BREAKING: Trump Raid Affidavit UNSEALED

This is Jay Sekulow breaking news. The Trump raid affidavit, unsealed. 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. Well, the judge has issued an order, which is the official order to unseal the affidavit involving the raid by the FBI and Mar-a-Lago. Now, this comes, of course, on the heels of other revelations involving the FBI, which we're also going to talk about. And that is the FBI's attempt to stifle news about the Hunter Biden laptop. And this came in an interview between Joe Rogan and Mark Zuckerberg yesterday. And this is making a lot of news because apparently the FBI gave a specific request to Facebook to de-escalate that particular story. In fact, Twitter stopped the story altogether. Yeah, it kind of goes on and talks about all the stories that come in and Joe Rogan doing the Lord's work, going out there, asking the hard questions and getting guests like Mark Zuckerberg, who, you know, wouldn't sit down with a lot of people, sits down with Joe Rogan, number one podcaster on the planet and ask questions specifically about how they deal with stories that they feel are misinformation or how that whole process works.

And it was pretty fascinating to listen to this interview. We have some clips from it. I think we should go ahead and. Yeah. Did we just get the order?

We did not. OK, go ahead. Yeah, it's coming any minute. But let's let's go ahead and hear a clip and we'll discuss this.

And I want your thoughts, too. We're awaiting to get the full order. It should be any second now. But in the meantime, we're going to talk about other things that the FBI are doing. And that's precisely what came out of that Joe Rogan experience episode from yesterday.

So let's listen to as a bite five from Joe Rogan. There was a lot of attention on Twitter during the election because of the Hunter Biden laptop story. Yeah, we have to. Yeah. So you guys censored that as well. So we took a different path than Twitter. I mean, basically the background here is the FBI, I think, basically came to us, some some folks on our team. I was like, hey, just so you know, like you should be on high alert. There was the we we thought there was a lot of Russian propaganda in the 2016 election. We have it on notice that basically there's about to be some kind of dump of of that similar to that. So just be vigilant.

Can I say something here? Now, the Federal Bureau investigation, the same FBI that started crossfire hurricane then goes because they don't want political interference. But in 2020, they don't mind going to tell Facebook and Twitter. Hey, we think this whole Hunter Biden thing is Russian disinformation. So kill the story.

So ask yourself this question. Why is the Federal Bureau of Investigation doing this? Why are they interfering with elections that when they made this whole thing about we're not going to interfere with elections, which is precisely what they did? And I guess they were thinking about that.

Why were they determining how they were going to raid President Trump's house? And you're talking about it goes on and on. There's lots. It's all it's a very lengthy discussion. He talks about the process that, you know, Facebook gets reached out to by the FBI, says there's stuff coming. So you guys need to keep on high alert and then discusses how what they do with how they treat that content. But depending on compared to how they treat it on Twitter, where Twitter actually said bandit, none of Facebook had a more nuanced way. And look, we're on Facebook right now, broadcast in the thousands of people had a more nuanced way of putting it.

But what was it? We can probably have that clip as well. Right. Do we have that clip where he talks about how Twitter handles it?

Let's go ahead and play that. Our protocol is different from Twitter's. What Twitter did is they said you can't share this at all. We didn't do that. What we do is we have if something is reported to us as potentially misinformation, important misinformation. We we also have a third party fact checking program because we don't want to be deciding what's true and false.

And for the I think it was five or seven days when it was basically being being determined whether it was false. The distribution on Facebook was decreased, but people were still allowed to share it. So you could still share it.

You could still consume it. Yeah. And he goes on to say, actually, what do you mean distribution gets decreased? I'll just kind of summarize this. It gets shared. Basically, the ranking in the newsfeed was a little less. And he goes, why? What percentage?

He goes, I don't know off the top of my head, but it's meaningful. Meaning your content, if you shared it, in theory, you could share it. But no one was seeing it. So the FBI goes to Facebook and says, don't run this story about Hunter Biden and Joe Biden's son or it's coming. Do what you can. Stop it.

I mean, OK, now we're waiting for the affidavit unsealing as well. Folks, share this feed with your friends right now. In fact, we're going to stay live during this break. Should we do that?

