This broadcaster has 888 podcast archives available on-demand.
Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.
May 18, 2020 1:00 pm
Jay Sekulow why the fight against continue building files in federal court live from Washington DC on phone lines are open for your questions right now. 1-800-684-3110 one 800-6841 10 and now your host secular arbitrator 31 two AC LJ is filed court department for a lawsuit to try and produce the documents from the government on the unmasking and AC LJ has been on this site. This is obviously the recent news because of the high profile names that have come up to the unmasking but the AC LJ we been working on this year's net it's it's it's actually years and we're taking phone calls 100-684-3110, but that this is something I get is not new for us is that's over disjunct reporting on to discussing something we been involved in.
From the start. What were actually in federal court today.
We are literally in court today fighting over the whole issue of when you get documents they redact them or they don't provide the documents. All so working to get to the bottom of what was going on here, but we know a lot already and what we know is unbelievably troubling. Everyone from Samantha Powers all the way to Job I and Andy in the course of thinking this through you and I talked over the weekend.
I cannot imagine the justification for all these unmasking the last day. The last hours of the Obama ministration. No justification Jacob snooping and wanting to see who is coming in and what are they saying and how can we discredit them.
One possible reason and the secretary of the treasury is an example of the US ambassador to the Republic of San Marino which is a country within Italy. Want to know the identities of the American persons who were involved in intercepted in foreign intelligence eavesdropping on trauma informed parties what possible reason would you want out of it except to try to discredit them and try to find out what was going on administration that you really had no legitimate business knowing which raises another point of force and is not exhorting that is Washington is now taking a look on this.
Especially Sen. Graham yes and her Graham has announced a series of destinations until all of these issues and let the filing they were to make today jays can speak directly to one of the questions that I think Sen. Graham should be asking, and I'm confident that he will and that's the fact that why has the deep state. The bureaucracy continued to give people like the AC LJ these Glomar responses, refusing to admit or even acknowledge that there are records J we have caught them now because that release of names yesterday included at least seven State Department officials so they can no longer give us that response.
They have acknowledged that there are records that were responsive to our request. In fact, there are at least seven State Department employees. Among those 39 were released next week.
Today, as we continue to litigate. We've always said that's one of the pieces.
The other piece has to be Congress. Sen. Graham is that he's going to go forth to put those together and J it's already breathtaking. How sweeping it is good to be, but it just continues to grow every single day. Your lives up to you to figure out what happens. That's politically will talk about that week about the right height, 1-800-684-3110, you could join us today on the broadcast at with your thoughts and your comments. It how do you think this will be this will affect or do you think it will affect the elections in 2020. We are taking phone calls that what hundred 684-3110.
As always, go to AC LJ.org that AC LJ.org state updated on all the cases all the work as as we discussed, we are filing today federal court on unmasking that if you work already working on this part of oil were the documents as he said what hundred 68311 will be back on Jay Sekulow challenges facing Americans or substantial time in our Valley freedom sword constitutional rights are under attack more important than ever to stay with the American Center for Law and Justice on the frontlines protecting your freedoms defending your rights in court 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 more work without your support, we remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms than remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side, you're already a member. Thank you for your thoughts. Well, this is the perfect time to stand with us AC LJ.org where you can learn more about her life changing become a member today AC LJ only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable invoice is, 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, defendant the right to life, we've created a free powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn, called life will show you how you are personally publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases were fighting for the rights of pro-life activist ramifications 40 years later Planned Parenthood's role in the Obama care means to discover the many ways your membership is empowering the right question free copy of mission in life today online ACLJ/684-3110. That's what hundred 68 3110 that I would go to you right off the bat because this is again it's in the news a lot now. We discussed it right from the start.
I don't think any of us could have imagined that the final name eight days before their term was done would be Joe Biden and that Joe Biden would be the nominee because if you go back to our broadcast it early on in the Democratic primary. That was not it was a campaign with high hopes that it looked like it was faltering, but now we we know it's the Joe Biden's and it's not the Chief of Staff. It's actually Joe Biden that's listed it's to make the request and that is a differentiating factor because it when it was the when it was the President he had yet. The Chief of Staff do it is for God, Abby, this is again we were talking the most powerful names in Washington DC that were behind these unmasking request. Well, I think we have to be realistic to us to exactly what this entails.
And as you said it starts with Samantha power. The last one is Job.
