote, the accusation was couched in vague and technical language in a court filing. Does this sound vague to you folks? Tech Executive One tasks researchers to mine internet data to establish an inference and narrative tying then candidate Trump to Russia. I think all of you understood what I just said.

How about this? Is this vague, Brian? I mean, for the CNN staff, Tech Executive One and its associates exploited this arrangement by mining the executive office of the President's DNS traffic and other data for the purpose of gathering derogatory information about Donald Trump. You don't have to be a tech expert to understand that what the Clinton campaign was doing was hacking into servers to mine data to get derogatory info on Donald Trump. What is so hard to understand about that CNN? To say that you're not smart enough to read that? That's how they report it to their readers. This is too heady for you. I thought they're supposed to be the heady network. The heady network also couldn't read this. The defendant further claimed that these lookups demonstrated that Trump and his associates were using a 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. What's complicated about that? I mean, this is what's so ironic here is that they had to take three days, Harry, to figure out how to spin this. I think that's true, but I think that's a reflection of the level of both finality and incompetence at CNN and within the mainstream media by and large. They are so politicized that they flee the truth, they flee reality, and they really, at the end of the day, don't know what to do about it. The New York Times calls the narrative wrong or old news, the latest example of the challenge created by a barrage of similar conspiracy theories from Mr. Trump and his allies. This is in a finding by the DOJ. The special counsel has been allowed to operate. Joe Biden said he gets to finish out his job.

He gets to do the job. And so is now, they believe Durham is part of a conspiracy. A Trump conspiracy. A Trump conspiracy.

Yes. They didn't come out with the report until after the election, a year and a half now after election. We still don't have the report. Again, folks, I want to take your calls.

I want you to share this with your friends and family. Talk to us on the air. 1-800-684-3110.

We didn't get to do a lot of calls yesterday, so today you can get your questions in at 1-800-684-3110. 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, 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. Welcome back to Sekulow. So the finding which we spent an hour going through yesterday on the broadcast in the pleadings, so that we would explain it to you. And you'd think that these media outlets, they got big teams like we do to go through it too. And they could then explain to their viewers what was alleged by the special counsel Durham, which is the Department of Justice.

If this was Bob Mueller alleging it, any allegation would have been treated as fact immediately. But listen to how Joe Scarborough, I guess they're just admitting they lost their edge. They've lost their minds, really is the truth.

And I mean that actually in a more literal sense. Because, oh, they just couldn't understand what a DNS server was. Take a listen, Byte 8. Because it is so confounding and so hard to follow, which is, which is kind of interesting. John Heilman, the this, this pleading, which is indecipherable unless you have an agenda and you want to shoot first and ask questions later, which is what they did legally. This is confusing as the initial story. I remember when the initial story came out and I read through it and I was like, what? And everybody did.

That's why nobody paid attention to it the first time because it was so convoluted talking about DNS lookouts. Just wait as these indictments continue to come. All their media friends get indicted. All their people are, all the ones that they like having on as guests are in trouble now. Form of this, form of that.

Yeah, Andy. So the government's motion to inquire into a potential conflict of interest was the pleading. That's not so complicated. That is, does this lawyer also represent other witnesses that may be a witness or a subject or a target? So maybe they can't continue that representation. And then they allege what took place here. The governance evidence at trial will establish that among the internet data tech executive one and his associates exploited was a domain name system. That's the DNS that Joe Scarborough seems to not understand what that is. Internet traffic pertaining to a particular healthcare provider, two Trump tower, three Donald Trump's central park west apartment building and for the executive office of the President of the United States. And then it says, and they both tech executive one and the internet company have come into access and maintain dedicated servers for the EOP as part of a sensitive arrangement whereby it provided DNS resolution service to the executive office of the President.

And this is what it says. And this is not so hard to explain Joe Scarborough. Tech executive one and his associates exploited this arrangement by mining the EOP's DNS traffic and other data for the purposes of gathering derogatory information about Donald Trump. Andy, what's hard to explain there?

Nothing, absolutely nothing. The New York Times describes the pleading as quote, dense and obscure. I don't see anything dense or obscure about it. This is not like reading some stream of consciousness novel by James Joyce where you have to figure out what in the world is he trying to say? This is a clear, succinct, well drafted, pleading by a career prosecutor and his staff who knows that if there is a possibility of a conflict of interest representing a defendant, that they have to bring that to the court's attention. And in so doing, they laid out very clearly and very succinctly the factual background that was necessary in order to inform the court of the possibility of a conflict of interest. I read it one time and understood perfectly what they said. And I have drafted literally thousands of these pleadings in 47 years of practicing law.

