Share This Episode
Sekulow Radio Show Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow Logo

BREAKING: Judge Could Unseal PARTS of Trump Raid Affidavit

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
The Truth Network Radio
August 19, 2022 1:16 pm

BREAKING: Judge Could Unseal PARTS of Trump Raid Affidavit

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 1023 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.


August 19, 2022 1:16 pm

In a very interesting development, a federal judge in Florida is considering unsealing portions of the affidavit used to justify the raid on President Trump's Mar-a-Lago home. Jay, Logan, and the Sekulow team provide their insights on the latest developments on the infamous Mar-a-Lago raid and what to expect to happen next. This and more today on Sekulow.

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
CBS Sunday Morning
Jane Pauley
Sekulow Radio Show
Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
The Todd Starnes Show
Todd Starnes
Sekulow Radio Show
Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow

This is Jay Sekulow. We've got breaking news.

Judge Reinhard could unseal parts of the Trump raid affidavit within the week. Keeping you informed and engaged. Now more than ever, this is Sekulow. We want to hear from you.

Share and post your comments or call 1-800-684-3110. And now your host, Jay Sekulow. Hey everybody. Very interesting development in the hearing yesterday. The Department of Justice fought aggressively to not have any portion of the affidavit that accompanies the search warrant release.

Now for those that don't know, let me explain to you a little bit about what happens here. So when you file for a search warrant, it's required to have an affidavit signed usually by the FBI agents, sometimes by the judges, by the FBI agents and it lays out the predicates as to what happened and what the basis of the criminal conduct would be. Because remember, to get a search warrant you have to have an actual probable cause that a crime has been committed. Now what is so fascinating about this in this particular case is that the Department of Justice did not want it released but as is typical in high profile cases, media groups came in aggressively saying we want to know what's in that affidavit. President Trump's team publicly said they wanted the affidavit in full release but yet they did not file anything in court. In fact, as of today, at least right now, Team Trump, the lawyers for Team Trump have not filed any affidavit, any motions with this court which is unprecedented.

Now the judge said that he thought initially that the government has not met its burden of showing that the entire affidavit should remain under seal. He ordered that by noon on next Thursday the government file under seal its proposed redactions along with a legal memorandum setting forth the redactions why they're justified. So he's at least indicating that portions of the documents of the affidavit will actually be released.

So Logan, this is a major major development if in fact he follows through with this and it does happen. Yeah I think a lot of people are interested in what's in there. We've kind of told people yesterday and the day before that that don't expect this to be some sort of exoneration document. It may feel a little bit hyperbolic. They may have these extreme words because they kind of have to have that to be able to get these search warrants to be able to do these things. So don't go in there thinking it's going to be some oh they unseal it they release it and you're pleased with it. It's going to be upsetting if you're a supporter of President Trump.

However we also know it can get a little hyperbolic it could be a letter string but we at least will know something. Now them saying it has to be wrong to justify this and when you start throwing it it is a bit of a the playbook when they start using words like redacted and partial. We know that so well.

Because when they start doing that it undercuts the entire purpose of doing this. So you're already giving President Trump and his team the ammo to say well you didn't release the whole thing like we asked you to do. So it's very interesting to see this all play out. I'm sure a lot of you have questions or comments about this. I'd love to take your calls. We'd love to take as many calls as we can today.

So if you'd like to be on the air this is a great time to call and get online it's 1-800-684-3110 that's 1-800-684-3110 to be on the air. Let me tell you this I think this is important for people to understand that when you talk about the justification for a search warrant on the former President of the United States property this should be a well-developed investigation. But instead and this is another one of these things that are so nonsensical instead the government said that they are quote in the early stages of this investigation. If they're in the early stages of the investigation supposedly that this happened the warrant sat on the application for the warrant sat on the desk of Merrick Garland for weeks.

So all this urgency that they supposedly had obviously didn't exist. We're going to get into all of this and what it means. We're going to take your calls at 1-800-684-3110 but it's a fascinating development as to what's taking place here. But I do want to hear from our audience a good Friday way to respond to people let them know what's going on. There's even a comment already from Ian on Facebook that kind of reiterates what I said said if they don't release everything it will just feel like another sham. Again giving people the commentary already by saying we're going to release part of it and it's redacted. So give us a call I'd love to hear your thoughts 1-800-684-3110 that's 1-800-684-3110. Support the work of the ACLJ over at ACLJ.org right now we're in the middle of a matching challenge we could use your support we'll be right back.