I think ago but near the end he made in the last day and this whole unmasking was part of this whole Russia crossfire hurricane investigation that we are learning every moment was a complete fraud on the American people. I mean this this is a look what happened. In general, Flint and now we got a federal judge that's out of control.
But I want to talk about people meet with lawyers and sissies in court right now on the freedom of information act issue. I think it's important for people to understand the litigate. Because even when documents are being released they are being redacted explains everybody what that means they understand what were fighting here okay what we are fighting and bring redacting documents is simply this one, the government turns over documents they blacked out and mark out sometimes paragraphs and pages and pages of information saying that this is not information that we are prepared to release to the public for a variety of reasons. Some are security reasons.
Some are because it creates a danger to the person whose name would be put out in public. Sometimes it would implicate a person who is innocent so we are getting read the actions and reactions.
That is blank Mark through with a big black magic marker so we can see who it is that we want to know what is the legitimate security interest of one of the legitimate appropriate interest that is being saved by a guy that is being protected. I should say by the government by these reductions come forth and challenge these reactions is what we're doing and make the government prove why they are being taken out and what the legitimate purpose is look.
The idea is that we have a right to know, and if the government says you don't, then it's the burden of the government to show why I wanted hundred 684 30 when Tillis rectifies Karen in Georgia online one. Karen, welcome to Jay Sekulow life I Karen I think that the bike the last thing Kate got there found that out and outlive all come together like the article what good looks of the grant application from Matt. I know how to go together. That is, that's a really great question Karen and let me try to briefly list and explain the Senate so we did was we initiated a freedom of information act losses. What I was just talking about and in that we request various documents that can be dealing with this issue of unmasking and when we do that that gives us access to documents released supposed to, and one of the issues that happened here was they redacted a lot of races and he said they covered it for going back to court to get those released to find out who we found have found out a lot of information in these cases so that is our lawsuit through the AC LJ American Center for Law and Justice against the State Department and the NSA get understanding of what took place then you have the Senate investigation a letter to let fans talk about the Senate side of visiting Jordan and Andy can talk about the girl inside, but they want to focus in on the Senate yes you currently be a very specific example where the Senate can add a missing piece here.
We talked about it a lot about this.
January 5 Oval Office meeting were Susan Rice says that Pres. Obama asked Sally Yates and Jim call me to stay behind and have a deeper conversation about Mike Flynn I we learned last week when these names were unveiled that Dennis McDonough Pres. Obama's Chief of Staff was one of the people that did unmasking and he did it on that exact date January 5 we have an email inside our FOIA request that we uncovered in this litigation were talking about where Dennis McDonough is communicating with ambassador power and Susan Rice about Howard. They are going to act during this transition. This is where what Andy just said comes in we have that information.
But at the bottom of that email.
There's a whole paragraph that is redacted so we don't know what that conversation was Sen. Graham's investigation can uncover that redaction because they have a clearance level that we do not have.
So we said this so many times.
David these are puzzle pieces that fit together some running outside summer on the inside and that ultimately I think they will all end and John turns off his but you don't have a complete picture J unless the Senate or the household of the house is knocking to do in this case, intervene, take the pieces that we've uncovered and find the missing pieces to lay them on top of each other. 684 31 said I would just at this we have talked about these issues we have been filing for a request to get the information out. But up until two weeks ago. This not really broken through to the next level.
You got that work talked to our audience. I do have to remind they are extremely up-to-date on what's going on but it takes weeks for a story like this to push through to most don't pay close attention is well-informed and just traveling right now, I've set it. The problem is the problem with litigate long time and we can uncover a lot. Documents on one be clear that we have uncovered a really important document but any federal court litigation and you're asking the government to disclose document easy for extremely difficult difficult burden J because of the propensity and the inclination of the government is to not disclose the document and to say that we need to find the document and we need to keep it concealed because of their sensitive information, that if it got out to the public it might harm somebody may give out nationalistic secrets, information, or may implicate somebody who's really innocent so were finding a serious uphill battle against a government that has the upper hand.got it that we have got to make this showing of why the redaction is necessary although in point of fact, it is the government. The truth of the matter is that we are the ones that are fighting the battle and the government is sitting back and just sit smugly thank can save this information secret. We don't want to put it out. We have got to be the ones in there fighting to get it. Unmasking unreleased and sexualized redaction. How is your way of knowing who did the redaction's and what's their premise and authority to redact the office within the various agencies including the National security ministration and in that office.