And this was a piece of very crystal clear pleading, Jay. I want to play this because Joe Scarborough said he spent time. So he supposedly read all of this, right? Which again, it's pages. It's not like he read a book yesterday. Bite nine. I spent yesterday reading through this stuff, reading through Durham's indictment.

Seriously. I don't know for hours who wrote that because it was gobbledygook. There weren't dates. The dates are right there. September 19th, 2016, two months before the 2016 U.S. Presidential election, the defendant, a lawyer at large international law firm.

This is Sussman. He went to the FBI. He went to the CIA. So he did two months before the election.

Then they say he'd went back. Again, this is on, the dates are there in February of 2017. So there's dates.

The dates that he went in. There's also dates on when the mining occurred, the 2014 through 2016. There's also allegations here in the pleadings, if you want to call them that, that don't take technology. Like why wouldn't Joe Scarborough at least, maybe they seized on the fact that quote, the defendant further claimed that these lookups demonstrated that Trump or his associates were using rare Russian made wireless phones in the vicinity of the White House and other locations. That doesn't take any technology.

You don't have to know what a domain name server is or these pings. You would just know that he was using this rare Russian phone and that nobody noticed that, which by the way has been all debunked, like all the other theories trying to attach Donald Trump and his campaign to Russia. Which they don't admit, by the way, on none of those interviews do they say that Donald Trump was exonerated from any of these allegations. No, and I think it's interesting to point out, I'll go to Pam Bennett on this, but we did a deep dive ourselves, Joe Scarborough, because obviously we were involved in this as the President's lawyers.

So we looked at this. We looked at our files and Andy, as I said, we determined that we were not asked any questions about Alpha Bank. There was, this is Ben Sisti from our office went through it. He said, it'd be noteworthy that according to the inspector general in the IG's report on pages 119 footnote 259, this is why this is not so hard. While the FBI included in Crossfire Hurricane the Alpha Bank allegations and that's the Russian bank that was supposedly involved, that Sussman initially told the FBI about and is discussed in Durham's motion and while the committee, i.e.

or e.g. Adam Schiff pursued it, it was a topic in their document request, Mueller dropped it at some point as it was not one of the topics in his final written question list to us and it was not substantively addressed in his final report. So I'll go to Andy first. It was not there and then, Pam, I want to get a reaction from you. No, Jay, it was not. We sat with our client and went over the questions meticulously for hours upon hours and by that I mean the questions that Mueller submitted and we went over each of those and not one of those had anything to do with the fact that Sussman was selling information and I use that word broadly on behalf of the Clinton campaign and lied about who his client was. Mueller never brought that up to us, never asked us about it, it is not in my recollection and I am positive that that subject was never discussed whatsoever.

Not in our files. Adam Schiff had it, of course, then and tried to make hay of this. I guess he had that, remember he said, I have, if we can ever find that bite, we had special information that shows conclusively that there was Russian collusion.

Well it's easy to have special information if you just make it up as you go, Jay, I mean you can have special information all you want if that's your strategy. Look, unlike Andy, I have never drafted one of these motions, Jay, but like Andy, I read it this morning and had no problem understanding what is in it and you ask about a reaction from Washington, D.C., they understand this too, Jay, they just don't like what's in it and I will predict for you, Adam Schiff and others, here's the strategy they're going to take because they want to distract from the narrative here, they're going to start attacking John Durham. You watch, Jay, that's going to happen today. They are going to attack, start attacking John Durham because they don't want to talk about the substance that's in this motion.

Now we've got a, do we have time for the call from Robert or do you want to wait till the next segment? Yeah, we can wait till the next segment because I wanted to say this, and I express the same feeling I see a lot of you in like the chats and a lot of your comments, that if John Durham was this Trump plant to take down all of these officials, which so far the highest level officials, the general counsel to the Clinton campaign, so whether they were coming and all of their friend commentators on CNN and MSNBC, I would hope so if the information is there to hold them accountable. But come on, folks, if he was doing this for political purposes this would have all been out before the last Presidential election. He would have just put this out because you could have put it out kind of pleading, you didn't have to go to court yet, but instead it's been this methodical, probably very difficult investigation because he's working within a Department of Justice now run by Merrick Garland and Joe Biden trying to stay independent, trying to just keep the resources he has, and trying to get, which we know is the most difficult cabal to break through, is the Clinton cabal. I mean people die around them, people commit suicide around them, they have a track record of just scary, it's scary actually, what people are willing to do or they are willing to do to keep power or to keep their names out of legal jeopardy.

