Trump to AG Garland: “Release the Documents Now!”

Today on Sekulow, President Trump calls Attorney General Garland's bluff. It says release those documents now. We'll talk about what that will mean today and what we might learn, what we won't learn from the documents later today.

And now, your host, Jordan Sekulow. Okay, so remember yesterday, we could place this, so Attorney General Garland does this five minute, I wouldn't call it a press conference because he didn't take any questions, makes a statement basically. As usual, doesn't sound very strong, doesn't sound very clear, a little bit shaky about what exactly is going on here, but he did admit that he signed off on it, which we all knew, but he had to tell the media.

Because again, they disappeared for 48 hours, which in normal cases would be normal, but this isn't normal at all. It's unprecedented, it's historic, and it's also, they started shifting that it's about pieces of paper and the Library of Congress. What I think we have to understand too from this statement was that they said we have no problem with the warrant and the receipt being released, but President Trump might, so let's put it back on him.

Immediately yesterday evening, President Trump had already put out a message saying release this document, so by 3 p.m. Eastern time today, depending on when you're listening to this broadcast, these will be released. Now I think there's a lot of, in the media they're playing this up big, so what we're going to walk through is exactly what to expect and what not to expect, so not going over the top. But I would say this, our producer Wilbur, you were talking about this before, is that Attorney Joe Garland, he made this big statement, we talked through our filings, and then a couple hours later there's leaks already going to the Washington Post.

It's something involved with nuclear. Now you could assume the worst of that, you could also assume that any conversations or back and forth on nuclear power might count as that, especially the conversations which were very unique with the North Koreans. So again, we know that the FBI got documents back in June, they're now acting like there was something urgent here, I think that we don't have to, you don't have to give, put any faith in them. It's their job right now, which is why he made that statement in the first place, because they were feeling the pressure, feeling the heat to get out ahead of this. So we'll take your calls on it, your questions about the warrant, the receipt, 1-800-684-3110, that's 1-800-684-3110. Yesterday we focused on the broadcast on this conflict of interest, should the judge in this case, who's a magistrate judge, be recused since they recused, or we might see that kind of action now, but again, it's hard to make up how bad the DOJ, the FBI, and also the judicial side of this, handles every time they try to go after Donald Trump.

Because they're trying to make something up, always going way too far. And when they do that, it doesn't matter what else they find if it's not something so big, because now they've gone to a judge, magistrate judge, who recused himself back in June because he couldn't be impartial because he was sending out mean Facebook messages about Trump. But he wasn't too impartial to sign off on a search warrant of Donald Trump's home.

That he had no issues with. So we'll talk about all that today on the broadcast, 1-800-684-3110. The Inflation Reduction Act vote is today in the House. We're going to talk about what you can do, still take action on that at ACLJAction.org. We've launched a new system there, not just for Inflation Reduction Act, but for future opportunities so you can weigh in directly to your member of Congress very easily.

That's at ACLJAction.org. We're of course encouraging them to vote no, but we'll get into that a little bit later in the broadcast. We're going to start off, we come back, what you can expect to learn from this warrant and receipt, and what we likely won't learn. Of course, there's going to be more leaks and more media.

This is typical Washington. And so everybody's waiting, building it up. What exactly will it mean? Give us a call. You got questions or comments, 1-800-684-3110. That's 1-800-684-3110. Let me encourage you, check out ACLJAction.org. Launch a new suite of tools you can utilize to contact your member of Congress directly. Go to ACLJAction.org right away.

All right, 1-800-684-3110. So today, we know by 3 p.m. Eastern time, and again, most of you are watching this broadcast live or listening to it live, but if you listened to it before that, this is Documents Merity. Be out.

We're going to get into it in a second, what to expect to learn, what you won't learn. We're truth tellers here because the media is making it out to be a gigantic deal, and to some expect it is because it's a former President of the United States, raid on the home, a conflicted judge, a weak attorney general who sounded very weak, sounded very much like he was pressured into making a statement. It didn't make sense to say in the statement that we don't have to talk because our filings speak for himself, except for you're having to talk.

And explain, you're already trying, having to explain yourself. They know Republicans are likely to take you back to the House. They're going to be in the hot seat for a couple of years. Mayor Garland is going to be getting, this is going to be the focus of so many House hearings, how this got there, the judicial side of this with the conflict there. I mean, it's not even just like an exposed conflict, like, oh, this judge sent out mean things on Facebook about Donald Trump, so he should be recused. He had recused himself before because of that. So it's not, again, this is not conspiracy. This is not making up. Like I said, we tell it like it is.

