Judge Sets Hearing on Unsealing Trump Raid Documents

Today on Sekulow, Judge sets a hearing on unsealing the Trump raid documents and the affidavit. What to expect, what could you see, and the likelihood of anything being released. We'll talk about that all today and more on Sekulow. Welcome to Sekulow. We're taking your phone calls right off the bat.

1-800-684-3110. Because we've had the judge, the magistrate judge, who should be recused, but is going to hold a hearing tomorrow. An actual hearing on unsealing the affidavit and some other documents related to the Mar-a-Lago search warrant materials, including the attachments to the documents. Now what's unique here is while President Trump has publicly said to release everything, for the filings right now it's interveners. So you have media outlets and outside groups asking for this document. So we're going to get into, especially the next segment of the broadcast, I'm breaking it down.

Again, setting expectations. What's a realistic expectation of a hearing like this, an outcome of a hearing like this, and what is not. And if you do get the chance that this does get released, what would you learn?

And how would it read? So I think getting you all educated about that before that hearing tomorrow. And if you want to give us a call, you've got questions about this. Again, we've been taking questions about this process because it's been helping people. Every time one of you asks a question and gets on the air, that's helping thousands of people probably have the exact same question or thinking the same thought. And just want a response to it to know if that's something they should continue to share or if they're sharing the right information.

So 1-800-684-3110 if you want to join us on air, that's 1-800-684-3110. We're getting into politics later too, of course. Everyone saw the trouncing of Liz Cheney, you can applaud that. I think anybody that turns like that against their party for their own gain, not necessarily political gain because you lost a seat, but to get this national profile. And of course, whether it's to become a liberal commentator or, and we'll talk about this later, a spoiler. It doesn't take a ton.

It doesn't take a lot. Now, you have to keep your momentum up to be a spoiler and you have to find some constituency. And if you're a Democrat, you still aren't a supporter of the Cheney's.

There's a bottom line for lots of reasons. There's a lot of Republicans too who didn't like the way those decisions were made about the Iraq war and issues like that. So what is your constituent base just because you're being praised for being on the January 6th committee?

I think 8 out of 10 of the people who, Republicans who voted for impeachment are gone now. So I mean that clear message, not just from President Trump, but from the actual voters in Wyoming. The people she's supposed to represent.

I mean, I think that's what the biggest takeaway is. She wasn't, and is not, by sitting on the January 6th screen, just like Kinzinger, is not representing their constituents. And their constituents are saying, hey, this is not what I elected you for. This is not who I elected.

So they're gone. The election process working, the primary process working the correct way to get rid of people who are not, you know, whether they yearn for the day of this Republican party. Oh, you mean when your dad was in charge of things.

That's what you wish it was like, but it's never going back to that. A lot of new people in the party, a lot of new, it's a lot broader party, and a lot of new ideas about how we should engage the world and how we shouldn't engage the world. They want resources, all those kind of issues. I think, again, it's not that she's, you know, she's somehow where the Republican party is. The Republican party left these people behind a long time ago.

There's only a couple left. They're both on that January 6th committee just trying to stir up trouble and make it all about Donald Trump. But keep in mind, yesterday's vote was as much about Liz Cheney, not representing her constituents. They didn't support impeachment. They didn't support the January 6th Partisan Committee. And they made that voice loud and clear. I mean, it was like 70, 30, somewhere in between there.

It was a trouncing, especially because it was an open primary and Democrats could get involved. But I want to take your question about this, the affidavit, the hearing tomorrow, 1-800-684-312. That's 1-800-684-3110. Support the work of the HCLJ at hclj.org. And I encourage you to share this broadcast with your friends and family. We're trying to educate you throughout all of these different steps. And your calls and questions help us through that process at 1-800-684-3110. Be part of the show.

All right, welcome back to Secula. We're going to take your phone calls to 1-800-684-3110 about this hearing tomorrow. I know everybody would like to see it.

I mean, it's good fodder. It would be interesting. But I think what we want to talk about right now is, one, what it would be written like, what you would be finding, and also who you would be giving kind of ammo to in this situation. So if you have a qualitative question about it, 1-800-684-3110.

Let me go to Andy Kahneman. So Andy, you've been through this process a number of times. You've got interveners here. But let's start off with the process of, likely or not, right there, going into this hearing, it's very unlikely that you win on these issues.

That's just the going way to start. This is an unprecedented situation, so it's not necessarily following normal playbook, and it involves a former President. So there's other issues at play. But in a normal case, this would be an uphill battle.