And so, again, it will be up to these Sussman types and people later on. High ranking, he was a lawyer for the campaign. Are they going to protect, you know, go down to protect the Clintons? This is Charlie Savage from the New York Times, but the entire narrative appeared to be mostly wrong or old news. The latest example of the challenge created by a barrage of similar conspiracy theories from Mr. Trump and his allies. They're ignoring the pleadings here. The pleadings and the commentary are exactly right.

This isn't hard to understand. He went in with false information. He told the FBI he didn't have a client and he did.

And the CIA, twice. And he went in and said the same thing to the CIA and he sold them this Russian phone nonsense, which Durham says the investigation shows that none of that was true. New York Times goes further to say upon close inspection, these narratives are often based on misleading. Presentation of the facts are outright misinformation.

What have we talked about? Misinformation, yeah. Ms. Dismal, Department of Homeland Security. So now John Durham is committing terrorism in the words of New York Times because he is spreading misinformation about the U.S. government. We want to hear what our audience hears about this. Yeah, 1-800-684-3110 to talk to us on the air.

1-800-684-3110. I share your concern. I wish this was out much sooner, but let's follow the facts where they go. We'll be right back on Secular. 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. All right, welcome back to secular. We are taking your phone calls as well on this.

Yesterday, we were barely getting into everything. Unlike Joe Scarborough, we were explaining it to you. We weren't just saying, oh, I can't understand this and just throwing it aside and attacking Republicans and now attacking John Durham.

And I think Thanh is absolutely right. That is what you'll see is a total attack on special counsel Durham, which by the way, they loved Bob Mueller until he came up with nothing. And they attacked him too.

They still attack him actually to this day. Andrew Reisman wants to write his alternative Mueller report because he said what Mueller allowed to be produced wasn't accurate. I want to go to Harry on this, then we'll get a Robert's phone call. We're taking your calls at 800-684-3110.

So if you want to give us a call, 800-684-3110. But you know, when they start arguing in the media, Harry, this is confusing. It's gobbledygook.

There's nothing here. These are old conspiracy theories. What they're really doing is hiding the reality that things are about to get intense.

I think that is correct. And I would say first that Dr. Econemu and Director Thanh Bennett are absolutely correct in their analysis. And if we focus initially on Joe Scarborough of MSNBC, we should conclude, I think, fairly that he is either lying or he is a simpleton in claiming that he cannot decipher a DNS server and the basic facts of an indictment, which I think even a lay person can read. So since my favorite toddler is unavailable, I think it's important to explain that Joe Scarborough fails to understand that what we are dealing with is spying and it's also called a conspiracy. And I think it's plain as day that it implicates individuals who are connected to the Hillary Clinton campaign. It's that simple, Joe. It's a big deal to have your general counsel indicted alone and indicted and CIA and he's indicted over trying to build the Trump-Russia conspiracy.

That is fact. That's not an allegation and a pleading. He's been indicted for falsely claiming that he wasn't doing it on behalf of the Clinton campaign. What was that he was doing?

Trying to build a narrative, an inference of derogatory information about Donald Trump. And did he stop after the election? No, he went back. Joe Scarborough said there's no dates.

February 2017, he goes back. That's a month after the President takes the oath of office and he says, I've got more data from executive office to the President. But he also manipulated that data, it says in the pleadings, to make it look like there were more pings out of Trump Tower than there were.

It would be normal, except for he excluded the millions that were coming out of the White House under the Obama administration. So to show that that was de minimis, as we would say, these pings. But I guess words like de minimis too much for Joe Scarborough? I mean, I know it's not. The fact is this is their game.

Yes. They're going to try to tell their audience the reason why we're not spending time on this, it's gobbledygook, confusing. It was interesting, but they had to spend time on it. They did have to address it because their friend Hillary Clinton is in legal jeopardy and her whole team is in legal jeopardy.

And that includes people who work for the White House right now. Let's go to Robert in Maryland on Line 1. Hey, Robert, welcome to Secular, you're on the air. Yeah. Hello, Jordan.