So I want to go right to Andy Cahnemann. Andy, what people should expect to learn from the war, which will be released by 3 p.m. Eastern time today? Well, the warrant is just the documents signed by the United States magistrate that authorizes somebody to go in because there's been an alleged violation of the law to the magistrate's satisfaction. Here's a conflicted magistrate, as you said, who's recused himself from a case involving Donald Trump in June, who suddenly the impartiality there that he had or the problem that he had disappeared six days, weeks later, and he was okay to issue a search warrant to go in and raid the former President's house. So you may get that. You're not going to get the affidavit. There's an affidavit that goes into or supposed to go into great detail about what it is that is in the house and why it's a federal crime and why there's probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and all these things.

You're not going to get that. That is not going to happen unless and until the government brings a criminal case against the President, if they ever do, former President, in which case there will be a motion to suppress the evidence that was seized, okay? That evidence, there is supposed to be a return made to the magistrate. In other words, the magistrate is supposed to get a list of what it is that was seized at the house.

I doubt very seriously it's going to be a very informative list. It may just say 15 boxes of documents, but in my day it was a detailed list of what it is that was received and it was given in great specification to the magistrate. That is the big question that comes out. Does the receipt, not so much the warrant, but does the receipt say anything? And we just don't, we don't know. They could go into a little more detail, but it's not going to be the affidavit.

It's not going to be great detail. It might give us some insight on what spurred them going to a judge to do this. And again, this idea that it wasn't a raid, that a raid is somehow illegitimate. No, raids aren't illegitimate. I heard somebody in the media, MSNBC saying, calling it a raid is trying to make it sound like it's not lawful. No, no, you have lawful police raids. That's what they are.

When there's no notice, it's a, it's a raid. I mean, so all of this talking points of the media, again, they're trying to confuse you. There's a lot of distractions here.

There's a horrible vote today in the House of Representatives on the 87,000 IRS officials. Who knows at what moment Hunter Biden gets his little plea deal and slap on the wrist that people are expecting, which I think if that goofy stuff starts happening in the middle of this, again, there's a reason why the attorney general felt pressure to come out, Logan. And when he did come out, looked like a guy not in charge. Yeah, I'm sure we have some clips of that we can play, but really what you look at then you have to start really breaking down what the news is telling you. And not only what Garland was saying, but what, if you look at the big headlines right now, all of it is we're awaiting the release of the warrant. Playing games a little bit with the audience, knowing that the audience doesn't necessarily know what that means, knows that the audience is expecting something greater than it likely will be. And that is a concern for journalism, but it's a concern for people who watch these channels, watch the news, they are expecting something and largely get defeated because we know there's a very good chance. Now prove me wrong, but there's a good chance we're learning nothing out of this or very little out of this. And when you have these situations where they spin this sort of scenario, it's really a shame. And that's why our show is really important because we're coming at you, we're telling you the truth, which is there is a good chance, a more than likely a better chance that this having very little details. And again, I hope I'm wrong. We'd all love to see a lot more details, but don't believe the media hype right now.

And look, I'm saying that to thousands of people that I want to watch our broadcast, they want to listen to our broadcast, but we're honest. We will tell you the truth. And the truth is there is a good chance that this is not where you're thinking it's going to be. It would be unlikely and surprising to learn a lot. You're going to learn a little bit more. You will learn a little bit more. It's not like it's not going to have any kind of new info, but we're already seeing the leaking, you know, making about nuclear.

I don't think this is going to give you the distinction between is it a Kim Jong Un letter or not. It's possible they could, but they don't have to. I think that's the, that's we can go to the phones, but also I think we should hear a little bit from Merrick Garland yesterday. So this kind of sets you up maybe on also how they're playing the media.

Let's go by 23. Since I became attorney general, I have made clear that the Department of Justice will speak through its court filings and its work. And then as my kids say, one hour later, you know? Oh yeah. Okay. So him making the statement show that that's not true because no one trusts them. Their legitimacy is so much in question, rightfully so. Like I said, FBI content, don't trust them. You're now starting off point with the law enforcement is they're not necessarily the good guys because it just seems like even what happened to their Ohio field officer is horrible.

Someone comes in with a nail gun has got to, they're the FBI. Shouldn't they be able to like, this is what they are hard law enforcement agency with guns ablaze. Like you would think that they can handle these things better.

But remember the school shootings. Remember the mass shootings we've seen always on their radar, never done anything about it. Is it possible that they've been distracted for four or five years by trying to take down Donald Trump that they're not focused on on terrorism? You know, they make a big deal. They picked up this Iranian asset who was hiring people to try to kill Mike Pompeo with a million dollar bounty. I'm glad that they stepped in there, but it just seems like it's out of control, right? Feeling and a lot of these law enforcement situations and they always come in with their jackets after the fact to do a press conference.