Jordan, you're absolutely correct. In the normal case, when the defendant, prior to trial, of course, the affidavit would have to be disclosed if charges were brought, and there was a trial. But where a person, or whether they are an intervener, or whether it's the actual subject of the search, in this case, President Trump, seeks to have the affidavit in support of the search warrant disclosed and unsealed, that it is very unlikely that that is going to happen. So those who are thinking that there's going to be a great revelation of the affidavit, and all the facts that the FBI agents swore to, and the identity of the confidential informant if there was one, and where the documents were, and where they were located, if you're rooting for that, you're going to be disappointed, because the likelihood is that the magistrate, who ought to recuse himself, is not going to disclose that detailed information today. And if the affidavit was released, just so people were prepped, let's say they got it, or some version of it, it's going to be very negative in the sense that it's going to be written in a sense of this is what crime we believe Donald Trump committed, or we'd find out if it was other people that they believe committed crime. So it's not just about the witnesses and that info that we want to keep down, but it's going to be written that way. They think that there was criminal conduct by these individuals, at least enough to get a search warrant and a raid on a residence.

That's exactly correct, Jordan. This is a non-adversarial proceeding. When you go in to get a search warrant, you don't have the other side with you telling the judge, don't grant the warrant, judge, there's no basis to do it. The only person that the judge hears from is the government, or in my case when I was with the government or with the state. And then we make it obviously as dark and black and terrible as we possibly can in terms of what the facts are, that how serious the crime is, and how important the documents are, and how they're going to be secreted and stolen and dissipated and squandered if you don't grant this judge. And so it's going to be a very dark picture painted by the government and not at all pleasing to the President or favorable to his side because he doesn't get to be heard. The only person who gets to speak at a search warrant application hearing is the government.

And it's going to, as I've heard the term used, cherry pick the worst of the worst to convince that judge that there's probable cause to believe that alleged crimes have been committed. Let's go ahead and take a call. We've got a lot of calls coming in. If you want to be on the air also, 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. Aaron's calling in California online. 1-Aaron, welcome to the broadcast. You're on the air.

Hey guys, thanks for taking my call. I wanted to make a point. Jay made a good point on a previous broadcast. He asked, why didn't the FBI and DOJ ask for a special master in this case? If they had found out that Trump had incriminating documents relating to the FISA warrants during Russiagate, et cetera, could the FBI and DOJ tie up those documents in a quote unquote ongoing investigation and therefore make them inadmissible in a criminal case if Trump wanted to bring that forward? Yes, I mean, and again, this goes to the, and I think Aaron gets to the point of a lot of people don't think that this has anything to do with basic, just classified documents. It's not really about the fight between the National Archives and the back and forth there and about what documents they want and what documents they shouldn't have. But because of the passports and because of just the broad nature of what has been described so far is that they were looking for other information.

I mean, I don't know how it would prevent them. I mean, again, because you're going with the US government here, so it's pretty heavily weighted. Everything procedurally fairly weighted in their favor right now at this part of because they have not brought criminal charges against individuals yet.

That's doing it kind of turns. There's more pressure on them to, you know, obviously make this case. It's not as tough of a case to get a search warrant. And what, like you said, what you put in the affidavit wasn't being tested in court.

The same way it would if you actually tried to bring charges against someone. So I think that's what you actually, what we're actually looking at here is does this have to do anything with actual archives or is this really about just what could we find about Donald Trump that we could use against him? Well, I think that's true, Jordan. This is not, I mean, the whole idea of there was a dispute between Trump and the archives as to what should be in the archives and what the President can keep, ex-President can keep in his house. I think it was just a ruse and just a fabrication in order to justify what was a political raid on a person that they're trying to kill off as a candidate for reelection to the office of President.

And it is heavily weighted in the government's favor here. Look at, they took his passport, passports, even though one was expired. How in the world can that be proof in any way of secretion of documents, of mutilation of documents, of violation of the Espionage Act, of doing anything that was the fact, the legal basis, presumably, for which they got the search warrant.

That shows, that belies the fact that this was just a general search and that they wanted to give a veneer of authority so they go to a very cooperative magistrate and they come out with what is really a general search warrant. Taking the President's passports, how ridiculous was that? What evidence is that of the commission of any crime cognizable against this former President?

None. Alright, you want to continue on with some calls or get some comments also? Comments are coming through on Rumble on YouTube. A lot of these comments are related to the elections that happened last night. We'll take some of those a little bit later, but there are some that come in specifically about this situation.

So this one came in from Joe on Rumble. He said the judge will, he thinks the judge will never release the affidavit. The judge signed off on the shady documents. It wouldn't be shame to how absurd their allegations are. Yeah, I mean, listen, it is, this judge under a lot of pressure because of the recusal issue. He recused himself from an earlier case involving Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and then didn't recuse himself for the search warrant. Now we're having the hearing- Under a microscope now.

Yeah, he's under, he's under a microscope every move he makes. That's why, again, expectation level. It's very tough to predict because this is unprecedented. If it was normal, like we laid out, it's uphill battle to get this released at this point. And if it gets released, I think it's safe to say there's going to be, it'd be likely like a redacted form. You're not going to get like everybody who's been a witness and everybody who's, people who've maybe turned inside Donald Trump's world as, so that kind of information is going to be taken out. We wouldn't get, I don't think we'd get that regardless of if there's anything released.