Hey everybody welcome back we're taking your calls 800-684-3110 Harry Hutchinson our Director of Policy has joined us as well on this. It's a fascinating thing that the court is now considering releasing the portions of the affidavit albeit redacted. It's not going to paint a pretty picture I don't think we should be giving you any kind of expectation go ahead. People want to see it fully released they want to know what's in it but don't go in this because you've heard people from President Trump's team or President Trump saying release it fully release it that doesn't mean when you fully release it that you're going to necessarily feel good about what it said. Yeah and it's also interesting that he said fully release it fully release it and then never filed in court a motion saying we want this release but they haven't filed a motion to suppress it maybe that's coming today but my goodness it's been a week.

Harry what's your view on it so far? Well my view is that the government has not made its case with respect to public opinion but nonetheless the FBI has engaged in a pattern and this pattern certainly is consistent with past practice at the FBI of releasing selective information to media outfits and so what we have is a pattern by the FBI of selective leaking and that I think is consistent with the practice that they've engaged in going back to 2016. Basically the FBI has already in my view convicted the President and they now want to make want to make sure that that is justified in court.

No I think that I think you're right and I also think that if there is in fact a even a partial what they call it you know in this case it would be redacted version of the affidavit it's not going to bode well it's not going to make the President look good that's for sure there had to be enough in there to allege a crime so obviously they did that. We've got calls coming in we're going to I want to take calls today because it's Friday good day for us to answer any questions you might have as these proceedings are going on so I'll encourage you to call us at 1-800-684-3110. All right you want to take your phone call? Let's go to Tom in DC on line two. Tom you're on the air. Hey Tom.

Appreciate you taking my call very kind of you. I just have one quick question for Jay and the panel there. Why did they take his passports when I say his I guess they took Melania's as well and why were they going through her personal closet? I mean did they really think files were in her closet? They knew where the files were so I mean it really sounds.

The affidavit Tom is very broad there's no question about it because it doesn't just say these particular documents things things in the vicinity of them. Going into the former first lady's closet I thought that was really a significant overreach. On the passport issue boy you know you if the FBI thought he was a flight risk I guess they could but that takes a court order you can't do a passport confiscation unless it's in the search warrant. Now they returned them within days because they realized whoops we shouldn't have had this but that was with supposedly a tank team on the premises. Were they just grabbing boxes and just it happened to be in there? I mean it happened to me that's a weird place to store your passport though it's a odd situation.

I feel like there has to be some intention going in. Yeah but they also took the one they took one that expired one that was his regular citizen's passport but they also took his diplomatic passport which I thought was highly well I thought the whole thing is highly unusual it's to me Harriet still we're in the early stages of the investigation so let's go and raid the President former President's house doesn't seem to be the normal way these things would be handled. I think that is correct but it's also important to keep in mind that the FBI at least in recent years excuse me has almost always overreached. Listeners should be wary of the fact that the FBI has an inherent commitment at least in my judgment of spreading misinformation and bringing cases that are not fully thought out. We have simultaneously with the raid on the President a trial going on in Grand Rapids, Michigan involving the governor of the state of Michigan an alleged kidnapping plot and it turns out that the perpetrators of the plot were primarily FBI informants and we have clear and unmistakable evidence on the record that the FBI essentially entrapped the defendants in that particular case and I needn't list all of the other activities that the FBI has engaged in from Crossfire Hurricane to Carter Page who was essentially arrested under a FISA warrant. That was submitted by an FBI lawyer who doctored an email to get the warrant.

Absolutely and so when Christopher Wray issues a plea to the American people and says that he is outraged that they don't trust the FBI I believe the American people are fully justified in not trusting an agency until that agency can prove that it ought to be trusted. It's interesting Anne on Facebook had an interesting comment Logan that she put in and I would like to give it some context. Yeah we talked about this comment and Facebook said if they don't release everything it will just feel like another sham. And this is the thing and they get to selectively redact so they can make this thing much more onerous than it is.

I'm sure it's not good to begin with. William our friend Andy McCarthy who is former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York who's been on this program before been in some of our films as well he had a very interesting take on this take a listen. What the government notoriously does is they selectively leak what you would like to hear or what they would like you to hear rather you know their their sort of spin on things and that could be offensive to the court the court may just decide that you know if they're going to play that game we might as well get everything out there rather than just a you know a trial by selective leak. I think the court order was surprising Logan to the Department of Justice here they went in and got I mean you've got to think of the history they went in and obtained a search warrant from this magistrate judge who had recused himself from a case involving President Trump and Secretary Clinton. He recused himself on his own motion but then he didn't recuse himself when it came to signing an arrest warrant excuse me a search warrant aimed at Mar-a-Lago the President's location to get these documents.

So that's you know pretty that's issue number one. Number two which is also interesting to me President Trump's lawyers at this point have not filed anything they haven't filed a motion to quash they haven't filed a motion for the judge to be disqualified or recused. Let me break down what all that means for people who are listening right now because so publicly President Trump has said on Truth Social and other outlets and his team has said hey release these documents but formally. They haven't gone to court and said hey we want this unsealed.