Hi, Jay. I wanted to ask the both of you, now with the revelations by CNN that actually Hillary Clinton herself and her campaign spied on Donald Trump and his campaign, as well as her being directly involved herself and her campaign in ginning up the Russia hoax, the Russia collusion hoax, what type of consequences is she going to face as a result of these revelations, as a result of John Durham's investigation? Well, look, John Durham's going to go where the, that's a good question, Robert, that's going to go where the evidence is. And he's going to, there's been no allegation that Hillary Clinton was directed this yet. I mean, he hasn't made that allegation of these pleadings to be clear. Now, it was her lawyer that has been indicted here. So that's something, but in a situation like this, Andy, and you've done these and I've done them too as a government lawyer, you follow the evidence and it's painstaking because this, this is, you've got to get the evidence and get witness to speak, but they have indicted her lawyer for making statements to the FBI and CIA that were not accurate. Now they've also said that these allegations were not true.

And you know what they're really reacting to, the media is really reacting to, and that is that they said these allegations are not true. That is what his lawyer, Sussman's lawyer said, they should have even said that. That wasn't necessary. That was prejudicial.

So they didn't like that aspect, Andy. Well, no, of course not, because it doesn't fit the narrative of protecting the Clinton machine and the Clinton cabal as Jordan described it accurately. Look, the Clintons are untouchable in the liberal democratic wing of their party and in the liberal democratic world. You protect them.

You do everything you can to put an iron shield around them. Anybody who attacks them is going to be similarly attacked or seem to be attacked by statements such as the New York Times says dense and obscure pleadings or court filing that is vague and technical. Anything that you do against the Clintons is going to be attacked because they are a protected species. I don't know whether she knew what Sussman was saying. I don't know what information was imparted to her by her lawyer before he went over to the FBI and the CIA.

I have no idea. But I am confident that this John Durham, who has been doing a fantastic job not exposing his investigation to the public, not leaking things, doing it methodically and doing it carefully and painstakingly is going to get to the bottom of what did Hillary Clinton know and when did Hillary Clinton know it. She tweeted about it in October, seven days before the election. So we know and also Jake Sullivan followed up with the tweets alleging this tie between Donald Trump and these servers. She actually talked about computer scientists in her tweet. Can we put the tweet up on the screen? I mean, it says computer scientists have uncovered this link between this from Hillary Clinton the last day of October. I think the election was on the 7th or the 8th of November that year. So a week before, she is at least pushing out the info. Now again, she is not in control of her Twitter account either.

That is campaign set. But at some point there were discussions in the campaign at the level of the candidate and working on these Presidential campaigns. That is how it works. At some point it gets to the top the candidate and their top advisors who are traveling with them all the time who say, you know what, we're seven days out. Polls are starting to look a little bit questionable for us.

Remember the polls started turning against Hillary Clinton just right around then. Let's throw any dirt we've got. It needs to be thrown out. That may have been how she's seen it. I don't know if she thought about it any more than that. We don't know. But you know the folks who should have known were people like the general counsel of the FBI who should have said this is junk. Or whoever got it at the CIA. We don't yet know who at the CIA Sussman went to.

But let me tell you, those are people that should have been able to see this, hear about this, however he presented it, and said this is just junk. Wouldn't the CIA know if the President of the United States was using a Russian made rare phone? Or else the CIA wasn't doing their job.

The whole thing is bogus. But remember, what they created was, and this was all about, the same as the dossier, which they also were paying for, was somehow to get an investigation to take down Donald Trump. It wasn't to take down Republican presidency.

That wouldn't have been the case. It was vindictively focused at Donald Trump. And I will tell you folks, just because we were there, living it, they knew that it would put a burden on his presidency.

A time burden that he would have to deal with. Unbelievable amount of stress. All these investigators, you got all the government feeling like the government that you're supposed to try and run is coming at you in full force with stuff like you're using a rare Russian phone.

And the media is actually going along with that. We'll be right back. Second half hour coming up. Rick Rinnell is going to be joining us as well. 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. Welcome back. We're taking your phone calls to 1-800-684-3110. This second half hour of the broadcast. Let me put it up on the screen for people and I will read it for those who are listening to the broadcast.

Share the broadcast with your friends and family if you're watching now. This is Hillary Clinton. This is a week before the election in 2016. Computer scientists, but that's pretty specific for a Presidential candidate to be tweeting, have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump organization to a Russian-based bank. Then underneath the tweet is a statement from Jake Sullivan, the current National Security Advisor to President Biden. You've seen him out a lot the last couple of weeks on Ukraine and Russia. He says, quote, this could be the most direct link yet between Donald Trump and Moscow. Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump organization to a Russian-based bank. He has direct knowledge of what Sussman was doing. This tweet implicates Jake Sullivan and Hillary Clinton because it means it wasn't like their campaign lawyer was just out there trying to do things to help the campaign and take down Donald Trump that they may or may not have known about.