But what were they doing before? And if they're all being told this is the focus, we got to get Donald Trump somehow. I think again, how many times have they spent so much of your taxpayer dollars, so much of our time, trying to take down someone who is a threat to them politically? You know, and again, they've tried to, I think all they've done is put a lot of people on their mind to say, you know what, let's put this guy back in Washington, DC.

Let's send him back to Washington. Let's drive them insane. We call it Trump Derangement Syndrome. It's real. I mean, it's real.

At some point, maybe psychologists, psychiatrists will actually diagnose it as real because the obsession. How many times do you have to fail against this guy before you realize it's going to turn on you? You're going to become Shifty Schiff.

You're going to look like a weak garland. You're going to become sad Bob Mueller testimony. I mean, that was sad as well.

He clearly hadn't written or read the report. He had to have an aide tell him where things were in that. You've got to remember all of this stuff.

It's a lot to remember. How about impeaching him after he left office? Unprecedented actions. They call it making a martyr. It's more than that.

This guy has dealt with more unprecedented legal actions. That means they have never done this before in their history, in their handbook. This is not how they would say to do things. And yet, still, they go and they start. But when the voice gets shaky, when they're doing their press conference and they get a little nervous, you realize they are the ones who are now in trouble because they know that they're going to be dealing with the Republican House of Representatives led by people like Jim Jordan, who are going to rip their heads off, put out every document, put out all this information.

That's all coming at some point. We can go to the phones. Diane in Nevada, on Line 1.

Hey, Diane. Hey, thank you for taking my call, Jay. You know, it was my understanding from another news media source that they refused to hand the warrant over to his lawyer at the time that they got there. And I'm wondering, why does it take till 3 o'clock if you have a search warrant in your pocket? Okay, that was the deadline set by the judge. What they did is, DOJ has said they don't object to this being released. You, Donald Trump, have until 3 p.m. today, Eastern Time, to object to that.

So, that's why. There was enough time to where your legal team could make a decision. Now, this was, President Trump already got ahead of that by 11 o'clock last night, said release the documents. Whether or not they did a separate filing, we don't know yet. That's why we say it could happen at any moment this could be released now.

Because they have waived any objection to it being released. So, it could happen while we're on the air right now. We'll have a team ready to analyze it. I want to continue to take your phone calls at 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. This is total abuse of power. And you're starting to see the pieces put together. The judges should be recused. The weak Attorney General being pushed by the left.

Now, suddenly, you know, it's pieces of paper. They started putting a librarian's picture up on TV. Make them the enemy. Make them the fall person for this botched raid, which we'll use the term because it's real. That is the actual term. I don't know who's, they have these former DOJ people going on TV saying, you know, using a raid is a bad context. Just telling the truth. If someone shows up at your house, law enforcement, with no notice, kicks the door down and takes whatever they want, that's a raid.

Whether you like it or not. Welcome back to Secular. We are taking your calls at 1-800-684-3110. That's 1-800-684-3110. So, we walked through a little bit about what the warrant means. Clearly, likely, if you're going to get more information today, it would be in that receipt of what documents. And that's really up to how they kind of wrote it out. You could write it out in a very descriptive way.

You could also write it out in a very generic way. That will be, again, something we learn before the end of the day. We all know that is likely.

We saw, again, I want to play more from Merrick Garland. I think that this press conference, again, when you look at leadership, I mean, you would think, right, like if you were going to go after the former President of the United States or former major world leader in any country, you better have, know what you're already going for and know that it's going to be worthwhile. That you're at least going to be able to make a case to the country that what you did was right. That you followed the right procedure. It looks here like they skipped a big step in between, which is if you knew there was something you needed in there that you didn't get the first time, ask for it.

And then if you don't, then you've got like a paper trail of back and forth instead of people going on and saying, we weren't allowed in, we were allowed in, they didn't give this, they did give this, they handed us. Even the way he used the term, they handed us the warrant, does not mean you got to keep the warrant. I mean, he uses very specific words. He didn't take questions.

He tried to say, do we have the part about they speak for themselves, their actions speak for themselves? Because I think the fact that he's having to do this press conference shows that is not the case. Or else you as the Attorney General wouldn't have to be spending your time hiding from the media and then doing a little, it's not a press conference, it's a statement because of how botched this already is. It's already botched with a recused judge who didn't recuse himself. It's botched with, it seems like there's a missing step in between.

You don't go from working with cooperating to raid. There isn't in between, which would be the subpoena of additional documents that you think that you need back in your archives. They're already trying to put a fall guy out, the archivist. Like they could cause the DOJ to do this on their own, which they can't.

The Attorney General said he had to sign off on it. But just take a listen to this statement. I just think the righteous indignation, enough, enough. I don't think we need to give it for either side. Politicians, politicians, Republican, Democrat, the respect level of this indignation is gone.