They have compliance people plot and in a situation like this they comply and then they have a group that the safety sensitive or classified were not subject one of the exemptions. So if you end up doing is going over to fight with them over the issue of exemptions which is slightly and exactly what we're fighting over the exemptions. These are government documents, emails, six using the official most, if not the sit that this would be kept secret. The ideas that it won't be in less there something specific, but the government is briefly the government's position in this administratrix of administration, and that this office is there. You act almost always go through the Radwan to get the next level of info because there their idea is over the export and let's see if what they really want exactly right woman to redact more in number than that. They can prevail in getting out to have this opened up so really it is a fight that kind of backwards.
There's supposed to be the one to bear the burden of showing why shouldn't be relieved, but it turned out there were the ones that are fighting it and trying to show the burden that it should be related. So it's kind of backward but we are first testing and doing this and we intend to find out just exactly. For example, other than mere curiosity, what's boat gold by Joe Biden wanted to ask unmasking Mr. Flynn only a few days before leaving office of VP. What possible reason could even had to do that because these unmasking request are very specific to take phone calls but they are not about you baby. If your staff ever made a request that Tuesday would be listed in the spring one 800 684 31 to 2000 684-3110 that only one. A society can agree that the most vulnerable invoice. 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, defendant the right to life, we've created a free powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn is called will show you how you are personally publication includes all major ACLJ fighting for the rights of pro-life activist ramifications 40 years later there would Obama care means many ways your membership is powering the right question for you, mission life today online/challenges facing Americans for substantial time and are now free to sort constitutional rights are under attack more important than ever to the American Center for Law and Justice on the frontlines projecting your freedoms and rights in courts in Congress and in the public arena and we have an exceptional track record of success. 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, you're already a member. Thank you, are not well this is the perfect time to stand with us ACLJ God where you can learn more about her life changing, member today ACLJ.
1-800-684-3110 Jay Sekulow Liber discussing ACLJ where federal court today. It related to unmasking and I will say that if you work already involved in this work, you would not have you got to talk about this for two weeks and the ACLJ we bid on this and you know if your regular should Jay Sekulow life from the start before that I would before we would even make allegations that at the time that it was Joe Biden making these requests every and present the the Chief of Staff to the present United States. Look, you got a look at the I look at the whole thing is a package and that is the sum of the powers I look at Susan Rice. I look at court. Joe Biden and asking why were they doing it when they were doing it, why did they have an executive order changing the sharing of intelligence literally, you know. 18 days before the administration was over, and why were they engaging in this unmasking literally at our report or hours before the present. The new President President from being sworn in, and I think that's can be a lot of explaining for them to do on Capitol Hill will get the information from lawsuits they will have to explain that to the United States Senate yet. I go back to it and he said yeah I just think they've lost the benefit of the doubt on this and we go through this litigation. There are a lot of different exemptions that the government can claim and they claim then repeatedly were used to seeing them in this email we talk so much about between Dennis McDonough and Susan Rice and Samantha power, for example, J that the exemption that they claim is one called B5 and J that is the deliberative process exemption basically saying if were deliberating in order to try to decide how to make a decision that is exempt JI had to tell you. Given all of the abuses that we have seen in the nefarious purposes for which this unmasking has been used claiming a very broad generic deliberative process exemption is just not good enough. It was if it was an exemption like Annie was talking about national security or to conceal that identity of an innocent person that would be one thing. This is just simply a deliberative process exemption for a conversation that happened inside the White House involving individuals who are either running for office now.
Or, more importantly, J abuse this process. In the beginning. So again, this is where the Senate comes and they can look at that paragraph and say deliberative process not good enough you can answer our questions, but anywhere not asking for confidential communications are classified documents unless they been unclassified so I'm clear on no request, but we know better than that person classified information.
We are asking for information regarding who did the unmasking and give me the reason for the unmasking nearly the legitimate interests that had that Samantha power was an Obama Chief of Staff for the Treasury Secretary or Brendan or Klapper or any one of these operatives had brought seeking to unmask general plan. Tell me what it is you I have a right to know is a citizen what it is that you are doing to unmask an American. That's the thing that bothers me more than anything else, you are talking to foreign nationals and in the process, you intercept the communication of an American sender that is supposed unmask that American citizens now want you to tell me why you say you don't have to do that and you opened his face up to the public and you've exposed him you tell me the reason why you're doing that. I want to know what hundred 684-3110 James-California online 3J chocolate Jay Sekulow life. My frustration in writing what were finding out that Brandon Obama, Susan Wright.