How does that work? They would file a motion with the court or join in in these proceedings that just took place yesterday and say we would like these we agreed that these should be released. Now I think what's interesting here is there's a couple things that should have happened. One is a motion to recuse the judge should have been made at the outset because of his conflict he had the Facebook post where bias against Trump then he had he recused himself in the civil case involving Trump and Clinton. Secondly motion quash because of the bias you should quash the subpoena and then file a motion to expunge the evidence so that it cannot be used against you in a court of law at the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. So all of that would have been in place and then you would have been in court whoever the judge would have been on this motion now because still would have been made by the media sources area and you would have gone to court and said either you wanted it released or you didn't. I'm not so sure I'd want it released if I was the President's defense counsel but defense lawyers think about it differently. I think that is correct and I think your analysis is spot on from a legal perspective and I think clearly many observers are wondering why the President's attorneys haven't been a bit more proactive in this particular case particularly if they want the full affidavit released.

Now putting aside the issue of whether or not this particular judge should recuse himself and I think the evidence on that question is clear and unmistakable he should. If we put that aside I actually think that the President's case is stronger if his lawyers don't intervene before this judge because the media has already received selective leaks from the FBI and I think it will be easier for this particular judge to agree with media representatives as opposed to the President. Also if I was representing the President I'm not sure I'd want that information released anyways at this point. There have been, it's very important to warn this Logan, there's been no charges. No charges have been leveled against the President but this was a very bold and a very aggressive move that was made on the President here. Yeah and Senator Mike Lee was on Fox Business earlier this week or just yesterday he kind of said similar things take a listen.

In this moment we're in uncharted territory because normally you don't have a search warrant released prior to indictment and you certainly don't have the warrant together with the supporting affidavit released but then again we left ordinary a long time ago because ordinarily you don't see a former President of the United States or a possible future President of the United States and Donald Trump is both being subjected to this kind of raid. Mike Lee's right. I mean first of all Mike Lee's a very good lawyer.

His father was a former Solicitor General in the United States Rex Lee. I worked with his father on a case and I'll tell you this I mean this is you are in uncharted territory and that's why taking your calls is important. We want this program today to be and already has been very interactive with you so if you've got questions or comments we want you to call us at 1-800-684-3110 and we sure want you supporting the work of the ACLJ. We're able to give you this kind of analysis this legal work that we're doing here in the United States and around the globe because of your support of the ACLJ.

That's right you can do that right now at ACLJ.org it's very simple you go to ACLJ.org click the donate button again all donations right now during this month are matched. And then you've got a big announcement you made yesterday with the new secular brothers podcast. Yes we have a brand new podcast launching my brother and I on the Salem podcast network it'll be available in September but you can subscribe already on all your favorite podcast players or at secularbrothers.com. Welcome back to secular continuing on we do have a lot of calls coming in right now if you're on hold stay on hold and give us a call at 1-800-684-3110.

It's a good day for open up. You want to go ahead and start with calls let's go to Stephanie in Virginia on line three. Stephanie you're on the air. Hi Stephanie.

Hi Jay thank you for taking my call. I've been watching and watching and watching and I saw the congressional oversight committee take questions from reporters. I don't know the ratio of democrats and republicans but why if Merrick Garland thinks releasing or unsealing the affidavit would compromise his investigation why doesn't he release it? The oversight committee they all have top secret clearances we don't have to know what's in it they can just tell us was this testified? Well first of all that committee is controlled by understand that committee is not controlled by republicans at all it's controlled by democrats. The January 6 committee only has two republicans on it so depends on the committee. There are oversights committees that do have clearance but let me tell you the leak capacity and capability out of the out of a house committee you can almost guarantee it.

I won't say 100 percent but I'd give it a good 95 percent it would leak so sending it to another agency does not solve this issue here and the and congress is already concerned about what's happening at the FBI. We're taking your calls on all these topics by the way at 800-684-3110 but there's already concern Chuck Grassley and others are already concerned about this Wes. Yeah what we're witnessing Jay is a crisis of confidence in our government by the American people and a lot of it involves the FBI and the department of justice and you've gone through part of the litany of misdeeds and corruption that's been going on for the last several years with the FBI and the DOJ but it's even in a larger sense this distrust of the government which is a very serious political issue for the American people is even larger than this. You look at the department of homeland security all that's going on in the border you look at the IRS and we've been involved directly with them and now they're going to double the number of special agents that they have. You look at the FBI the DOJ there is a crisis of confidence the American people are disillusioned and what's going on in Mar-a-Lago has only increased that disillusionment. They're distrustful of their own government and this is a very serious issue and and it appears the Biden administration is not concerned about it at all. Yeah it's so interesting to me that they said that this is in the early stages of investigation yet they went immediately to to execute a search warrant on the former President's personal residence. That's normally not how that's done but and Merrick Garland said that but the politics of this are for real we'll see what happens in the hours and days ahead I mean we could see some of this coming out next week but again like you said Logan though I don't think people either think this is going to look good for the President former President it's not. Right don't look at this as though they're calling for the release of it. That that's some great result.