Generally, this is very specific. So to me, what it says, I'll get Harry. I'd be worried if I was Jake Sullivan right now. Yeah, I think so because they knew about this. They promoted it. They know that their lawyer, Harry, went to the FBI and now looks like the CIA to promote this theory. It got enough traction that they got these meetings. They lied about who they represented, which created the indictment. And there's probably more coming on this, I would suspect. But Jake Sullivan and Hillary Clinton both bought into this.

I think that's precisely correct. And I would say this, that we live in an age of particularities. We live in an age of abstractions where truth and reality are rarely on the nation stage, unfortunately. We live with what can now be called the unbearable lightness of Biden, where the President of the United States neither tells the truth and nothing but the truth, nor does his office offer gravitas. This can be seen in the Biden administration's direct or indirect involvement in the Hillary Clinton spy scandal that commenced during the Obama Biden administration and continued during the Trump administration. And the apparent cover up now continues during the Biden administration. And it may implicate National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan. It's also important to keep in mind that Biden's press secretary continues to dance and dodge around direct questions with respect to this particular issue, which implicates directly or indirectly Jake Sullivan, who continues to appear before the American people and claim that he is telling the truth. I doubt it. And our team looked at the committee, Adam Schiff in particular, who said he had this specific evidence.

Take a listen to this supercut. So there's clear evidence on the issue of collusion, and this adds to that body of evidence. There's ample evidence of collusion in plain sight, and that is true. Have Democrats found any evidence of collusion?

Yes, we have. You can see evidence in plain sight on the issue of collusion, pretty compelling evidence. And there is significant evidence of collusion. There is ample evidence, and indeed there is, of collusion of people in the Trump campaign with the Russians. I think there's plenty of evidence of collusion or conspiracy. All of this is evidence of collusion. There is significant evidence of collusion between the campaign and Russia. So that's interesting because Robert Mueller says there's no collusion, and then John Durham says we have no evidence backing up these allegations. So, Andy, quickly, that tells me a lot.

We only have 40 seconds. It tells me that John Durham knows what he's doing because he's an impartial good investigator, and he has investigated this with thoroughness and entirety, and I suspect he is correct. All right, folks, we come back. Rick Rinnell will be joining us.

Thank you. Take your calls as well, 1-800-684-3110. We're going to get into this with Rick, as well as some of this Ukraine, Russia, just reporting, because we're going to update you on that. We've been following that throughout, and, you know, now these reports is Russia pulling back.

Are they just replacing what's happening when they were talking about, you know, an invasion tomorrow? So, again, share this with your friends and family. Support the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org. 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.

Welcome back to Secular. We are joined by the ACLJ's senior advisor for national security and foreign policy, the former acting director of national intelligence, Rick Grenell. Rick, you've seen all of the reports, and you've also seen how the media also come out of the communications world. And we're seeing the New York Times, MSNBC, and CNN all claiming this is just too complicated for them. And it just seems like gobbledygook, and it's not that important, and it's just leading into more conspiracy theories. But we know that Hillary Clinton's outside general counsel has been indicted for lying to the FBI, and now we know the CIA.

So they took this information to both the FBI and CIA, saying that Donald Trump had all these pings with Russian servers, and that he was using a rare Russian-made cell phone, which I would imagine when the Clinton campaign attorneys went to the CIA with that data, Rick, they would say, I think we could figure that out pretty quickly. Yeah, look, there's been so much misinformation from the very beginning. It's very concerning as to what is happening in Washington. One thing that is for sure is that we've got to stop expecting the media in D.C. to ever report on this fairly. They're never going to.

I mean, so the joke is on us if we keep screaming about it and talking about it. I'm all for pointing out their hypocrisy. But at the end of the day, we should not expect them to ever change. They don't want to tear down their precious ruling party. They are for the Democrats, and we just need to wise up and realize that. What does that mean for us? That means we've got to have other outlets that we can go to.