At the power Joe Biden were in this conversation just before Obama was an exit is Obama going to be held accountable to the question, it seems to me that he's untouchable. You can't touch them and can we ask him questions the carpet.
Let me address that first of all is the present United States has broad authority national security information you can get national security data that's within his sphere. That's something he's allowed to do so. I want to be clear that anyone overplay that now is far as ordering the amassing PBS questions question may be a prosecution of Pres. Obama, I don't see that at all. I think what is more likely is that there's questions, but the present claiming executive privilege can be claimed even when you let leave the White House.
I just argued some of this of the Supreme Court of United States, and I think it's even if it's present you don't agree with. I think it's important that Jordan, those protections are in place for presence to make the kind of decisions they have to make every single day it's more enlightening. Jabbar said to Dick John Jervis about prosecuting President present Obama.
I use that usually would even get out a friend of that you would, but this is the idea that you go there. The truth is we are looking at this from all these different aspects and fan in Washington right now. The truth is without without the moves we've made over the last couple of years, and this this term unmasking that now we assume people don't talk about death.
It would be use that term. But the idea here is again that this is really only broken through mainstream. It's only broken through to Senate investigation in the last two weeks. Our folks are are educated on it, but that that's that that's the various small minority information was put out last week.
Jordan wouldn't make a whole lot of sense of the general public unless you can overlay it with some of the information we've gotten in this case and again this case dates back to 2017.
So we had to show patients. We had to show persistence and the other thing I would say this is just related the conversation the J and Handy had about Pres. Obama look at it. We have to make sure there were not just focus on present Obama. It is very clear in our communication that ambassador power really spearheaded a lot of this now. I do think some of the direction came out of the White House.
But just when he give you one very specific example Jordan.
We know that in front of the House intelligence committee ambassador power testified that she had quote no recollection of ever once making a unmasking request of Gen. Flint, but we know from the information lately that there were seven requests made by her in the course of just a few weeks. November 30 December 2 December 7 December 14 twice December 23 and January 11 so you know you don't have to get to this grand conspiracy to understand that at least ambassador power was engaging in this persistent unmasking of Gen. Flint over a very short period of time, then went in front of the United States Congress and said she had no recollection Jordan. I do not believe that I don't think she can make seven unmasking request of the course of about five weeks and not remember it, but that's what she told United States Congress were also the American public is becoming now exposed to these powers and like you, you retype us with Samantha power the seven MS report that was just on this. So I believe what would you this this broad power, it would make sense to have the power, but what how was a big use and wasn't being used. It to benefit politically, which would violate the law was a big use for legitimate purposes.
I can't imagine where this goes. Legitimate purposes but with VP Biden, but again that's only been the last couple weeks. There were even there.
We even know this information, one 800 684 31 two that's 1-800-684-3110 second half hour Jay Sekulow lives covered up.
Check out AC LJ.org is ACLJ.org will be right back on Jay Sekulow live ACLJ is been on the frontline protecting your freedom is defending your rights in court 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. If you're not well this is the perfect time to stand with us ACLJ.org where you can learn more about our life-changing work, member today ACLJ live from Washington DC Jay Sekulow and chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice Jay Sekulow.
We are in federal court, but from her office is handling it via. That's how you do port arguments these days were fighting over a FOIA request very relevant to the unmasking of Gen. Flint and the information that we shared over the last several years on this is now coming to fruition and were getting real information.