When you release it it's going to exonerate anybody it's just not how it works clearly they had to have put something in there bad enough to feel like justifiable whether you agree with it or you disagree with it or its validity it's still going to be in there and that's the question if that even gets that point gets released with the fact that it's going to be at least partially and they can redact it to make it even look worse. Yeah let's go ahead and take a call. All right we'll continue on Mary Allen's call in Illinois you're on the air.

Hi Mary Allen. Hey good morning I just saw on that President Trump had posted the memorandum on declassification of certain materials related to FBI's crossfire hurricane investigation it was dated January 19, 2021. What does that mean in this regard? Well here's an interesting it's a very interesting legal question and that is the President under the commander-in-chief clause has the right to declassify and that's really you know some lawyers have said I don't really you know some commentators I'm not sure but under the commander-in-chief clause he has the right to declassify information. So one of the defenses may be here hey this information that you're saying I had that was classified I had already declassified it but there's a process usually that goes into place and Wes you had security clearance right and understood how you had to handle classified documents. Right you and I both have security clearances and the President can indeed on the spot say I'm going to share something with you it's classified but he has the right to declassify it in that moment but there is not blanket declassification you can't produce a memo that says anything that I want to going forward is now declassified. The argument the counter-argument to that though of course is the President's commander-in-chief actually could do that well it's not the process that's in place but is there anything constitutionally that says I mean I don't think it's necessarily a good practice obviously but is there anything constitutionally that says the President can't?

It's just not good practice you know. That practice is different than constitutionality. Exactly the constitution it probably could be litigated and we'd find out but normally you declassify information document by document piece of information by information there is a process for that and that's generally the process that's followed but you're right Jake constitutionally it's it's not clear. Well the commander-in-chief laws of the constitution to me Harry gives the President and that's President Bush had an order in 2003 that basically said he or the vice President could declassify anything Barack Obama modified it but kept it in place after that so this is not in one sense this is not uncharted territory.