Hello? Can we do that? Can we do that? Let's go ahead. We're going to stay live during the Facebook break. If you're watching on social media, we'll stay live. So just don't worry.

No commercials right now. Keep going. Hey, welcome back, everybody. So let me tell you, the order has been released, which is the affidavit surrounding the raid at Mar-a-Lago. So the affidavit has been released. What we don't have yet is the actual affidavit. Yeah, it's been released.

The Web sites are obviously all crashing as so many people are coming to. Maybe you could break down for our listeners what exactly an affidavit even is. I think we use these terms here on the radio and speak legalese sometimes.

But maybe we need to break it down a little bit. So to get a search warrant, you don't you follow an application with a magistrate or a judge saying that we're the FBI. We would like to have a search warrant of this person's residence or business or whatever it might be or personal data devices, whatever it might be.

And we have a basis for doing that. And that's in what's called the affidavit. So the agents or the lawyers or both execute an affidavit which lays out the case on why there is probable cause that a crime has been committed. And that has been taken to the magistrate to get the search warrant. So it lists out the elements of the crime and what the evidence will be.

What is so unusual here, A, never been done on a former President, number one. Number two, the magistrate judge that issues it, Magistrate Judge Reinhart recuses himself from a civil case involving President Trump and Secretary of State Clinton. He thought he could not hear that case, but yet he signs a criminal affidavit for a search warrant. But the affidavit itself, Logan finds that there's a finding of probable cause that a crime has been committed.

And that's why the search is then deemed justified. Yes, hopefully that breaks that down a little bit more for those of you calling. Hey, call in. A lot of you have questions.

1-800-684-3110. We're also going to continue this discussion about what had happened over on the Joe Rogan Experience. If you're not familiar with Joe Rogan, the number one podcaster on the planet, he usually has access to incredible guests. They've tried to cancel him many times, but guess what? He's bigger than cancel. Yeah. Anyone you watch on cable news, anyone you listen to on the radio, you're talking about three, five, ten times. If you put them all together, they won't equal him. Yeah.

I think just alone has somewhere around 20 million people who listen daily, who listen to the whole thing, you know, the show, just on Spotify. But this is the FBI going to social media platforms to kill a story. That's what I'm saying. He sat down with Mark Zuckerberg.

Again, something that's not easy to get. I think that's where a lot of people maybe write that off and go, it's not easy to get Mark Zuckerberg to sit down, especially for someone like Rogan who's going to hit him with questions that I'm sure he expected this. And look, here's, we've got to give it up to Mark Zuckerberg for as much as I don't like necessarily their actions. I think he's being honest.

Yeah, I think he's he told you how it works. We sit back as our organization. We have four million people on our Facebook page to say on Jay Sekulow's page. We know we see the viewership go up and down.

We know there are words we do not put in titles. We do not put on our social media posts because they don't reach as many people. But it's all up to our social media team to figure out that game. What I liked about this is that Mark Zuckerberg just went out on Front Street and said, you want to know how it works?

Here's how it works. The FBI called us, said this story is coming. A bunch of stories are coming. We think it's Russian disinformation. Do something about it.

And they said, fine. We'll just leave it up to where people can share it. But no one will ever see it. So it'll just be in an echo chamber of small group of people, a significant or what was the word he used? A sizable, I believe, decreased meaningful amount of people. Meaningful means a lot. Meaningful means a lot.

Meaning probably 80 percent plus. What that means is you had the FBI go to news agencies, which these social media platforms are. During an election say, don't run this story.

I mean, think about that for a moment. And he said the same FBI that brought you Crossfire Hurricane. And he pretty shortly asked him, well, what about that? Like, don't you feel bad about that? We're from the government. We're here to help.

And he said, yeah, it stinks. It's kind of like, you know, we kind of treat it as if a case goes to trial, sure, someone may look bad even if they win. And we just have to kind of throw our hands up in the air and go, we did what we could do. You know what the problem is, though? It used to be, in the famous case, New York Times versus Sullivan, there's all these cases. And the Pentagon Papers, where the government, New York Times gets information and they publish it, even though the government told them, don't publish it. This is the Pentagon Papers.