Grabbing a pipe to get other information is I want to know we are fighting literally in court today but we perceive documents but they have been redacted. That means they have been looked at, and a determination was made by the government agency that they were not going to release those documents. We are challenging those and Andy again. I want to underscore what were looking for were looking for connections looking for who spoke to Y in the last phase of the administration were they making these changes, we are not asking for classified documentation. Andy, we have never asked for classified secret stamp of information information dealing with national security or anything like that. What we want to know is, why are you unmasking the names the name of Gen. Flint, for example, what authority did the Obama Chief of Staff, the Treasury Secretary Samantha power that didn't ambassador to England ambassador to Turkey and all these low and high ranking officials of the intelligence community seek to unmask the identity of Lieut. Gen. Flint in the waning days of the Obama administration was a mere curiosity was at the target hymn was it to attack him to do what they what I wanted to do on that memo the surface the crime and see that if you can give him the lie that you can prosecute them or firing from office. One of the legitimate reasons that you want in American citizens face to be disclosed to the public when otherwise you have no business doing so. That's what I want to find out I can think of a better way to put it in words than the actual words of the Atty. Gen. of the United States. General Atty. Gen. bar, take a listen to this. The law enforcement and intelligence apparatus of this country were involved in advancing a false and utterly baseless Russian collusion narratives against the President the proper investigative and prosecuted if standards of the Department of Justice were abused. In my view, in order to reach a particular result. Now I want to know something you don't listen very carefully what when he said he said a particular view was used to get a result not supported by law. So the Department of Justice has an investigation going on with Chandra Veazey as attorney for Connecticut very, very well respected God, we have our work going on at the American Center for Law and Justice looking a lot of these issues. Of course I lived and as did Angie and Jordan. The molar probe almost 3 years and when the prison was vindicated and now you have to send nothing really about a minute and 1/2. He reported right. Let's explain what Sen. Graham is doing which kind of puts it all together.
Yeah I mean really ties into exactly what you just said they were challenging in court today. These B5 reactions J. These are legitimate redaction's their deliberative due process. But if the Department of Justice specifically, the Atty. Gen. has concluded that in proper means were used.
You can read between the lines for a political purpose. NJ deliberative process to arrive at that end is something that the Senate is going to have a very vested interest in looking at that process. How did they come to decide that these were the mechanisms that were needed to take in JA. You made a good point that were not seeking the classified information, but the Senate Judiciary Committee that he chairs they can absolutely view that information behind the scenes to get more information to see what went on to make those decisions.
I take your call 1-800-684-3110.
We come back from the break to talk about this double standard that was put in place. What is that me must be an update on a couple of other cases. So there's a lot of want to talk important at 1-800-684-3110 event question are called follows that way if you want to get question via Facebook. A burst of you could do that as well. But again, the ACLJ important today. I say important these days work means argument involving getting information that is relevant to unmask just write your call 800-684-3110 challenges facing Americans for substantial time in our Valley freedom sword constitutional rights are under attack more important than ever to stand with the American Center for Law and Justice on the frontlines protecting your freedoms defending your rights in court in Congress and in the public arena and we have an exceptional track record of success. 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, you're already a member. Thank you.
Not well this is the perfect time to stand with us ACLJ.org where you can learn more about our life-changing, member today ACLJ only one. A society can agree that the most vulnerable in voice. 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 defend the rights of life, we've created a free powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn is called mission will show you how you are personally publication includes a look at all major ACLJ were fighting for the rights of pro-life activist ramifications 40 years later, planned parenthood's role in the Obama care means to discover the many ways your membership is empowering the right question for you, mission life today online/very direct all of this and very direct on how he thinks this should be viewed and I would play for you another soundbite of his results, but this double standard that we been arguing exist. We saw it come to play force over the in the impeachment proceeding we softly hear Nicholas we saw two different standards of justice emerge, one that applied to Pres. Trump and his associates and the other that applied to everybody else.
We can allow this ever to happen again. I think he's 100% correct and Eddie we know from the molar probe that there would they knew there was no lesser collusion very early on in this investigation really early on in this investigation will that's absolutely true J that was a hoax and the President used the term extended it in hopes they knew that there was none, but they were determined to create an illusion of collusion and illusion of collusion with the Russians with respect to the 2016 election. In other words, where there was no crime. They were going to make a crime and they tried their best for two years with 18 prosecuted the fabricated criminal offense. It's all unraveling right now and falling apart and it was just a set up of trying to discredit the incumbent President of the United States. Shameful conduct on Bob Muller's part. He is prorated himself.
As you know, as I've said many times the John Adams of the United States you know in inviolate in his personality. You know going to the former Marine officer and so forth. But why did he do, he presided over a group of people who were nothing but prosecutors seeking another pelt on their belt back to the phones Eric is calling for New Mexico is online for arable broadcaster on their I think my call out. My question is right the eighth or anything of the characters got questioned and they played that fit. What is that exactly mean and how would you move forward with the prosecution. Individual citizen accused of a crime on the back and in this moment I has a constitutional right to not incriminate themselves and guilty people use the fifth amendment so that innocent people. We've advised clients that were completely innocent and not going to talk to government agencies at particular times because of bias or animus or we thought things were going and were askew to begin with, but you have to work around so in the case. It just can't.