I think you're right I think if you read the constitution carefully the President of the United States has blanket authority to declassify he is the executive and so if you read that carefully then I think the President may indeed have an argument however we should also keep in mind that his declassification authority may indeed be separate from his authority to possess certain documents and that may also be in play with respect to this particular case so yes maybe the documents were indeed declassified but there still may be a case to be made albeit probably a very tenuous one that he may have lacked the right to possess those documents. Yeah this I mean this is raising let's can we want to try to grab one more question do we have time Logan? Yeah we can do that let's go you want to go to Michael from California line one you're on the air. Hi Michael. Hi thank you for taking my call. I remember you recently saying Jay that that why didn't the lawyers we have the judge dismissed from the case because of the previous case and and I'm but for me regardless of what happens they didn't do this to Hillary Clinton they didn't know no they didn't but but here there's been a lawyers have to react to the circumstances and facts that they're dealing with so for bill for Hillary Clinton they didn't have to deal with this fact because nobody exercised a search warrant or residence what happened here was they did so when you that's the facts you're dealing with so saying you didn't do it to Hillary Clinton is a good political statement but it's not a good legal argument the legal argument is judge you you were biased you said that in the Trump versus Clinton case you accused yourself on your own motion you should have recused yourself from executing and signing and authorizing the search warrant then so I had to file a motion to recuse I would have followed that up with immediately with a motion to exclude evidence and that is to return the evidence because under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine in other words you get fruit but the tree was poisoned first place the evidence is poison too and I would have I would move for that that's the two motions I would have filed here I don't know if I would have filed to unseal the affidavit probably not but you know the lawyers that are handling it know more about what the individual case is than I do but I I would I would have moved for recusal immediately and I would have moved to excluded that evidence in a nanosecond literally you know I would have been pounding the table immediately especially on the recusal hey if you have any questions or comments anymore we have a few people on hold we're gonna be taking more in the second half hour that's at 1-800-684-3110 support the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org we are part of a matching challenge right now and hey if you don't get the second half hour on a lot of local stations many don't carry the full hour we are live right now for another half hour you can find that broadcasting on ACLJ.org on YouTube on rumble on Facebook we are on all those platforms right now live for an additional half hour so again some stations don't carry the full hour if you're listening on Terrestrial Radio you can tune in online right now or download the ACLJ app broadcasting live on all of those platforms for an additional half hour so stay tuned give us a call again 1-800-684-3110 two lines open this is the perfect time to do it and we'll be right back with more with the second half hour of secular at the American Center for Law and Justice we're engaged in critical issues at home and abroad for a limited time you can participate in the ACLJ's matching challenge for every dollar you donate it will be matched a ten dollar gift becomes twenty dollars a fifty dollar gift becomes one hundred 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 keeping you informed and engaged now more than ever this is secular and now your host Jay Sekulow everybody welcome back to the broadcast if you just missed the first half hour we are taking a lot of calls today figure it's the end of the week you've been hearing about this raid of the former President's uh house at Mar-a-Lago for almost a week and a half two weeks now we want to be able to and a lot of people have been calling with questions here are the issues you've got judge yesterday says he's inclined to release part of the affidavit that's very unusual prior to an indictment being unsealed so that's an unusual move he said that the government didn't show enough of a burden that some of it could not be released and President trump's team did not file in the case so while they've said publicly they would like to see this information public they did not file asking it to be public that was media organizations did that so far no motion to recuse this judge has been filed i would have done that immediately to be blunt and i would have moved to suppress the evidence because of the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine as i just said so that gives you an up-to-date on the legal status the judge said by next thursday the government has to respond with the redacted copy of the affidavit so we'll see what happens obviously next week's gonna be a big week we are taking your phone calls on any of these topics any questions you have about the process i want to be able to answer those for you today one eight hundred six eight four thirty one ten eight hundred six eight four three one one zero let's go to warren in idaho on line three hi warren welcome the broadcaster on the air hey thanks guys for taking my call my thought is and i've talked to several people our concern is with everything with the doj and what they did at mar-a-lago you guys talked about it the other day was the attorney client confidentiality documents they grabbed what does that entail for like private citizens if they can just come in and grab stuff that they have no right to see with their supposedly uh filter team yeah well okay so explain the filter team is when they go in sometimes they grab documents and send it to a filter team so that if it's attorney client privilege a separate group of fbi agents reviews it and they make that determination here that's not what happened supposedly there was a filter team or a taint team on site but yet even though they were on site harry they picked up the President's uh passports including his diplomatic passport and acknowledged now that there was in fact attorney client material so we know at least two sets of fbiis have been on these documents the agents that initially conducted the search and the so-called taint team and that's where i the third motion i'd be making would be being a motion for a special master to review these documents that has not been done as of yet either but the attorney client privilege it was the governor who said oh there are attorney client privilege documents here i think that's precisely correct so i think it's important to get to get two things uh clear number one the fbi in these types of cases has always demonstrated its capacity to be incompetent and so in this particular case we have two sets of fbi agents two teams who apparently were incompetent with respect to passports which should have been excluded number one number two attorney client privilege documents also should have been excluded nonetheless the fbi uh took possession and so what the fbi is asking the american people to do is to trust us um but i would argue we should not trust the fbi given their past history um and i think uh i would second everything you've said about uh