This could be damaging. Don't publish it. And the New York Times, to their credit, published it anyways. Here, it's now we've gone into a brave new world, where the government says, don't run this story, this political story about Hunter Biden, Joe Biden's son, and the text companies, if you're Twitter, they ban it totally. If you're Facebook, they meaningfully ban it. You know, while they give us those warning signs about – Basically shadow banning. They don't want to use that term, but that's the term we all kind of have come used to. So, look, we're waiting for this affidavit also.

It's been released, but the websites are crashing. Here's what I want to tell you. It's going to lay out – we'll see what's redacted, but it's going to lay out the causes, the basis upon which probable cause exists.

Here's the problem, though. OK? Does anybody believe that a former President's home should be raided over a document dispute? Is that what this really was about? Now, maybe we'll find out some of that in the affidavit. But this is unprecedented territory with a judge that should have been disqualified, with a legal team that has been very slow to react on President Trump's behalf. Now, maybe it is a request. I have no idea.

But, I mean, you're talking about it's moving slow. They filed a motion last week. The judge said you're going to have to refile it because they don't even know what you're asking.

Now, I'm not – I don't want to blame the lawyers. I don't know what, you know, situations they're dealing with. You know, you got to understand that.

But I do know this. We are in unbelievably uncharted territory. Do we have it, Will?

We still don't have it. OK. I'm looking at our studio that folks are out there. Let's go ahead and take a phone call. Let's go ahead. People are calling in about both reasons. Let's go to Justin in California on line two. Justin, you're on the air.

Hey, thanks for taking my call, you guys. Hey, my question is this real quick. Why do Facebook and Twitter feel that they need to be subservient to the FBI's request, especially during the election? And since when do government agencies have the right to intervene in legitimate news?

Well, I think that's a big question to ask. Now, I do think that they feel like they have some social responsibility. You're talking about a billion people on Facebook. You're talking about a large group.

So I do understand going out this going, we can influence. But the problem is when they influence with their own politics. Well, they ended up being wrong. First of all, the government said this was a – the Hunter Biden was a Russian disinformation campaign on the laptop.

That all proved to be false. But the FBI – like I said, the New York Times used to pride itself on we published the Pentagon Papers, even when the government said don't do it. CIA said don't do it.

FBI said don't do it. And we published it. That freedom of the press, it no longer exists in this culture where we're not only dealing with, you know, a cancel culture. We're dealing with – if you don't have the agreed upon political view, we're going to suppress you. I mean, Mark Zuckerberg acknowledges it. Yes, we meaningfully reduce this content availability, which means, listen, we know when something is meaningfully reduced because we can tell immediately in our own broadcast. Yeah, and he also discusses the third-party fact-checkers, which as we know, again, in theory – We've beaten every single time. Well, no, I'm saying in theory, he's right in the sense of having a third-party go through and fact-check your content so they're not the arbiters of truth.

That's a good theory. But it doesn't work. And as we've seen on multiple occasions, and you may have been – gotten an alert that says, hey, something Jay Sekulow posted is partially false or is – And then we get it corrected every time. Every time.

We've won every time. And guess what happens? You don't then get a correction saying, we were wrong. That doesn't happen. So the damage is already done.

You don't know that. All you see is you think we're posting fake content, which means, by the way, also it says that if you get dinged enough amount of times, it also decreases your saturation in the marketplace. Now, we know, we fought back, and we've won.

So with Facebook, it doesn't necessarily – I mean, obviously, there's thousands of people you're watching right now. But I do find it incredibly interesting that this all came out and that he was honest about it and said, yeah, be like the FBI. And then now that he said that, we can actually do something about it.

Well, yeah, so we are. So let me tell you what we did. So I instructed our government oversight team to issue a – to the FBI and the Department of Justice a Freedom of Information Act demand. We want to know all the correspondence that took place. I want to hear what they said to – I want to see what they said to Facebook and Twitter and these other social media platforms. I think that's really important to understand that.

So that's going to go out probably Monday. They're already working on it right now as we speak. So we're not taking this lying down, because I think when you got the FBI – look, they did – in the Hillary Clinton email scandal, what did they do? James Comey makes an announcement, you know, days before an election, which he wasn't supposed to do.

But he did it. Then they did it to Trump. Then they did – then they tried to kill the Hunter Biden story saying it's Russian disinformation, which – by the way, does the FBI not get it right anymore? There was a Russia collusion, and that proved not to be true. There was Russian disinformation in the Hunter laptop, and it ended up being that, no, there was no Russian disinformation in the laptop.