No, I think you're right, Jordan. If anything is released, it's going to be a piece of paper with black magic marker all over it, redacting everything that is juicy and good and interesting, and that would be helpful to the former President. The names of the CI would be redacted. The allegations of details with respect to the investigation would be redacted. You're going to get what we get when we do FOIA requests, a bunch of black pieces of paper with everything redacted. So don't expect some great revelation coming to the general public or to the former President out of this hearing today.

It's just not going to happen. Yeah, I think what, you know, and again, just expectation level, whatever they do release, and I, you know, I understand the President in favor, but I just want you to be prepared. If anything does get released, it's going to be nasty. It's going to be accusing him of a crime or other people around him of crimes.

Right off the bat, this is what they would use to arrest you. So it's not going to be like, oh, we tried to do this. It's going to be, as Annie said, as scary and as incriminating as possible, because this is their opportunity to do it without the pushback. Then you start putting in the pushback, and obviously everything changes.

But I just want to set your expectations. I know people, too, got rebel comments about Alaska, their voting system. We're going to get into all that a little later in the broadcast as we work away. So we're going to get into politics. The Wyoming vote, obviously, was very clear. Liz Cheney is gone as the congressional member, as the House member for Wyoming, but is she actually going to be gone from the political process? And again, don't write off these spoilers who are just angry at the world and what they could cause, the trouble they could cause. She's still causing trouble right now in the January 6th committee trying to make it look bipartisan with her friend Adam Kinzinger. He didn't even try to get in his primary.

He knew he was not going to win. So we've got basically half a year left to try to disrupt as many things as possible, plus what her future could hold. And look, she's already teasing it herself, and I think that's something that she said is a spoiler. We're going to break that down a little bit more, what that means and what that could look like. I got a lot of comments, including from my friends in Wyoming last night, saying the lines were insane to vote. People were excited to get out and have their voice heard. But what does that mean for the future?

What does that mean in two years? We're going to talk about that. You can get your calls or comments in right now.

There's a couple lines open, 1-800-684-3110. Also, if you're watching on social media, make sure you share this post, share it with your friends. We're live right now, and you can also put in your comments or your questions. We'll take some of those on the air as well. Support the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org. And hey, Jordan and I have a big, exciting announcement tomorrow.

Just a little tease for that. Alright, welcome back to Cinco. We're taking your phone calls to 1-800-684-3110. We're going to continue to take your calls on that affidavit, but I just wanted to walk through, get you up to speed. There's a lot of moving parts to this continuous story, and I don't want you to have bad information with the legal process.

But also, I don't say, like, if you were betting, and usually this would be a 9 out of 10 or more than that, probably 99% of the time, this gets denied. But this is not a normal case. We've already had, you know, the Justice Department releasing the list, the receipt list, and things like that. So, again, I don't think you expect, well, maybe expect the unexpected is a good way to say, with this work. But also understand, best case scenario, if you want these documents, you want to see these documents, how they would read and what you're not going to see. And what you're unlikely to see is the information that you really want, which is who are their informants, like where are they basing this info, how did they get from June to August. And in the two years in between that, what was so urgent here to, at this point, say, okay, after two years, we now need to go in with a search warrant, and we got to go in with a raid at six in the morning. We didn't need to go in on Friday when we got it, we didn't need to go in six months ago or 18 months ago, but today. And so I don't think we're going to learn that, because I think they would end up redacting it, even if there is a win here.

Expect the unexpected in this world, because it's not normal, it's unprecedented, it's never happened before in our history. So there's going to be some different pressure and weight, especially on a judge who is getting pressure and weight, he's a magistrate judge, too. They're not really used to being so forefront in the news, who's got issues about his former clients, issues about his decision to accuse himself once, issues about the decision to approve the search warrant. And now he's got the issue of should he release the document that he signed off on.

So that puts a lot more pressure on him if it's not a well-done affidavit. Now, remember, in those, it would be very specific. We'll take calls to get more of that information out. Let's go to David who's calling on Line 1. David's got a question I think a lot of people have in a statement. Go ahead.

Yeah, thanks for taking my call. We want the affidavit because every government proceeding against President Trump so far had either altered or made up evidence. And importantly, it would show or shed light if this was a fishing expedition or worse in the future, correct? Well, I think, listen, the affidavit itself, with all the redaction, if you got the full affidavit, you could probably figure that out. If it's heavily redacted, it might be tougher and it might actually just make President Trump look bad.

I mean, that's the truth. In fact, assume that's what they're trying to do, right? They don't want to make it easy for you to show this is a fishing expedition. What they have done unintentionally is taking things that were so unrelated to anything that they were saying they were really concerned about classified information and national security threats and like the passports. So they were in the closets and the things, the places that questionable about why they were there, why it took so long, why not so long, just two years to even get to this process.