taking action um sooner on the part of the press congress has also expressed concern about this you've reviewed the material with jobs right he has sent a letter four times to christopher ray about uh corruption and bias uh in the fbi and he's gotten one phone call he's gotten one phone call from him you know one example of that that grassy mentioned was the fbi agent in michigan who actually you know got together this this uh deal to kidnap the governor but it turns out they entrapped the men in it was an fbi operation that agent the special agent charge was promoted and sent to the washington dc office promoted there you go all right folks we're going to take your phone calls at 1-800-684-3110 this is a great time to ask any questions about the situation with the former President in this investigation we've got one or two lines open 1-800-684-3110 john solomon is joining us on the next segment investigative reporter good friend of our program good friend of mine 1-800-684-3110 also support the work of the aclj big day in california on the life issue we're front and center on that we've already filed our our legal comments with the california authorities it's going to be tough because it's california but you gotta lay a market down folks that's why the matching challenge is so important any amount you donate we get a matching gift for aclj.org everybody welcome back to the broadcast we're taking your calls at 800-684-3110 1-800-684-3110 just the news President the ceo is with us john solomon a good friend of ours full disclosure i've represented john in legal matters before and i'm always available to give john legal advice and he gives me good information and john i want to get you and i've been talking a lot the last few days i've given my assessment of kind of where things are right now which you know it's unusual that you get a judge that's going to maybe issue a redacted version of this affidavit but then the government's saying we're in the beginning stages of it and yet in the beginning stages of it they went and raided the President former President's house but what what's your what are you hearing what's your analysis so far i listen i think you hit it on the head with that description think about this the government's current position is at the beginning of an investigation where they don't have a lot of uh clarity where they're headed they already decided they were going to raid a former President's home that is shocking and i think another thing they said in their motions they jumped out as you know we've been told this is all about records records dispute or classified records and Presidential records but then they made a reference that if we have to release this um affidavit we're going to jeopardize other ongoing investigations so wait are there other things that we don't know about and was that search actually about those other investigations as i dig deeper start talking to law enforcement there's a growing feeling that maybe this very broad search warrant uh which was you know uh pitched as a a look for President Presidential records may have had some other motives looking for some other evidence that could benefit a case like january 6 or uh alternate lectures i think that's what we're going to find out yeah i mean once you get in there you know i've talked about this once you get in there you you know a lot of mischief can happen a lot of you get information and may need to another quote alleged crime now to be clear to get a search warrant you have to have be able to establish to a judge here a judge that should have recused himself a probable cause that a crime has been committed and i i still can't figure out john you and i talked about this last night i still can't maybe it'll happen today or tomorrow or monday but i still can't figure out why no one has moved to recuse this judge who recused himself from a civil case involving the former President and the former secretary of state had facebook postings that were hostile to the President and yet signs the search warrant and i would have said gee you know what that judge is out suppress the evidence would be the next motion and and that's how i would do it and that's not what's been done so far maybe we'll learn because there may be a strategy that i'm not thinking of here of why that hasn't been done i still don't get that john yeah listen a lot of legal experts i've talked to agree with you a hundred percent it seems like the President seems a little slow on this there may be some things that we don't know about involving privilege or other things but i'm hearing that in the next few days that we might see that strike come the first strike if i had to guess what they do i think they go they leapfrog the magistrate go to a senior go to the u.s district court uh senior judge ask for a judge to be appointed and then ask for a special master to say you know what i don't trust the fbi to be going through documents that they now admit with privilege my passports that they had that they shouldn't have taken i want a professional independent person deciding what the fbi can and can't look at from the search warrant raid and i think that that's probably what we're going to see the special master and i've had experience with this allows the fbi not to be in control of the documents and the release of the documents and i think that fundamentally is a question we're getting a lot of calls john that are coming in and some of these i think would be really good for you let's go to line five louis is calling from colorado our phone lines are jammed right now but they're going to open up at 1-800-684-3110 louis go ahead you're on the air thank you for taking my call you know this reminds me of what komi did uh by sending those two agents in the early days of trump's administration uh because he he laughed about it and said yeah because i can get away with it and and i think these people believe they can get away with this and just have no uh penalty to pay uh because of what they did look i think i think louis i think look i mean james komi bragged about that was the first days of the trump administration we went in we got in to say to see flinn normally we'd have to get clearance from the white house council we didn't do it because they were disorganized here you got it that john is kind of the flipside i want to get harriet and west comment on this and it's the flip side they're saying well we're early in the investigation but we're going to go into the President's personal residence it's it's stunning and you know there's a new poll log today that shows that trust in the fbi is on an all-time low i think that's one of the long-term dangers the more we're going to get the long-term dangers the more the fbi overreaches the more the fbi ends up having to reverse itself in cases the more the american public lacks trust in an agency that's really important to our security this is a national crisis i think coming a lack of trust in one of our most important agencies harry well i i agree i i think one of the big issues is the the range and reach of the deep state so one of the fundamental questions i think in this particular case is did the fbi lie about the purpose of the raid and so john have you heard anything about that you know what it's really unclear what the purpose is right and and i think when you hear these offhand remarks that occurred in connection with this hearing yesterday and they're talking about it's really early that doesn't sound like it doesn't sound like a very clear case there's other cases that this might be impacting wait a second we thought this was a single