I think that's just the reality of today's world. This story to me, though, the biggest scandal is that they were spying on the White House. And to me, there's no possible way to do that unless you're working with the intel agencies, government agencies. So here, you know, Rick, as you know, I know a little bit about the whole issue of the allegations on Russia collusion with the Trump campaign because I lived it as one of the lead lawyers for the President for three and a half years. Now, Mueller comes with the conclusion, which they knew right away, that there was no collusion with the Russian government or Russian officials. Durham says that the allegations made by Hillary Clinton's lawyer to both the FBI and the CIA that there is in the plenius is there is no evidence to support this allegation. So they knew that wasn't true. And then this won't be shocking to you, but shockingly during a two and a half year investigation with Bob Mueller, he never tells me or my team anything about this.

Adam Schiff apparently went off on it. So it tells me that there's not only a double standard, you're right for putting the media aside, but the fact that intel agencies were considering this and looking at this should shed shivers down everybody in the United States, that our government was even pursuing this. Look, I've talked to the individuals at the FBI who are middle management and they blame the upper management. So I think what has to happen is that the Republicans have to get laser focused on making sure that those responsible for this hoax are prosecuted. That includes people at DOJ and FBI that are upper management. There's no question about that. We need to go after them and we need to prosecute them no matter how long it takes so that we can send the message that it never happens again.

I also believe that what's unraveling now is that with DOJ and FBI, the upper management of the CIA and the NSA clearly knew that individuals, whether they were inside or outside of government were spying on the White House and the President of the United States and his team. That's unacceptable. I don't care if you think that these allegations of Russian collusion were true and so you're going to say, well, we had to see.

No, that is illegal. It is immoral. It's anti-democratic.

It's anti-American. And those individuals need to be prosecuted no matter if they're Republicans or Democrats. I just got a notice, Jordan, from the National Law Journal, which is a respected legal journal. Michael Sussman's lawyers are accusing the special, because we knew this was going to happen, accusing the special counsel, John Durham, of inflammatory and prejudicial rhetoric. That's what's going to happen now. They're going to turn this on John Durham. Rick, as you pointed out as well, we've all been involved in political campaigns and see the dirt in the political campaigns and Clinton started putting this out about a week before the election. But they doubled down and went back a month after President Trump takes the oath of office. And they went back to the FBI and back to the CIA because they still were committed to not just not taking back the White House, they were going to put a Democratic, but to taking down Donald Trump, because I think it all goes back to his pledge to drain the swamp. And that's what they were scared of. He'd start getting rid of these swamp creatures like Comey and others. Well, there's no question that Donald Trump, the outsider, threatened all of those insiders and looked no further than, excuse me, the Democratic primary.

Right. There were a whole bunch of choices in that Democratic primary to go with people that were not Washington creatures. But the Democratic establishment after four years of Donald Trump said, we can't risk this any longer.

We've got to go back to the tried and true person that we know for 40 years is with us, is with Washington, D.C., is with the rules of Washington, D.C. And that was Joe Biden. The outsiders threaten the insiders. And this is my whole point about the reporters who live in Washington, D.C., the lobbyists. You know, they all go to church there. They all have their kids go to the same school. Their social life is there. They root for the same sports teams. It's all Washington, D.C. The joke is on us if we think they're ever going to try to tear down and make Washington, D.C. less powerful. They love the city.

They want it bigger, better. I want to ask this last question about this topic, and that is this. Rick, you were the head of DNI. And these intelligence gathering capabilities of the United States are vast.

Wouldn't it be if there was really this allegation of the Trump campaign or Donald Trump himself or people in the White House, because they say it affected the White House, were using a rare Russian-made phone. You were the DNI. You were the director of national intelligence. Wouldn't you all have known that? First of all, I would have known it through leaks.

It would have leaked before it came up to the DNI. Believe you me, every single piece of raw intelligence that somehow was anti-Republican gets leaked. This is a crisis for Washington, D.C. We've got an intelligence community that needs to police themselves. When you're sitting at someone, sitting with your colleague, and you find out that they're leaking, you need to out them, because leaking is illegal.

I don't care if you're trying to help a political party or not. But we have a serious problem in Washington, D.C. Why do you think all the leaks have dried up? They're not leaking against Joe Biden. Why don't we see a transcript of the Biden, the U.S.-Ukraine call between the heads of state? Why isn't there transcripts leaking left and right from Biden's phony calls or Kamala Harris's failed calls? It's not happening.

You're right. Because we have a problem with partisanship. Because we had those leaks during President Trump's tenure of the actual phone calls. They would get leaked immediately. Full transcripts. Yeah.