That's a huge question. Because you think about the justice system in America, part of that, your constitutional rights, is the speed, is that you don't just have things, we don't hang over criminal investigations over your head. If they want to bring charges, they need to bring charges. But think about what, I mean, this President has been, this has been hanging over, something has been hanging over his head since becoming President of the United States and then after being President of the United States, it's never stopped. So, again, I think you assume the worst in all of this, you assume the FBI's bad faith, bad actors.

Why? Because as every caller has pointed out, they have a history with Donald Trump of getting caught altering evidence, getting caught lying to FISA courts. I mean, if you're willing to lie to the FISA court, you'll lie to a magistrate judge in South Florida. Yeah, and I think you bring up an interesting point and a lot of people want a lot of these things released and I think in their minds they're hoping that it clears the name. But you kind of speculated that no, if these things are released, it's not going to be what you hope it's going to be and actually it's probably going to be a lot worse than you think it's going to be whether it's accurate or not.

Yeah, no, that's true too. You're letting them create the narrative and so if I just ask you up front, folks, would you like the FBI releasing documents that they write on their own about how bad they think Donald Trump is right now and how much of a threat he is without anybody pushing back against him? Right, this is not a friendly group right now. What do you think CNN's headlines are going to be or MSNBC or mainstream media outlets, even your local news? It's going to be whatever the FBI said about Donald Trump and it was unchallenged in court, remember that. Like Andy kept saying, those are not adversarial proceedings so no one is there on the other side going that's wrong, that's not right, clear that out, take that out.

That person didn't know they weren't even there that day. None of that's happened yet because there haven't been charges filed. And so, again, I understand where President Trump is, just to get it all out there, at this point people have kind of made up their mind about him to some extent. But the media will try to use it, they're trying to spin, we know whatever elections come up, including the midterms, are going to be very close. They get one or two percent of people to question things that could shift the entire control of who's got the House, who's got the Senate. And ultimately, we all know how close they could get in these Presidential elections, which we're already in that, it feels like we're already in that cycle. Because even on the other side of the aisle, every day they're asking about Joe Biden running again. Well, and because last night we had midterms, midterm primaries, how often do you remember the news spending this much time on midterm primaries? Well, what they wanted was Donald Trump to back, well also to, yeah, they always would love that moment, but also they wanted his candidates to fail. Now they've gotten through the first test. Ninety-five percent of the people he endorsed won their primaries.

That's insane. To have that kind of number politically, but it just shows you where the Republican Party voters are. Does that mean all those candidates will win in the fall?

No. So there'll be a second test. First it was they wanted the candidates to fail in the primary to show Donald Trump isn't going to control the Republican Party.

Well, he is. Everybody who's involved in conservative politics could have told you that, but that's not who's on MSNBC or CNN, and that's not what they hope. They want him to fail at every point. Now they'll start saying, oh, these people can't. They're already attacking them for things they said 10 years ago, 15 years ago. Or they're going to pull anything. I think if it's one of his endorsed candidates, they're going to try to find stuff, or they're going to use people who lost, like a Liz Cheney or a Kissinger, to come up there and say, look where the Republican Party has gone. And that's what they kept saying over and over last night. I look at her, and she brings back her aging father, and that video was a little sad, and everybody's kind of like, what is she resurrecting? Nothing that anybody wants. Democrats don't want Cheney's to be involved in any politics.

Her money comes from oil and Halliburton, and there's a war in between. There's a lot of controversy. I get that's how they rebuild the former because they don't like the way this party has gone, but this is, you know, I want to get to Alaska. I don't want to do it in one minute, though.

The second half hour is coming up because I want to explain how that process is working. We were going through that today. It's one of those ranked-choice states. I think for those of you who, again, want to see Lisa Murkowski gone, this helps incumbents when there's multi-candidates. It makes it tougher to get rid of the Murkowski types. That being said, is Sarah Palin about to be sworn into Congress, like, in a few days, once they figure out this voting?

That's a possibility, too. So we'll walk through that, where that process is, when we come back, the second half hour of Sekulow coming up. We'll take your calls to 1-800-68-431 today. We'll take your calls. And what's the future of Liz Cheney? We're going to go over that. Made some pretty interesting statements, as we kind of teased earlier. May not be the last you see of her in her attempt to make sure Donald Trump is not, again, President of the United States.

Her words, not necessarily of ours. 1-800-68-431, 10 to have your voice heard on the air right now. 1-800-68-431, 10 second half hour coming up. If you don't get us on your local broadcaster, find a streaming light right now on all of our social media platforms, YouTube, Rumble. We'll be right back. I'm talking about freedom. I'm talking about freedom.