case i don't know i i had a great opportunity to talk to um one of the great fbi executives of the past kevin brock former intelligency for the fbi worked for bob muller and he said he's never seen a search warrant written this broadly it basically says any document between january 2017 it could be seized the fbi manual always says you should be as narrow as possible he believes that this search warrant wants challenge if the President were to challenge it will be struck down as overly broad and as a fishing expedition and that's a former g-man a guy who believes in the fbi supports it he has grave concerns how broad of course to do that you actually have to file a motion to quash the subpoena which thus far has not materialized you know me john i would have been pounding that table that night i would have found a federal judge that would have heard me that night and said this is absurd this judge should have recused himself this magistrate judge he shouldn't have been part or parcel of this let's go to bob in michigan on line six hi bob welcome the broadcaster on the air well thank you for taking my call um i thought that the government's argument in keeping the affidavit sealed was that to reveal any part of it would be to reveal all of it yeah and so if the judge allows any part of it to be revealed other than the name of an agent undercover why not um let all of it be revealed because here's here's what they're really saying right john they're saying that you can't release this information at all that's what the government's position is because it might impact john other investigations yeah i think that's right and by the way if it wasn't the President they'd still be making that argument actually that argument made every time the search warrant affidavit is challenged in court that's the position they take the default position i'm not it'll be interesting to see i was surprised the judge was as open to doing this as he was yeah and i we don't know his motive but it's a very interesting uh take for a judge to do that almost always these things get rejected yeah i'm taking your phone calls at 1-800-684-3110 800-684-3110 wes you were talking we talked john was talking about the distrust of the fbi you've got members of congress distrusting the fbi right now including charles grassley oh yeah yeah and you've got i think a majority of the american people even those who are not republicans and not trump supporters who are questioning you know whether or not you can trust uh the the nation's premier law enforcement agency john i appreciate your reporting because this is just a really really bad look because it looks like the administration is using a government bureaucracy to target a political opponent and and that's just a bad luck a bad look writ large don't you think i do and here's the other thing i don't think it's going to hold up long term i don't think we're going to see uh i think we're going to see evidence that the white house the biden white house was somehow involved in the origins or early discussions of this criminal case that's going to shake everybody's confidence even more in the fbi what is the white house doing in this i'm hearing more and more evidence about that that's a quite early on the white house that we knew nothing about this it'll be interesting to see if that story holds up i'm starting to get i'm starting to get something clean that it won't all right john if people want to get information about just the news what's the best place to go listen justinnews.com 24 7 we've got you covered and then j solomon reports is my handle on all social media we put every story up on the social handle that we put up on just great john solomon great investigative reporter good friend of ours and glad to have you on john thanks for being with us all right folks next time in the broadcast we're going to take more of your phone calls at 1-800-684-3110 that's 800-684-3110 and we encourage you we've got a couple lines open since we've been taking calls during the program so if you want to talk to us 800-684-3110 let me say this to our members that are out right now you know we're talking about these issues involving the former President you know how many cases we have brought involving government overreach i mean it's dozens since the Biden administration's been in office we're handling everything from tax matters to national security issues to defense of israel all that's taking place here's what i'm asking you to do we're in a matching challenge campaign and we're getting down to the the last about 12 days here this is what really counts 11 days and i want to encourage you to to support the work of the aclj it makes a huge difference and we've got a matching challenge going on and what that matching challenge means is that any amount you donate we get a matching gift for so if you donate 20 we get 40 40 80 80 100 i want to encourage you to do that and do it today because that really does allow us to continue our work here in the united states and around the globe and you know you see this broadcast five days a week on radio on television on multiple social media platforms you see the three of us on the set right now there's another six or eight back in the in the control room here i mean it's a full production program that we're able to give you this kind of information every day so if you haven't supported the work of the aclj let me encourage you to do it at the aclj.org that's aclj.org be part of our matching challenge campaign also follow us on rumble on twitter on facebook on youtube these are great ways to stay engaged with us at j secular at logan secular at jordan secular and check out secularbrothers.com for the new podcast hey welcome back to the broadcast everyone secular brothers podcast coming jordan and logan doing that it's going to be great go to secularbrothers.com encourage you to subscribe for that now information is right up there on the screen and it's going to be great they're going to have a good time with this and you'll have a good time be a whole different aspect of what you're used to and get you more information and more content secularbrothers.com launches september 12th but we're trying to get you to subscribe now very important also j secular band live the end of this month as well we got a brand new set we're looking forward to that that'll be on facebook rumble youtube all of our social media platforms will be covering that so a lot of activity going on we're taking your calls in this segment i've asked harry and wes to stay with me we're going to take your calls at 800-684-3110 i'm going to start with gail in florida she's been on a long time let's send gail a book because she's been on the she's been saying it on the line here for 24 minutes gail you're on the air thank you sir sure my question is pretty simple if if trump before he left declassified crossfire hurricane and muller and all of the names and everything the fbi did in it could it is it possible for biden to um reclassify it wes he has the authority to do that if he wants to he can take any document that belongs to the u.s government any piece of information and he is in charge but once it's declassified and then distributed that you can't make it then you can't say oh give it back no no it's out so but i mean the President's authority to classify is broad this is the you know the one question i think harry that we started the broadcast with we're going to we're in a number in the last segment this is still the question everybody has is did the President declassify all this information that they had that sounds like that's