Full transcripts within a day. Now, let's talk about Russia and Ukraine for a moment, Jordan. Yeah, I mean, so, Rick, kind of competing news reports. On the one hand, the U.S. moved the embassy to the western Ukraine, has told people to leave, said it's, you know, they're like in attack mode, but they're not yet. He probably hasn't made the call to go yet. Then we wake up this morning to reports that Russia's moving troops off the border, though the U.S. is still saying there's no signs of that. Where do you think this just stands at this moment? Well, I wish that Avril Haines, the intelligence, the DNI, would come out, the head of intelligence, and just make clear so that we don't have to just trust what the White House is saying, because what the White House is saying, what Jake Sullivan is saying, is not what the Ukrainians are saying. And, you know, certainly I think we can't talk about this subject without referring to the incredible groundbreaking moment of Afghanistan and the credibility that was ruined by the United States.

You know, I think that this is a pendulum swing. Inside the White House, they said, you know, we can't have another situation like Afghanistan. Let's overreact and let's try to, you know, remove Americans from the embassy really early and tell everybody to get out.

And what they've done is they've caused panic, and they certainly have ruined a relationship. Our relationship with Ukraine right now is at the worst, one of the worst in history. It's really terrible, and it's flatly because Joe Biden's overreaction to Afghanistan.

Let me, really quick, we got less than a minute, Rick. Your sense, do you, I mean, they're talking about, I mean, the White House is coming out saying it could happen today, it could happen tomorrow. What do you sense is actually, do you think Putin is ready to make this move? Well, first of all, you know, the Russians are always a problem. So you can't ever look the other way and pretend like, you know, Russia isn't rising.

They're always on the offense. But to me, what it looks like is that Russia had a goal of making sure that NATO was not united and that they got the message of no more NATO members. And I think the Russians have won that argument.

That certainly has been front and center. Yeah, I mean, you think about this, Rick, I always appreciate it, is that they could keep these troops on the border for months just to make the world have to bow at Russia. You know, oh, please don't, please don't do this, please don't do that. I mean, you can see how this could just continue on.

And again, it destroys the economy, it destroys Ukraine and the relationship there, and of course, and it divides NATO, as Rick was talking about. When we get back, we're going to take your phone calls. 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. For those of you holding on, we're going to get right to you when we come back on Second Life. 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. 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. Alright, welcome back to Sekulow. We're going right to the phone. Sandy in California on Line 4. Sandy, welcome to Sekulow. You're on the air. Yes. I was wanting to know, it's been so long and involved. Is there any status of limitation that falls in this?

Yes. I mean, that's one thing, Andy, you've got to look at in a situation like this is when these meetings allegedly take place and the false information was provided. A lot of the statute of limitations are five-year basis on these kind of felonies. Now, there could be sealed indictments, we don't know, but statute of limitations are a real issue. It is a real issue, and a prosecutor always has to have his or her eye on the fact that you need to bring any case that you have before the grand jury, before the applicable statute of limitations, which in federal court is generally five years from the commission of the offense.

And those are the kinds of things that I know Durham and his team are very cognizant of and very careful of seeing so that statutes of limitations do play a significant role in how quickly the prosecutors act. Let's go to John in Minnesota on Line 2. Hey, John, welcome to Sekulow.

You're on the air. Thank you. You guys are protecting our culture.

Thank you for that. The question I have, it seems like people were accusing Durham of doing nothing. I think even Trump put out one quote about that, saying, well, what's he doing? Is he doing anything? But it seems to me that we might be in the process of seeing an American hero arise.

Do you guys know anything about Durham or what do you think? Well, he's a well-respected and he's a well-known prosecutor. He's been a career prosecutor.

He served both administrations. So I think his integrity is there. What he's going to cover, this has been painstakingly slow. I'm not going to say it's not. It's been very, very slow.

But sometimes the wheels of justice grind slowly. I will say, I believe this information was relevant to people when they cast their vote. If they had this information, that would have been a crime almost to the American people, not to put it out there before people were deciding who to elect or re-elect. Because you know, by putting in Biden, as Rick Grenell was just talking about, you're putting in that same Clinton team. Exactly. And the same Obama team. Obama team.

And so all the people around, and so they're just, yeah, right, they're just getting promoted to the next job. But you know, Susan Rice is still calling the domestic policy shots in the White House. Right.

So I agree on that. I think if they, now, I will say this on the flip side. Joe Biden could have shut this down. At any moment, they could.

They have that right. So an attorney general could shut it down. Joe Biden could shut it down.