We will fight for the right to live in freedom. Keeping you informed and engaged. Now, more than ever, this is Sekulow. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. Hi, welcome back to Sekulow. So, I want to finish up the discussion and then move on to politics. So, Charlie and Wyoming, hang on, because Wyoming played a big role. We know how you call. We're going to talk. But I want to take Jon's call right off the bat in California. So, we know about there's a hearing tomorrow on unsealing the affidavit and some of the other documents related to the search warrant carried out of Mar-a-Lago.

It is unique even to get the actual argument in person, like an actual argument where you are going to have people on both sides. It is unlikely that these get released. If they do, they're usually heavily redacted.

And remember who authored them. It's not going to sound nice. So, it can give us more information and we can start building the info. Listen, we've already tied it. One of the senior FBI people is one of the people that was linked to this botched, fake kidnapping of the Michigan governor.

Then he keeps failing up, which is what happens when you show the FBI that you're politically motivated. They'll keep moving you up. But let me go to, let's go to Jon first. Glenn to wrap it up. Hey, Glenn.

Doing well. So, I read everything about the FISA courts. And if people remember, the DOJ and the FBI were working with the CIA at that time. So, my question is, how is it likely, is it now the DOJ and the FBI are working with the Secret Service that, so Trump has Secret Service agents. And he believes that they're there for security. My question is how likely it is, because they lied during the FISA courts with the Steele dossier and unverified information. So, are they doing the same thing now what they did to the FISA courts using government agencies? And my question would be this, are they using the CIA who are there as security for Trump and have Trump believe that they're there for security, but they're there as actual moles for the government that they're using?

I don't know, but that's what I've been saying. Yeah, I get what you're saying, Glenn, because there's already been reports that there might have been Secret Service agents involved. Listen, we've seen Secret Service agents over time turning on the right book. I mean, they're humans. And so, right, their job is to be above and beyond all politics and all concern. Their job is to protect the commander in chief, their families, and then even the post-presidency as well.

And that's normal. But we have seen Secret Service agents turn against Hillary Clinton. They certainly could turn against Donald Trump, and there were already reports about that.

I think that's different. Turning one agent is different than making up information, so that's a different step, or lying in a court document. I think what here doesn't make any sense is he has been out of office for almost two years. Why now is this urgent? Isn't this something that would have been urgent for six months at least, like you would have figured this out in six months or so?

And why the weird June start and then stop to it? So we will learn all this information over time. Especially, now, you would learn more information if they try to arrest him.

And when I say him, I mean the President of the United States, President Trump. Because then they have to put all this out. But I think that there's a huge question mark about, first of all, they get closer to the elections and that starts violating their own policies. They are one day away from violating their own policy on rating, even because he's involved in the political process, and it was 61 days from that process.

And at 60 days, they usually stop. And that's out from a primary. Then the general, you start looking at that, you're getting closer and closer to that as well. So 1868, 431, until we come back, we're getting to politics, Logan. More, especially about, we know Wyoming will play some Liz Cheney, we got some calls coming about that, but also Alaska, where we see Congress will have a payment soon.

Not have to wait until November for that, potentially. And what's happening there, why is it we don't know yet? And as well as Liz Cheney's threat to Donald Trump. Yeah, I mean, one of the top things right now trending on social media is the words, Ross Perot. And there is a reason for that. And whether that is Liz Cheney, whether that is Andrew Yang, there are people out there ready to disrupt. There are people out there ready to do some damage.

And like it or not, it could be a very interesting time of what the future may hold for these previously failed candidates, but what they could do to disrupt a future potential, even, let's just say future Republican President, not even specifically Donald Trump. Give us a call right now. 1-800-684-3110. We'll have some bites, we'll play stuff about it. We'll come right back. 1-800-684-3110.

All right, welcome back to Secular 1-800-684-3110. I want to take Charlie's call right now. Charlie's been hanging on in Wyoming. So Charlie, one, I want you to tell us, so I'm assuming you voted yesterday, maybe you voted early. What was it like yesterday when you voted in Wyoming?

Oh, it was really busy up here. I live in Cheyenne. I went to vote just to keep the Cheney's out. That was my own, you know, I think more of us need to stand up and get out there and vote against these evil doers. Trust America. And the thing is, Charlie, when you get beat 70, 30, or however it will finish out, 40, 30, 40 points, it is, you're a citizen of Wyoming, a Wyoming voter. She was not representing where the majority of people from Wyoming are politically, not just Republicans, but the entire state.

That's correct. And, you know, the minute I hear somebody bashing Donald Trump, you've lost my vote right off the bat. I don't want to hear you anymore. Donald's not even in the presidency seat right now. And I think I speak for hundreds of thousands of us across the United States. We're tired of the dirty politics.

The monkey shines. And every time they told me- This is why I think, too, everyone that hears Liz Cheney, it's specific to her, too. Maybe not as much kids as you. But people wanted her dad to go to jail for war crimes because he was the head of an oil company and started a war in Iraq and the oil company got involved in Iraq. And they would say this was blood for oil. Remember all of that? These are the same people. I think she forgets.