It's out the window in the modern era. Let's go to the statement by 23. Since I became Attorney General, I have made clear that the Department of Justice will speak through its court filings and its work. Unless they get caught with a statement saying we should classify parents as domestic terrorists, unless they raid a former President's home and then go silent for 48 hours, that's not a really good decision. Try to start blaming an archivist. Like they could cause the entire DOJ and FBI to raid the former President's home by saying, oh, I think I need this back.

I think I need a document back. I think where we have to go, just that statement alone, Andy, we've seen that their work is not speaking for itself. They constantly have to come out and make a statement. He didn't get a congressional hearing yet. He felt the pressure to come out and have to say something. Well, that's exactly right.

And when you have to do that, we have an expression in the South called hit dog barks. In other words, he knew that he did something wrong and now he's putting out the signal by making these innocuous and foolish statements about we don't do anything except what we say in our court papers and what we do in our work. You don't have to justify that. You have to justify why you went before a judge that was recused, why that judge did not recuse himself. What were you looking for? What did the affidavit say? Tell us. Why is it a secret? Is it a secret what the affidavit said? And when you do the return of service to the magistrate, go into great detail. Tell me what room you searched. Tell me what you found in the room. List the document. Go into specific details. And what's most important to put confidence in the government, say that that is what you are going to do now so that we know what's coming.

Be open, be transparent about these things. Merrick Garland may be the attorney general and all that, but he ain't no Griffin Bell. Let's go to Donald in Kentucky online too. Hey, Donald.

Hey, thanks for taking my call. I haven't heard this heard on any news channel. And it's tell me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the President still retain his security clearance after his presidency and almost all the records things that have happened with Hillary? He likely retains a clearance because people go in and out of government, but does not retain the power likely to declassify. So that's the difference between being the President and a former President when it comes to these classifications. So he had the sole power to declassify anything he wanted, whatever he wanted. In fact, the classification process made for the President. And so while he's in office, he could declassify anything with an order. And so we don't know all of the specifics there about what was, what wasn't, but you wouldn't likely retain, you don't retain that power.

That's what, that's where I think you can make that distinction. You wouldn't retain that power as a former President to declassify the documents after the fact. Again, people talked about Obama with the 30,000, you know, all these documents that he said he was going to digitize.

Where's that process? You know, the idea, again, Hillary Clinton with the bleach bit, she wasn't the former President. She's former secretary of state, had a lot of info. Remember they came out, said it was bad, but not criminal. I mean, these are, that was Jim Comey.

Irregular, something like that. Yeah, it was, it was, again, we have seen, these are the same people, the same bad actors trying to smear people because they were willing to take a stand against the, listen, they don't like him for Roe versus Wade. They don't like him for taking out Jim Comey. They don't like him for the idea of draining the swamp. And they're scared to death about what he would be like, now that he's learned all of this, and his team, what his second term would be like for Donald Trump in Washington, D.C. Because he's already figured out a way to fire a lot of these people and they know that could potentially be coming because they've reclassified a level of federal bureaucrat as a policy maker.

And if you're a policy maker who's opposed to the current government, you can then remove them. So there's this whole process that they are very scared of in Washington, that they're trying to hold on to their, to their power. Let's go back to phones, 1-800-684-3110. Michelle in California, it's a good question.

Thank you. OK, so from what I've heard, they, they search the house, they search their bedroom, they search Melania's closet. When they release the warrant, will it show what they were allowed to, to search? So will it go to the step like you were allowed to go to this area?

Yes, yes, yes. The search warrant has to, it cannot be a general warrant. That is contrary to the Constitution. The warrant has to say with specificity what rooms, where, how, down the closet, down the line, down this, down that corridor, found in this safe. It has to be specific so that a person can trace who is doing the search knows exactly where to go.

So it's got to do that if it is a proper search warrant. All right, so I mean, there you go. So there's, again, like we just laid out for you, and I think it's helpful with the calls that we're getting, the questions we're getting, what you can expect to learn and what, what will be there that will be new information and what, what will not be there. So again, we're awaiting this release. It might happen while we're on the air. It might be after. We'll be ready to analyze it.

Give us a call. If you've got more questions, I think your questions are actually teasing out good points to be made for everybody listening. So if you've got a question that's coming to you, there's no bad questions about this. This is unprecedented. It's never happened in our history before.

At this level, law enforcement is going after a former President. 1-800-684-3110 to talk to us on the air and support the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org. There's action you can take at ACLJAction.org.

We'll talk about it when we come back. The inflation reduction act vote is scheduled for this afternoon in the house. We've got a new tool so you can contact your member of Congress directly at ACLJAction.org. Our gift becomes 100. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family. Give a gift today online at ACLJ.org. Freedom! Keeping you informed and engaged. Now more than ever, this is Sekulow.