what his defense is going to be right i mean it sounds like that's where the defense is going i think that is cracked and so one of the issues i think is did he issue a general declassification order or was it specific and did it cover for instance the documents that he now or he used to have in his own possession um and i think right now we don't have answers or at least good answers to that particular question i would simply go back to a very general statement that i made earlier is that under the u.s constitution the President has broad declassification authority and so there may indeed be some issues as to whether or not President trump uh exercised that authority completely certainly be defense all right we're going right back to the phones 800-684-3110 barbara's calling from pennsylvania barbara you're on go ahead please hi thank you for taking my call and thank you for all the good work you do my question is why were not the lawyers allowed to be in the premises when the search went on okay normal policy is everybody gets out of the building if the search warrants executed the owner of the home everybody's out so there is no constitutional mandate to allow a lawyer to stay in there however this involves the former President of the united states and i would think merrick gartland who seems to be a cautious person to begin with would have said you know what out of an abundance of caution let's allow the President's lawyer if they're there to stay in the room as long as they're not interfering to me harry that would have made legal sense it also would have made political sense i think that's cracked but i also would argue that that is precisely why it wasn't done because merit garland has not just demonstrated competence and so i think at the end of the day merit garland has really been asleep at the switch keep in mind that the application for this warrant as i understand it from press reports was on his desk for weeks and then now the fbi claims that it was an emergency justifying basically breaching the Presidential estate in florida so i don't understand this i'm not sure merit garland understands it and i think this is where just some common sense would have said okay you do clear everybody out that's the normal practice but you could say you know we're going to let this lawyer say out of an abundance of caution to avoid the appearance of any impropriety we're going to have allow this lawyer to stay in yeah but i i don't think they're really plugged into how this appears the appearance of what's going on you know they i think part of it with those on the left and some in the administration they are so still obsessed with donald trump and going after the man that they assume that the rest of us agree with them and that is absolutely an inaccurate assumption the rest of the country's tired of this they're tired of the division and yet they continued this march i'll tell you that wearing people out all right 1-800-684-3110 frank's calling from florida hi frank welcome to broadcast you're on the air all right thank you very much for taking my phone call gentlemen my question is this i heard one of your previous callers talk about the constitution of the united states of america is there a specific amendment or article or clause that would fall into this predicament that's a great question so we the the view is that the right to classify or declassify would fall under what's called what we call the commander in chief clause of the constitution that the President is his office is described as is also the commander in chief so as commander in chief he would have the authority to classify or declassify documents and there's been memorandums throughout history but also as recently as 2003 under the bush administration where the President i think and the vice President were given very broad declassification rights like pretty much at will and that was incorporated again by President obama and i believe President trump too so the site the the there's not a specific provision that says declassification of classified material because classified material has been around as long as the revolution that where george general then general george washington wanted to keep information classified but under the commander in chief clause that's where i think harry if you look at it from a constitutional perspective historic perspective that's where it comes and i'm sure that trump's lawyers are going to argue he had the authority to do this i think that's correct and i think if his lawyers make that argument in court they are absolutely correct but i also would add this particular context we now live in an age where there are a huge number of government bureaucrats and many of those government bureaucrats believe what that they know more about what should be declassified and what shouldn't than the President of the united states so i think we need to get back to constitutional governance and that means shrinking the power of the deep state primarily in washington you know and you followed that up with this and i think don on facebook said what is the law regarding the material they seize covered by attorney-client confidentiality you know look if it's attorney-client material it should go back to the President i mean for all i know it could be documents that we were engaged with the President when we represented under the muller investigation or or the impeachment or whatever the proceeding might have been i have no idea it's that by the way but it would go back to the President they've already acknowledged they have it so this is not this is not a situation where they don't say there's attorney they said there's attorney-client information should i try to squeeze this last call in will will says yes christina go ahead last call today thanks for the calls thanks for taking my call i just want to know why the cameras were cut to me that looks so incriminating yeah they weren't they were not cut that's not correct the surveillance cameras were operating during the uh search warrants uh application inside the house it was not cut the control of that data is the former President's he's decided at this point i guess not to release any may at some point so that's where this comes folks let me just tell you it's been a fascinating thing to witness i think it's horrible for our country more of this but i hope we've been able to i know we have been able to give you a great deal of information our teams have done a great job i want to thank our entire production team of putting all of this together over the last couple of weeks this is we're having to decide programs in the morning i mean this is because news is so rapid and on to our commentators our team here at the aclj thank you for all to have john solomon on today and others but again folks without your support none of this happens so i want to encourage you go to aclj.org we're a matching challenge campaign any amount you donate we get a matching gift for so go to aclj.org for that and again if you're not following us on social media applications you really need to do that and that's on truth social on twitter on facebook on youtube there's a lot of great ways to get it so i encourage you to do that at aclj.org aclj.org and don't forget secular brothers brand new podcast coming september 12th on the salem podcast network with logan and jordan go to secularbrothers.com you can sign up for that now we encourage you to subscribe it's going to be a blast have a good weekend
Whisper: medium.en / 2023-03-08 12:18:49 / 2023-03-08 12:39:01 / 20

Get The Truth Mobile App and Listen to your Favorite Station Anytime