A short memory. And they'll use you for their politics. They'll use you to be the Ross Perot.

But that doesn't mean they're not going to dump on you at the end of the day. And ultimately, I think that's what you have to be concerned about is that Liz Cheney is no longer operating in reality. If you take a listen, when you get beat 70-30 for a House seat, you don't usually think my next move is going to be see how I do for the entire country. Since I can't even get my own constituents to reelect me.

Take a listen by 25. Are you considering running for President yourself? I will be doing whatever it takes to keep Donald Trump out of the Oval Office. That's a decision that I'm going to make in the coming months, Savannah.

I'm not going to make any announcements here this morning, but it is something that I'm thinking about and I'll make a decision in the coming months. So here's where it gets, though, you have to be realistic, too. You can dump on Liz Cheney all you want. I understand why. But it doesn't take a lot of votes. So you're saying, what is her profile? She protests votes to swing elections right now. She says her goal is to do whatever it takes to keep President Trump from seeking office once again, being reelected. And that is interesting because she's not even saying she's been very upfront.

I feel like it's saying, look, I know that there's almost no chance I'm going to win. She's not going to get a Democrat to vote for Liz Cheney. That's not going to happen unless somehow she's going to elect a Democrat, help elect a Democrat.

If she pulls this off in any kind of big way, which still remains to be seen. Yeah, but like you said, I mean, people have maybe don't even remember the Ross Perot situation, which is Ross Perot came in as an independent. George H.W. Bush was running at the time against Bill Clinton.

What happened? A very small, a larger percentage than people expected, voted for Ross Perot opposed to George H.W. Bush.

And what happened? You had Bill Clinton become President. If it wasn't for that few percent, whatever it was, the final number, it likely those would have been Republican voters and likely you would have had George H.W.

Bush reelected and you would not have had the Clintons in office. Yeah. And I think her statements, and this is why it obviously hasn't been fully thought out from her or whatever, never Trump or team she's a part of is Donald Trump is not MAGA.

He create this movement, right? But the other candidates, let's say he did decide not to run. Yeah.

Okay. The likely next candidate is a very Trumpian candidate. Is she going to be, because she can also talk about the Republican party that you need to take back the party. Because I don't think anybody, anybody who wins the primary, if you take Donald Trump out of it is somewhere in the MAGA world. If you look at who are the likely, let's say even top 10 right now, there are people who we've been affiliated with, people you've heard that are on those lists, those names that come up now is obviously no one has announced yet.

That is a bit of a concern. Like you said, because is this just going to be someone who comes in just like, look, you have the Andrew Yang situation right now. A lot of people who were ousted, he was ousted from being a Democrat. She's essentially being ousted from being a Republican. They're stuck in the middle. They're stuck in a weird spot where, you know, maybe they have more moderate views or maybe with Liz Cheney, she just specifically has a vendetta against President Trump. That puts them in a really odd spot.

And again, I had friends in Wyoming as well that said there, you know, there's no one that lives where they live. And it was packed to vote at six o'clock in the morning, you know, just to get in line to, to make, again, make a statement in a primary. That's what we're talking about. I mean, you look at someone like a Beto O'Rourke who's run for President before, or who wants to eventually run, who, who lost, but he lost in a very highly contested race at the time. He at least was the democratic nominee. That is not the situation with Liz Cheney. She gets destroyed in the primary because her own people say, this is not what we want.

We did not elect you to be this barter of truth and to become this big character. That's exactly what she is. And what my prediction is, is you'll have a few months of her on MSNBC, six months, maybe a year, making the rounds, maybe signing a deal, maybe even having a show. She said it on NBC this morning. Right.

And then you have her move specifically to running for President. Look at the scene they set last night. They knew they were going to get destroyed. They still had all of these people out there. They still had a beautiful camera shot. They still had Dick Cheney out there. They had everything set up.

Why specifically to set up the future? And you're right. You go, it's easy to laugh at. A lot of people were texting me saying, bye, bye, goodbye. Thank God it's over.

But you're right. The future is not very far away. And that could mean a lot of disruption if we can't do something about it before.

Yeah. Let me walk to Alaska for folks. So we got a lot of phone calls. So we'll get to your calls on all this on Cheney, on the DOJ. We'll get to everything.

But I do want to spend time on Alaska. What happened there? So one, let's focus on the Palin race. So you have a special election. Congressman Young passed away.

That's for a very short period of time, a few months. That election, we will have the results for soon. Now, the reason why we can't say yet who wins is that technically the Democrat is, wait, now you may scratch your head and say, how is that possible?

It's a ranked choice voting system. So you have the Democrat got 38% of the vote. Sarah Palin got 32% and the next Republican down 29.