And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. All Americans are entitled to the even-handed application of the law, to due process of the law, and to the presumption of innocence. Much of our work is by necessity conducted out of the public eye. We do that to protect the constitutional rights of all Americans and to protect the integrity of our investigations. They leak everything.

The reporters are outside immediately. Ask Roger Stone if he felt like they were protecting his constitutional rights. Give me a break. This is a disaster of DOJ and FBI.

We all know, and by the way, not above being beat. Take it from us. We had the full weight coming at it. We had the $30 million. It's funny they put up all of Bob Mueller's attorneys on TV, too, as experts in this. What did they do with your money? What did they find?

Zero. These are supposed to be the best prosecutors in the country. They have become so obsessed with politics and being on MSNBC that these are failures of law enforcement. They had every resource to take down Donald Trump. They couldn't do it that way. Then they impeached him twice and couldn't do it that way.

Let's not forget 2017 James Comey. We were talking about leaking. Here's what he had to say. I asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a reporter. I didn't do it myself for a variety of reasons, but I asked him to because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel.

So I asked a close friend of mine to do it. Who was that? A good friend of mine who's a professor at Columbia Law School. And the truth is, their home should be raided. His law license should be gone. They should feel like they're uncomfortable. You forget how horrible it sounded.

But they made a movie out of making him a hero, though. Oh, he goes back to his wife and kids. Don't do it, Jim. Don't do it, Jim. Oh, I have to.

You have to what? Because what did that special counsel investigation amount to? Nothing. But see, they're willing to drag the country through all of this for politics. It seems to always backfire. We'll see if this backfires this time. Obviously, they think put Donald Trump front and center. That's their goal here. Because they're already the blame game of is he going to be arrested all of this? This has now gone on for a full week, and it seems like it's gone down to where they've leaped out as it's about paper. So, again, I just want to put it everybody's right. Remember who you're dealing with here.

Bad actors. They don't treat any of us the same. They do go after you because you're conservative.

They do go after President Trump because he wants to take down the swamp. We have multiple years now of history. You don't have to rely on conspiracy theories. Just go to the facts. Just go to the Jim Comey.

I mean, you've got to remember all this stuff because some of it feels like a TV show and feels like decades ago and some of only a few years ago. Look, people took to the streets. People took to the streets. They went in front of Trump Tower.

Oh, yeah. And the reporters went up to him and said, Why are you here? And let's hear what they had to say.

These are the people actually in front. Is this unprecedented to arrest a former President for not turning in documents? Well, I'm the former President that had committed this many provable criminal acts. What are the provable criminal acts, I guess? Provable criminal acts.

Well, I'm just, I'm done. That wasn't Merrick Garland. It did sound kind of like his press conference, which is like, We've got all this information, righteous indignation.

What is it? Not sure. This is someone who said they're going to they wanted to talk to the press. They wanted to be out, but they sought out the attention of the media.

They had their 15 seconds and they didn't come with anything. Because the truth is, there's nothing. They just don't like his style. They don't like the fact that he wants to take their jobs. Remember that he has said he wants to get rid of their jobs, take their power out of Washington. That means their kids and all their friends won't have the seven figure jobs.

So take it all to context. We come back. We start taking your questions and comments.

1-800-684-3110. We'll be right back. All right.

Welcome back to Sankyo. So we know that the warrant, the receipt, we should learn more from the receipt. But again, just take it on the context of what we can learn today. We're going to stick with this. We're going to stay on it. It's not going to be done on a Friday afternoon.

It's not going to be done. But you will learn more. Let's go to your phone calls.

Everybody's people have got good questions and every question is coming out. I think is helping everybody listening to this, trying to follow the continuing legal side. I mean, I've lived it and it's still some of it you kind of you move on. There's other things happen in the world. But you remember, we've already had Jim Comey. We had Crossfire Razor, Crossfire Hurricane, Special Counsel. We had the Trump campaign with big spied on. We then had a special counsel, two impeachments, the January 6th committee and now raid on Mar-a-Lago. You would think if they had anything at this point, he would be in handcuffs. At one point along, I mean, how many of us could go through special counsel, two impeachments and a raid on your house and they didn't arrest you? They haven't arrested you.

I mean, even the Drudge headline is absurd. Stolen nuclear docs. The President leaves with documents.

You want them, you need them back. In Obama's case, they're supposed to be digitizing them. I mean, this is not like this is a back and forth exchange. Post-presidencies take a long time. That's why they keep such big staffs around. People may wonder why they keep, they've got all this, of course, security, but then staff because you have to go through a lot of documents, a lot of protocol. Some of it is not perfect.