You can never compel the defendant to testify for prosecutor doesn't build the case based on the testimony from the oral testimony from that witness Andy know in a criminal case in a criminal case.
If you think the Fifth Amendment, no inference can be drawn adverse to you, but if it's safe. Okay, if it take him okay and you plead the Fifth Amendment, the inference can be drawn that the answer would not have been favorable to you. So these administrative proceedings and some of these congressional proceedings may be able to draw the inference.
If anyone played the Fifth Amendment that the answer would not have been favorable to the person who asserts the privilege. Not so in the criminal case appointed also. A lot of these people have already testified yeah and I was axing a follow-up and when Andy just said. I mean a lot of a lot of DVD privileges that would apply in a courtroom.
A little bit adjusted when you go in front of Congress and if if that privilege has been waived.
There might be a way around it. Specifically, J let me just give you an example, Samantha power, and holding the testimony that she gave to the House intelligence committee in my hands right now for those of us who are watching.
We know what it says there are some red actions in their one of the things that it says in there is that she has no recollection of making these unmasking request or if you were going to a court of law, and plead the fifth. I would expect the United States house would probably want to call her back and question her further on this testimony that she has already given because JI just don't think any reasonable person believes that she can make seven unmasking request of what ultimately did not mean the same person of the course of five weeks and not have any recollection of that. So if that were to play out.
I would expect the United States house. If there is a change of control or chairman Graham J what my mother called her back and question her about this testimony that we already have that exactly right in the one of the things that a lot of his members of the Senate have said is that we've set it to a course that they did just what was I supposed to use for partisan political purposes. But that's exactly what was going on in crossfire hurricane. If you look at the entire investigation.
That's what it was me.
That's what it focused on now.
The question you have to ask yourself is what happens next will take your calls and that at 1-800-684-3110 what you want to see happen in these cases 800-684-3110. Also, here's what Bill Barr said the Atty. Gen. United States about utilizing the department. Just as the FBI for partisan gain, criminal justice system will not be used for partisan political lands and this is especially true for the upcoming elections in November. So I think the markers being laid down that they're not to put anyone through what the President went through Andy in the last go-round with crossfire hurricane, not the Democrats not the Republicans. No one to be put in that's good for the country. Not as good. Not as long as Bill Barr, the Atty. Gen. or not you finally have an Atty. Gen. who got the courage to stand up and say the justice department is not a tool for partisan politics and I think he means it, and he's going to do anything to put into effect whatever measures are necessary to ensure that what happened under Obama holder Lynch does not happen again and we got a great question came in on Facebook from Lee and let me read it here it says when they are requesting unmasking do they have to put in.
The reason why they are requesting to unmask that's a great question because I'm not exactly sure what the internal procedure is. I'm sure there is reason but I think it would be very enough and you may know more about this as I can, but I think that the reason has to be subject to national security interest concerns over foreign influence is probably pretty broad. It should be, but I think it was yet has to be in scope and there has to be a legitimate purpose for requesting the J.
This is actually exactly on point to why we think so many of these were inappropriate because if you look at the list of people who were trying to unmask a general plan. I mean even a high profile Wednesday. What does the ambassador to the United Nations. Why does she need the identity of the incoming director of national intelligence, and then you go down the line. Some of these are people on the need of the general public is never heard of Patrick, and why does Patrick Conley need to know the identity of incoming trump administration official so there does have to be a legitimate purpose has to be in scope, but what is conclusively clear clear from this list. Jake is the deed. The wide swath of people who are requesting the unmasking of general Flint you could maybe maybe J make a case that a handful of them had a legitimate reason to requested.
There is no case to be made that everybody from Joe Biden to Susan Rice to Samantha power to Patrick Collins to Jacob.
Luke J there's no case to be made that all of them needed that information the UN ambassador and the Treasury Secretary we think about that one for a moment wanted to just go to their counterparts that McNulty makes no sense. But let me let me take it a step further. You got a look at where this is going and if you're just joining us. If you haven't been listening to the broadcast we are in federal court right now. Now in federal court these days doesn't mean what it used to means that we had a phone argument going on today on getting more access to documents so we can put all this together. We've done multiple quarterly report from a Government accountability Project. This obviously will be part of that.