So you then will move forward. And so the top two there, and you start to say, okay, who's your second choice? Likely, if you were a Palin voter, so she's the head of the other Republican, if it was normal, she would have been your second choice if not your first. So she should prevail if it wasn't like Democrats crossing over. But these are open primaries. Why does Alaska have this? Because we say it's a very conservative state. It's to protect Lisa Murkowski.

They changed party rules. Because it makes it a lot tougher to take out Lisa Murkowski because she might not be your first choice, but likely if she's one of only two or three Republicans running, gets to be your second choice maybe because you picked the name you know. So if your candidate has a win or even for Democrats, their second choice, and then it becomes much tougher for her Republican opponent who got the second most votes and only by a few percent.

So it's definitely not over. But when people say, why is it so tough to get rid of these people like Murkowski, they've put in voting systems that really protect incumbents. So that's not as much at play in the Palin race because that was an open seat. I would love to see Sarah Palin back in Washington. I've donated to her campaign because she was never in Washington, D.C. She ran for office, had the profile. I think that kind of leadership I think would be good too for a lot of the younger Republicans coming up who are very vocal. I think having someone like her who's been through it, personal attacks, politics, Presidential campaigns.

Yeah, it's good guidance too. And again, I think that most Republicans would welcome someone like that in Washington, D.C. And it looks like the Alaska voters, but that's why we don't know yet. They have to tally up those votes, tally up your second choice.

It's a goofier way. I think it's incumbent protection program because you go with people you've heard of at least on your second choice. How much am I going to be willing to say, you've got to have three candidates?

That's a lot to ask of people to put their votes. That is where it stands in Alaska. It looks like Sarah Palin will move on. This could move on like, they said it could be Monday swearing in once they figure it out.

As soon as they can schedule it, they'll swear you in. And then again, there will be another election, so people will be voting again in November and she'll be back on the ballot there. And of course, we'll watch the Murkowski see if there was anything unique. It just takes a lot of voter education to one, take on an incumbent. And then to say, not your first second, but also who's your third choice down so that if your first choice doesn't win, your second third, still not Murkowski. And again, I would like to see change there, but we tell you the truth on this broadcast. What's likely to see looks like Sarah Palin should be taking the oath of office pretty soon. But again, it's only a few percentage points that will depend on how people voted their second choice.

Murkowski, a little more difficult. Being honest doesn't mean it's over. 1-800-684-3110 to join us for the final segment of the broadcast.

That's right. We do have a couple more lines open. 1-800-684-3110. We have a lot of calls we're going to get to, so stay on hold if you're on hold right now.

And if you want to support the work of the ACLJ, go to ACLJ.org. And just like I said, big announcement coming tomorrow. On top of politics, DOJ, the hearing tomorrow, we're going to talk about this final segment of the broadcast. Yeah, a lot of people are calling in. Let's keep the conversation going a little bit about the election.

We'll go back and forth a little bit. Let's go Jack. Let's call in Ohio on line three.

Jack, you're on the air. Hey, thanks for taking the call. Two quick things. One is that no one's getting sworn in in Alaska anytime soon because this was just a primary. And it's a crazy primary because four candidates are going to go forward. And you can, in theory, have four Republicans or three Republicans and a Democrat. Right now it's at least two Republicans and one Democrat. And it's very possible because of this crazy jungle primary that no one, no Republican is going to get the congressional seat.

Some Democrat will take the whole thing because the Republicans are split. Okay, so just because I don't love this system either. I think it's kind of goofy.

It's not my favorite. I know there are pitches to me. It's a lot of states with smaller populations doing this. In the special election, still, the Republican votes get tallied and you're second choice. So the Democrat is kind of stalled out at 30-something percent. The Republican, if you're Palin, you've got another 20 percent to be. Or the other candidate, the other Republican candidate. I've already not spent time on him.

I just don't know a lot about him. But he's only a few points behind. If he's also people's second choice, they're going to put all those votes together. They will outweigh the Republicans. Same goes for in November.

I think the only places that gets goofy is that there's a ton of crossover. And I don't think we're going to see that. That's not usually the issue with ranked voting is that you get a party that you wouldn't want. It helps protect incumbents because it's tougher to get them out because they don't have to come in first. They can come in first and second and basically keep their seat. But in the Palin case, technically, in your view, it's not done because you have to go to the second votes.

So you've got to wrap your head around it. A special election and a primary. You're voting for the final three months of a congressional term and a primary, which is two different things. So if she was to win, it's very confusing.

They're both ranked choice. Even the primary is open. So it's not like a Republican-only primary. I think that's where it gets confusing to folks.

Understandably, because in most of our states, we don't have this. All right, let's move on. It's just such a mess. I apologize to the people of Alaska. Let's move on. Let's go to John who's calling in California. John, this kind of takes us back to our earlier topic, but I want to make sure you've been on hold for a long time. Then we get to you. John, welcome.