It's not perfect because you deal with papers still. We're going to go to your phones though. 1-800-684-3110 Logan. Yeah, let's first actually go to Glenn. I think a lot of people are asking a lot of questions about this. Let's go to Glenn in Connecticut on Line 3. Hey there, guys.

Thanks for taking my call. My question for you is this. We know that Trump has a subpoena handed to him and we know that he didn't comply with that subpoena, which warranted this raid. My question is, when did the classifieds happen? First of all, that's not right. Let's go through all this. There was a subpoena and they came and they gave 15 boxes over.

What happened between then and now? You don't know. You don't have the information. So you're lying, Glenn, or you're taking bad info from the media. So I'll give you the refugees. Daz, maybe you don't understand the process, but we're going to cut you off.

You're not going to continue talking on our show because you're just repeating bad facts for people. Just understand, in June, they come down, they get the boxes. Everybody made a big deal about that, remember? But again, then nothing happened. I don't think people do. I don't think people remember that. So they got 15 boxes and then they were supposedly told, now we're getting to the supposedly world, put a lock on this door and we'll get back to you. And at some point, somebody said in that FBI, I think there's something there that we can't wait on like a normal subpoena to say, okay, now we need this. Now we think this may be there. I mean, the fact is if they thought nuclear codes were on, just put a lock on the door and we'll come back in a couple months.

A couple months, yeah. Again, it doesn't make sense because you're dealing with senseless people. They don't operate in reality. They operate in Washington, D.C. Yeah, and I think what he was trying to get to was it didn't seem like maybe this would race to the level of having this kind of warrant, but I guess we don't know that until we see the information.

But there's also a lot of calls coming in about the evidence itself. Let's go to Robin in New York on line two. Robin, you're on the air. Good afternoon.

Thank you for taking my call. The question I had is regarding the judge with the warrant. Can that warrant be invalidated in court and subsequently any and all evidence, real or fake, could it be invalidated as well? In other words, the poison fruit?

Yeah. In other words, can the failure of the judge to recuse himself when he had an interest in the case for partiality result in the suppression of the evidence? The answer is it could. On a motion to suppress or a motion to return of property or a motion to, in other words, not use the evidence that was seized, the bias of the magistrate can be used as a basis to say that what he got was what we call in the law the fruit of the poisonous tree. Judge, you shouldn't have heard this case. You had no right to do this under 18 USC 455. You should have recused yourself. You had an interest in the case. You were not impartial. But you went ahead and you, by your own admission, and then you went ahead and issued the warrant.

If I was the defense attorney at some appropriate place during the proceeding, I would move to suppress this evidence. Yeah. Let's go back to the phones. All right, let's go to Mary Ellen in Illinois, line four. You're on the air. Oh, hello everyone.

I have a quick comment and then a quick question. I see Garland's comments as a deflection of turning it from the problem of them to our being the problem and trying to keep us quiet. And then my quick question is, will we ever be able to see down the road the actual affidavit that was signed and presented to the judge or magistrate before he signed the warrant? Take additional legal action.

If there is an attempt to use the evidence that was obtained and the President or some interested person, and I mean President Trump or some interested person, moves to suppress that evidence on the basis that there was no probable cause to issue the warrant, then you will see the affidavit. It's got to be made public at that point. 1-800-684-3110. We've got more time coming up on the broadcast. Let me take a little moment here then we'll go back to the phones. We've got some phone lines reopened for people.

We've got Pat and Rose coming up next. 1-800-684-3110. I do want to remind you, check out ACLJAction.org.

We've got a vote coming up this afternoon on that horrendous inflation reduction act. The 87,000 new law enforcement officials, this time out of the IRS. Don't worry, they're trained in lethal force. And again, so if your audit's off by $5, I guess they're coming to your door with guns out now.

That's through their own website and through their own hiring. Listen, I don't like being anti-federal law enforcement, but I am. And I have years of reasons why, because I've seen the worst of them.

The worst. And you're now seeing it on full display. I mean you've seen it with special counsel. They put a guy in charge who should definitely not have been in charge because he couldn't even answer questions about his own report when they had a hearing. And he had to have an assistant next to him flip it through the page numbers to read out the statements to people like he had never read it before, which I don't think he had. And they had all those high profile guys.

They all disappeared. Then they come back for an impeachment over a phone call. They don't like the tone. This was after Joe Biden's threatening to have people fired in Ukraine that he didn't like. That was fine as vice President and cut off their billion dollars or else. But the phone call.

About that, which seemed inappropriate, bringing that up, oh you can't do that, you can't bring up a bad action by a former vice President. With the laptop, they said that was fake. Like the pictures aren't real. Like did they superimpose?