So again were looking at the whole tapestry of what's happened here to try to get a framework so that we can report to the American people and what took place exactly right. We simply want to know what happened, why it happened why these Americans were instituted, who didn't we know why they did it is what we want to know we want to find out and we want to remove all the actions that have been blacked out from the papers and make the government prove that there is a legitimate national security interest for us not being able to see certain things. In other words, open government. Let's see what happen is secret. If it's a secret. Tell me that it's the national secret improvement to the court course they committed a fraud on the FISA court so that the you know the credibility of these agencies right now. I have to say is pretty much at an all-time low back and the blatant regular play statement from John Brennan, now Brennan Klapper call me they were up to their eyeballs in all of this. Member James Comey famously said he leading to have snuck in because he could get away with the two FBI agents rather than going through what he knew was the normal protocol which we been dealing with White House counsel decided not to do that when talk about why he did that with what where this goes and what it means so I can do that, we come back from the break, but again, if you just joining us like we were had a phone conversation with federal court today on these issues we been litigating these issues for a long time we've taken on the IRS and one taken of the State Department taken on Treasury Department, we have taken on the FBI and the Department of Justice. We caught them. Remember that one. The FBI said we don't have the department just doesn't and vice versa. That's because of this going to quarterly, stream of information act request member. We found out about what was going on with money going to the sun of the head of the Palestinian Housing Authority Mahmoud Abbas, son, and that money was going. Supposedly for aid to the Middle East. We got that freedom of information act litigation and there's a lot of that going on right now I become a blessing. It will take a call on any topic. 1-800-684-3110, 1-800-684-3110 four Facebook and get your questions only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable. Is there any hope for that culture to survive.
And that's exactly what you are saying when the American Center for Law and Justice, defendant the right to life. We've created a free and powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn life will show you how you are personally publication includes a look at all major ACLJ were fighting for the rights of pro-life activist ramifications 40 years later Planned Parenthood's role in the Obama care means many ways your membership is empowering the right question free copy of mission life today online/challenges facing Americans for substantial time and are now free to start constitutional rights are under attack more important than ever to stand with the American Center for Law and Justice on the front lines protecting your freedoms defending your rights in court 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 then remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side, you're already a member. Thank you for your thoughts. Well, this is the perfect time to stand with us ACLJ God where you can learn more about her life changing, member today ACLJ broadcast everyone. I want to tell you something that I think is really here and that is who's in charge of this, who was in charge of the great question from Charlotte on Facebook. She asked why were they should me Tammy Facebook at this unmasking start at the top. And why not go to the top. Obama and Biden, Obama and Biden should be implicated as well.
Mellow. I believe the evidence is good to go where it goes presents a broad constitutional authority in these areas. Remember that I don't want to underplay the importance of that one of the BS questions are not, that's a different question. I don't see them going to cases are to be brought against my don't see that again because of the constitutional issues at play, but there is a picture right now I think it's fair to say this to spin the narrative template is not a lot of that spinning was doing it on MSNBC. Take a listen to this silly song recently with the move who has demonstrated his loyalty to Tahoe years releasing declassified the names of jewels who had unmasked some names in intelligence requests and with the indication that that was probably wasn't carrying out responsibilities breaking this down to start with and he says so recently, the acting director of intelligence written out a hand-picked visual who I think has demonstrated lovely Mr. Trammell who not. If you are the present United States that would you pick and I director that that that you knew and you trusted and was handpicked. Of course you would. J that's what you do when you surround yourself with advisors and what did the acting director of national intelligence release. He released a list of names that according to the Obama administration officials did this unmasking by the book. I mean why would there be any harm in that. Jake and when you couple went to the sound you just played with Jay with a couple of other pieces of evidence Ursula Ben Road says the White House didn't know anything about this, and then Susan Rice testified that Joe Biden stayed behind for that meeting. What I think Ms. Mr. Klapper actually objects to is that the very own words of the Obama administration officials are the evidence that is now incriminating them jamming.
It's not me saying it. It's not you saying it's the testimony of Susan Rice and it's the on-air interviews of Ben Rhodes and James Klapper. It's their own words. J you're actually correct. I am to go to phone one 800 684 30 went to Moscow to questions and via Facebook.