Okay, thank you for taking my call. Kash Patel was on Fox News, and he said publicly that he was there with Donald Trump when he declassified all those documents. So that should knock out all this talk that's going on about this and that on Trump. If he's declassified, he's innocent.

Here's why it doesn't knock out, though, because we're truth tellers. Rick Riddell's part of our team. He's talked about this, too. He did a lot of big declassifications. When he was acting director of national intelligence, Kash Patel was a deputy there for Rick. So he's involved in the national security division at DOJ.

He is very familiar with this, and I think he's telling the truth. That's never been tested in court. It is broad power that the President can declassify by going up on stage while they're President and reading it to you. They can read out whatever secret they wanted, and it's declassified.

Whether or not you can do that in front of your staff just hasn't been tested in court. So if you get a bunch of people that say, yeah, he declassified all this information, in court, are they going to be willing to try and make a distinction and say, you must have this process, even though that's not mandated by any laws? There are processes to go through to declassify if you're not the President, but the President can. It has broad declassification power. It hasn't been tested in court. It doesn't even mean that courts will necessarily want to get involved. Yeah, and it depends.

Obviously, you have a lot of people who don't like President Trump and can just say, well, no, he didn't. And then you have a whole back and forth that you're seeing from the Democrat strategists. We'll take that to court. Let's move on. Let's take a couple more calls. We wrap up. Lawrence calling on Line 5. Lawrence in Nebraska, you're on the air.

Thank you for taking my call. My question is, let's move down the road a little bit to 2024, February. Trump's in the office. He won the election. Can he come back on Pelosi for the two false charges she had for impeachment for the dossier? Liz Cheney for screaming on TV, acting like a total maniac. No, I mean, they can scream on TV. Pelosi was not the FBI bringing forth the dossier.

I do think it's like retribution. You're not really supposed to. This is not the way we're supposed to have politics in the United States. I think that the Democrats have opened up a dangerous new world.

That's where I'd leave that. I don't want to get too far to say, like, you're going to come in, you're going to indict, because I don't think that's how you should run. But that's certainly how they're running.

I mean, they have DAs. You got Letitia James of New York literally ran on, I'm going to go after Donald Trump. I don't have any special info on that. It's like when the people get asked to the street, he's a criminal, he's a criminal. What did he do that was criminal? The committees start looking very parliamentary. They'll start looking like the UK where people are yelling and screaming. But in an American way, which is a nastier way if you want to be, or a little more upfront. In America, we're litigious. We're litigious in this country. Because we're a much more fair and equal country than a lot of these European countries that made it more difficult for the common man, the normal person to just bring a lawsuit or challenge. We're a country that makes it very easy. You don't even have to have a lawyer. You can represent yourself in court. You don't have to go through barristers and solicitors. So much so, though, that they have that kind of pressure where Boris Johnson is gone.

I don't even really know who's currently the... Even though they were investigating him for this. But it's a crazy system to where that is a different way to do politics, but starts becoming this almost what becomes a show. And it becomes less of a, you know, whether it was Brexit, whether that was Boris, it becomes this way. And I feel like we've taken some of the elements of that, maybe the worst elements of that, and then incorporated that into our own Congress and Senate and all the hearings.

And it becomes this showpiece, which could lead to more destruction because we're not used to this as a nation. Like you said, American politics wasn't like... It was always nasty. I think we are under some false hope that it wasn't nasty. It's been nasty since the pretty much founder of the country.

It's always like this, but it is a bit different now to see these kind of things happen within Capitol Hill. Let's go to Robin in New York. It'll be our last call of the day. Robin, you're on the air. Good afternoon.

Thank you for taking my call. I'm a former police officer, long retired. It seems to me that, at least on the federal level, there seems to be the division between and boundaries between law enforcement, prosecution, and the judiciary. It seems to be being erased, and it's almost like it's becoming its own branch of government.

Do you see this as happening? The deep state. This is what we're talking about, the bureaucratic state that has become, in itself, the government. And then you elect politicians, and they come in.

As long as you play their game, they'll let you do what you want. But suddenly, you start questioning them, and you've got Jim Comey leaking documents. You get a special counsel. You get two impeachments.

You get your house raided. Yes, they've entrenched themselves as their own government entity. And it's like the politicians.

Remember Chuck Schumer's statement? Don't you take on the CIA. Don't even question the CIA or FBI. They'll take you out. That is not American.

It's not right. But we also have to deal with reality. It is a reality that they're so entrenched in Washington and throughout the federal government. We just gave them 87,000 new employees to hire just at the IRS. Imagine that. 87,000 new officials to come after you. So they're just getting bigger and bigger, which makes it more urgent to have bold leaders willing to take them on.

But look at the price you must pay to take on the entrenched bureaucracy. Support the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org. Throughout this week, I think getting all this information to you, helping you out throughout this process so you have the right info. ACLJ.org. Donate today. We'll talk to you tomorrow.