He pledged to allow it to see its course. What we don't know is how difficult it is for them to get resources, how much the lack of support that may be inside the current DOJ for anything they're trying to do since they're going after their own, their friends. So that to me is a big issue here, and that is who are the likely targets of the investigation?

So what is he, what's the headwind that John Durham's facing in trying to get this when you may have the apparatus of the Department of Justice saying, Harry, we don't want it to go there? I think that is clearly an issue, and I think John Durham likely has a high-profile target or two in view, and the question becomes, will the DOJ allow him to go after those particular individuals? Number two, I would suggest that this vast conspiracy involving the Clinton campaign, the FBI, a tech company, and the CIA, possibly, that would have been relevant information in 2020. And thirdly, I would point out that now even 66% of Democrats basically want a strong investigation of Hillary Clinton and her top campaign advisors for their alleged role in Russiagate. So despite the mainstream media protecting the Clinton campaign and the Democrats, the information is indeed getting out there, and I think a lot of American people are very, very concerned, and that's certainly an issue if and when Hillary Clinton decides to challenge Joe Biden for the 2024 nomination for President. This is all coming at an interesting time because her name's back because she put her name back in the mix, her apparatus has put their name back in the mix, and while Joe Biden has got a lot of their people, I'd say a lot of these people would be more loyal to her than him, if they had to choose, if they really could choose. And then this comes out, which kind of further tarnishes and reminds American people why they didn't elect Hillary Clinton the first time.

They are involved in too many dirty deeds, too many bad actions, and to Washington, like Rick was talking about. Let's go back to the phones. Janet in California on Line 5. Hey, Janet.

Hi there. Thanks so much for taking my call. You kind of touched upon an answer to my question just a minute ago, in that my concern is that Biden and the attorney general are going to move towards shutting us down now to keep the truth from being known. So my question was, can they do that at this point?

You said yes. Yeah, they can. I mean, go ahead. I'd like to know if they do, then what happens to the indictments that have already been handed down? Well, if they shut it down, and I mean, the Department of Justice and he technically can no pross them. I mean, they could, sure. Now, Biden's made a statement that he's going to let it go to conclusion. I think the political risk for the Democrats of shutting this down would be very, very high.

But to be clear, the special counsel reports to the attorney general, and his budget is approved by the attorney general. And if the Department of Justice or the President decided that this has gone far enough, wrap it up, or we don't want to move forward with these, prosecuting these indictments, they can't make them do it. No, you can't. You can just, the Department of Justice can, if Durham has ever terminated from his position, can simply dismiss the indictments with prejudice and say, we're not interested in pursuing this matter.

And they can do that just as anybody who can be fired or any prosecutor or U.S. attorney has a right to dismiss an indictment as a matter, of course. All right, let's go back to the phones. Final call of the day. Warren in Idaho, on Line 1. Hey, Warren. Hi, gentlemen.

Thanks for taking my call, and God bless you guys. My question is, with these outside tech companies that infiltrated the state, how deep did they go, and who else has the access that they were allowed, and what does that do for national security? What happened was, there were these, you know, WikiLeaks was going on. There were hacks of government servers, including at the White House. So they contracted with a government contractor to start figuring out, okay, who was, what was it, what were these Russian pings inside? This is the Obama administration I'm talking about. So they decided to do that.

That, I don't think, is a bad action standing alone. Okay, so they needed these specialist researchers, tech people, to go and figure out what's going on, because I don't care if you're the Obama or you're Trump or you're Biden. We don't want the Russians in those servers, okay? But that tech company decided, we're going to sell our access to this information to the Clinton campaign. So while they're conducting that work, they say, we can get in there. Now, here's what we don't know yet. That did not greenlight them into Trump Tower.

Nope. That did not greenlight them into Trump's building on Central Park West, which is a department building. That, to me, is a huge question that remains, which is, how on earth could this attorney for Clinton, who's now been indicted, gone to the FBI and the CIA to their attorneys and said, I've got data on Donald Trump, Trump Tower. I've got data on Central Park West Trump building. Plus I've got executive office of the President data. Each one of those should have raised a red flag.

One, how did you get the EOP data? Okay, you figured it out. So you're paying a company that we're paying so that you can get nefarious access to.

That's bad. Strike one there. Strike two, Trump Tower, private building.

Strike three, Central Park West, the Trump building, private building. I mean, this to me is, again, we're never going to see spying the way that you see it in movies or the way that Watergate was done with the break-in. This is 2022, and this is how spying is done through tech. But the attack on us, the attack on Durham is just beginning. Prepare for it. 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.