They did a pretty good job at superimposing. And Hunter Biden, no one's tried to deny any of it being real. So how many times are they going to just lie on their face to you before you say no more respect? It doesn't mean you have to deal with them. You do have to deal with them seriously.

But no more respect. They're trying to add 87,000 more. I think you want to let your voice be heard on this. So we have a new tool at ACLJAction.org. It's very simple.

So you can go in. We have it prewritten for you. You can write it yourself.

But it's a message. So if you put in your name, your address, your email address, it goes to your member of Congress directly. Through ACLJAction.org, but it goes direct to them. We've got the message already sent to oppose the Inflation Reduction Act. So all of you, it doesn't cost a thing to go to ACLJAction.org right now. Let your voice be heard on that. Tell your member of Congress how you feel about it. It's important to put yourself on the record on these issues.

And you can do that at ACLJAction.org. And again, that continues to expand the work there. Do we have time to go to another phone before we go to the break? We have two minutes. Let's quickly, let's go to Pat on line one. Pat, you're on the air. Hey, Pat.

Hi. I am now a resident of Idaho and listening to a podcast, this young lady brought up a point. And if they find something or they've planted something against Donald Trump, President Trump, then he can no longer run for an office. Well, okay. Technically, there's a law on the books. This is a great question, Pat. There's a law on the books, not the Constitution. So that's important to point out right now. Law on the books saying that if you're convicted of having these classified documents that you're disqualified from office, it's never been challenged, it would fall.

I think I put most resources that hasn't been challenged. So, you know, you might get funky decisions, district court level, court of appeals, en banc. Ultimately, it gets to Supreme Court. What Supreme Court's been clear about is states can do, you can put in things process to qualify, but you can't put new fundamental qualifications. I think that would fall as a fundamental qualification that has to be in the constitutional or constitutional amendment because it says in the Constitution 35 where you have to do natural board citizenship, all the basic requirements. This, to me, that would be a substantive additional requirement or disqualifier. It's not like you've got to have procedure to state to get on the ballot. What the courts have said is that's one thing because states have got to run these elections so they can put in rules in place of how you, but that doesn't determine who gets to run for President. So you're right that it's on the books, and I think where it would be is it's not part of the Constitution.

It would likely fall. That's why I want to keep taking your questions on this. People have good questions and legitimate questions about all these legal matters, trying to answer as much as possible for you at 1-800-684-3110. It's a good reason to support the work of the ACLJ because we're able to do this live, right off the cuff, because we've been through it a number of times. We're representing this President.

Impeachment, special counsel. We know what it's like to deal with these people and to put them on the spot. They have a lot of resources. They have a lot of power.

They knock down your door, but you can't fight back. In the news to right now, you may have seen the report there was an Iranian who was here in the United States trying to put together a hit team against former secretary of state and our senior counsel for global affairs, Mike Pompeo. A million dollar bounty. I think it was $300 on John Bolton. A lot of news about Bolton first, but then you realize it was really about Mike Pompeo. Then we just saw there's been an incident, which could be them. It's been existing a long time, but Salman Rushdie, the controversial author, had the fatwa issued against him in the 80s. In New York, it was stabbed. This is the last report. A male suspect ran onto the stage and attacked Rushdie and an interviewer. Rushdie suffered an apparent stab wound to the neck and has been transported by helicopter to an area hospital.

This condition is not yet known. That's obviously tough. That's in our country. That's happening here. Why I would like the FBI focused, Andy, not on going after politicians who have done nothing wrong that they just don't like, but instead on Iranian operatives in the United States stabbing people on the stage or trying to kill Mike Pompeo.

Well, to quote Will Haines, it's more important that you go into somebody's house to get his overdue library books and to get his papers that belong to the Library of Congress and the archives than taking care of an attempted murder. All right, back to the phones we got. We'll try to go in order that came in. Let's go to Rose in the state of Florida. Rose, you're on the air. Hi, everybody.

Thanks for taking my call. I have a question. Since a President retains his security clearance when he leaves office, why is it such a big problem that President Trump is in possession of these records? I think, again, it depends on what records they are and what would be something that you would put ultimately like a Presidential library that you could, like Obama's been doing with it. Supposedly he's digitizing that, but I mean, it's been a long time now.

Technology is pretty good. So I think there's a serious question about, yes, you don't retain this declassification power, but you would retain, unless they were voted somehow, this clearance, but other people don't have that clearance. So I mean, that's the one thing. If this was like a botched deal between DOJ and attorneys from Donald Trump and like they were ships crossing in the night, which is how I feel like this is going to be pitched to us by the Department of Justice is, you know, we just had a failure of communication or miscommunication. And because they are making out, you read the Drudge Report headline, which I don't often do because media is so ahead of Drudge usually these days, and it looks, it's absurd. Even he's being absurd, putting this kind of headline out, like stolen nuclear document.