Let's go to Todd in Utah.thank you very much for taking my call to redaction paper you're requesting. Who else has the authority we dealt with out without the provide those papers without any redaction EAG to quell the agency itself and he has to make the determination as to whether it's classified or subject to national securities are some exemptions to it, but we argue over if they try to say and everything's example will get a page that has two sentences and then the entire document is blacked out. That's exactly right.
Yeah, I have seen documents that we have to ACLJ song through FOIA request for the Department of State and all we have these pages and pages and pages of blackout information with nothing on it whatsoever. The State Department is decided that it's not going to show anything so just blacked it out and gives us a stack of blacked out paper, we've now got to go back into court and to see why that is and to convince the judge that that should not be blacked out and make the State Department for example in that instance, and improve the court why yes court why that information should not be redacted and why the public should be permitted to know so redaction is an agency determination in the first stage anyway.
I still question is not of this topic since last sentence we take in all topics and Tim Scully from the bottom on line 5 Tim glad thanks for taking my call at the questioner with their new stimulus bill proposed by the house, which is nothing really to do with the coronavirus as far as I'm concerned, other still people and receive the first stimulus check and now the Democrats want given to illegals in the end support top storage of any else on the right and on this this new stimulus does trillion multitrillion dollar stimulus package. It's dead on arrival of the Senate) dead on arrival, United States Senate, and for good reason. J. Just a couple of very quick stature. Talk about in 1815 page bill. The summary of the J is 90 pages alone.
I have it right here on the price tag on it is $3 trillion and the caller is exactly right at correct it's possible there may be some more stimulus needed. Some of that is still being debated. The J this bill is not that this is Nancy Pelosi's wish list that she's proposed before and it was defeated.
We raise the alarm on that were raising the alarm on this one as well and later McConnell has already said the United States Senate will not even take it up.
Then we have a group or team going through that stimulus to see what's in it so we can report that to our listeners and member the next day or two.
Yes we do. J now I will tell you right off the bat. I can tell you most of it is the same list that we saw before the price tag is bigger so they give more money to the same accounts and then add some additional wish list items on there but I would just tell you. Maybe 1/3 of it is coronavirus related the rest of it is the wish list the James Clyburn and Speaker Pelosi wanted I want to go over that with our with our listeners in the next couple of days is getting a lot more information I will back to the post Lisa Scully from California. She's on like two weeks ago at Carl and Dr. for all your hard work.
Thanks and is about the FISA court.
We now know that I want solely based on deals ridiculous information terrifies me.
I wonder about those gadget they are willing to consent that outrageous information. It can be replaced. Those judges have committed on them. I want to be clearly so I think you can blame the judges hearing those judges were lights with affidavits from the FBI about the authenticity of the documentation what was utilized in the verification process that when it they were like today was a fraud committed on the court. I don't want to blame the judges here any know that by the way, on a rotating basis so that there appointed by the teacher and they do rotate, but the victim here in the sand when the court judges themselves because they were told information that was contained in the steel.ca was correct and that it was vouched for by everybody along the line in the Justice Department who approved it in the judges and one of the chief judge. Of course, that I should in order not that long ago condemning the procedures that were used by the FBI and the Department of Justice in bringing these documents before the court anything.
If anybody was defrauded it with the judges of the Pfizer court. Don't blame the judges themselves. This is the information that was brought to them and that they acted upon. Based upon the representations of dog government absolutely really quick. Last call. Go ahead. As I understand it, the guy guarding ruled against amicus briefs because there are only two interested parties in a criminal trial. General land and in the United States government and that he ruled against amicus brief earlier because an amicus brief is for third-party interested people in the meeting to touch on and tell me if that really quick here so you keep 27 times. He said he wanted no outside briefing from parties that wanted engage on the phlegmatic 27 times that he decided to change his mind and said you know what I want to have Natalie brief Josh basically is the special counsel we are looking at all the legal ramifications of that right now. I could tell you that I appreciate you calling it a post of thanks for your support of the ACLJ ACLJ.org is the best way to do it online. As I said we would lawyers in court by phone, of course, even today. Tomorrow I expect to have some very big news on one of our Christian persecution cases have some big news a good report coming out will say that for tomorrow. We have verification looks good.
Again, thank you for your support ACLJ will see tomorrow ACLJ's been on the frontlines protecting your freedom is defending your rights in court in Congress and in the public arena. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side, you're already a member thinking. If you're not well this is the perfect time to stand with us ACLJ.org where you can learn more about our life-changing work, member today ACLJ