The documents haven't been taken by anyone. Whatever they were, whoever they were, they're former Presidents under lock by the Department of Justice. So, I mean, to me, it just reeks, just like all these have. They tried to make Donald Trump out to be this person that he's not. And because they say, well, he uses bad language and he's kind of, you know, he's tough on Washington, so he must be a criminal.

That's not the case. There's a lot of Americans who come, who came out and voting because they feel the same way he does. He just happens to have ability to let this voice be heard. He doesn't have to. He didn't have to take any of this on. He made all the money, made the career, had all the properties, had all the abilities, but decided to speak out for Americans who felt like their voice wasn't being heard.

And clearly it wasn't because now Washington is just, has a breakdown every moment they have. Let's go back to the phones again. Let's go to Robert in Alabama on line three. Robert, you're on the air.

Hi, thanks for taking my call. A quick question. Is it possible to hold the FBI to seek a warrant from a local judge versus an American citizen on American soil?

Andy. No, because the federal government has the right to prosecute federal crimes and those go before federal judges who are appointed, not elected, but you can't make them go before a local judge. In this case, by that I mean, I presume you mean a state court judge. In this instance, they went before a US magistrate in the Southern District of Florida who is appointed by the judges of that court.

He is not elected, but you cannot force the FBI to go to local judges. All right, folks. Again, 1-800-6432. Let's get to Corey and then Phil. All right, first start with Corey up in Missouri on line six. You're on the air.

Hi, thank you for taking the call. In reference to your comments about James Comey earlier and how he said that what Hillary Clinton did was bad. Hypothetically, even if he was guilty of mishandling these documents, could he argue equal treatment under the law? No, they have prosecutorial discretion, so you can't compare yourself and say, well, you didn't do it here, you did it here. That's the case. I do feel like, it feels like to me, and again, you can be wrong in these situations.

This is opinion of Jordan. But Andy is like, if you were going to make that arrest, it would have already happened at this point. It feels kind of weird that if it was that big of a deal, you wouldn't let him just keep operating and speaking and making decisions about warrants and affidavits. I mean, you would have taken some additional action here. Yeah, I agree with you totally. I mean, if this was a national security threat of the magnitude that we're led to believe that we're just killing a gnat with a sledgehammer and going into Mar-a-Lago and doing what we did, then he ought to have been locked up and arrested by now. He sure hasn't been. Well, he's done a lot of verifiable criminal acts, as we saw in that clip. Really, can we play that clip again?

Yeah. These are the people that are outside Trump Tower right now protesting. Is this unprecedented to arrest a former President for not turning in documents? Well, I don't think we have a former President that had committed this many provable criminal acts. What are the provable criminal acts, I guess? Provable criminal acts.

Well, I'm just, I'm done. You were thinking like the trash could make something up, but you can't because he's been cleared every time they went after him. More than cleared. He's had literally everything you could pick apart in his life picked apart by the top prosecutors in the country. I put that in quotes because on paper that's what they were. And they got nothing.

Hundreds of pages report about nothing. That was special counsel. Two impeachers.

They impeached him after he left office. Okay, this is the nuttiness. Is it coming to light why we can't fund their efforts? They're not protecting us from the bad actors anymore.

They are instead focused all on politics. So enough with them. Enough with the respect.

Throw it out the window. Let's play the politics like they play hardball. Tough. Let's take the final call. Final call. Phil in California. Real quick, Phil. Running out of time.

You're on the air. Hello. I just want to know the judge who signed the warrant for the search. Is he an elected official or is he an appointed official? The magistrate judge is appointed by the district judges of the district in which he operates. This magistrate, Reinhardt or Reinman, whatever it was, was appointed to that position in 2018 by the district judges in the Southern District of Florida.

He was not ever elected. Alright folks, so here we go. We've got a minute left today. I'd like the documents out now. But we will review.

I think we've walked through what you can expect to learn, what you won't learn here. It should be out this afternoon. If they follow their own, there's no objection by President Trump. He's made that clear. 3pm was the deadline.

Eastern time. So those documents should be coming out. What I want you to do is stay active. Again, we'll keep answering questions.

It's not going to be done today. But again, I think what it's done is reactivate your grassroots activism. Remember, this is the same attorney general. He's got time to sue Idaho because they happen to put in pro-life rules after the Supreme Court said there is no right to an abortion. But they got sued. He got time to sue them. Time to go after Idaho. We had multiple states. Are they protecting you anymore?

All politics. And again, you've got to fight back. You're doing that. Go to ACLJ.org. Support our work. That's ACLJ.org. I'll talk to you next time.