That was his laptop. So when you ask yourself this question, why is this what the FBI is doing? I always go back to, do me a favor, catch the terrorist. Catch the bad guys. This is ridiculous. But instead, they have to go get a search warrant from a judge who should not have been even issuing a – executing a search warrant, signing it, who accused himself from a previous case involving the same party because of bias.

That they think is okay. So, you know, look, we're taking your phone calls. A lot of you are calling in 1-800-684-3110, 800-684-3110.

I'm looking at the other media sites. No one has gotten access to this yet because the server crashed, which is another thing, Logan. Do you think in the year 2022 they could figure this out? Well, it goes back to this and the IRS and all these people that are running on old systems. Yeah, things happened, but you couldn't have anticipated this. And this reminds me of, like, we're still dealing with, like, when the Star Report came out in, like, 1994 or whatever it was.

We're all trying to get on, and the websites are broken by the time we're on dial-up internet. You know, I mean, that's what it feels like, and you are right. You can't get these stuff out there. So we're going to keep covering it, though, and Mike Pompeo is coming up in the next – Yeah, we're not going to take a break, I think, unless you think we should, Logan. What do you think we should do?

No, it's fine. We can keep going. Let's keep – yeah, let's – we'll refill, everybody, what you're doing. If you're watching on any of our social media platforms, we encourage you to share with your friends.

You've got a lot of people watching between all of the applications. Mike Pompeo is going to be very interested to get his take on all of this. And, again, support the work of the ACLJ. We're in a matching challenge campaign.

It's at ACLJ.org. Any amount you donate, we get a matching gift for. So if you donate $20, we get $40. It really makes a difference, folks. We've got a team already on this FBI squelching the Hunter Biden story. Your ACLJ team is on top of that.

So support the work of the ACLJ if you're able to, ACLJ.org. We're going to be back with more in a moment. If you're on our social media platforms, folks, share it with your friends right now. We're going to talk to you during the break.

All right, welcome back to the broadcast, everyone. Joining us now is our Senior Counsel for Global Affairs, Mike Pompeo, former Secretary of State. Mike, we're waiting for the affidavit release here. I'm looking at the document of the government's justification for it.

We're going to go over that in a little bit. But I wanted to get your reaction also to the situation with Facebook now. It's not just Facebook, but the FBI and government officials, you ran the CIA, going to groups like Facebook and Twitter and saying, hey, this Hunter Biden story, we think it's Russian disinformation. We want you to kill the story. And Twitter did.

And Facebook reduced it significantly in its availability. Your reaction to that? It's outrageous, James. It is both unexplainable and a one-way ratchet against conservative ideas when the FBI begins to engage in that kind of activity. And don't forget now, it wasn't just the FBI. You had former FBI officials, former intelligence officials all putting out a statement at that same time saying, looks like Russian disinformation to us. And they were all wrong, James.

And when they're wrong, they say, wait, by the way, we all make mistakes, fair enough, but they are wrong in the same direction every time. They're wrong about the search warrant down in Mar-a-Lago. They're wrong about going after teachers. They're wrong about going after conservative groups at the IRS.

Our government now has begun to behave in a way that is deeply disconnected from the central theory of equal justice for all. And I think what you saw here between the FBI and Facebook pulling down important information for the American people to know about just a handful of days before the election is just one more symptom of how broken it actually is. You know, I'm also looking, of course, at the, we're waiting for the affidavit. It's been, the judges ordered the affidavit released, but the system crashed.

Logan brought up a good point. You know, Mike, we're in 2022 and they still can't get, you know, enough computer access for people to get the information, including the news agencies. It is mind boggling that this is still the situation in 2022. Jay, you know, having served in government for four years of administration, six years in Congress, I got to tell you, sadly, I'm not shocked.

I think we were still doing handwritten time sheets at the state department when I showed up. By the way, it's not for an absence of taking taxpayer money. This isn't a resource problem. This is what happens when you hand power and money to government officials who don't have the right incentive to get it right. So it's unfortunate to hope they get the server up. People want to know precisely what happened, why they did what they did, what it is they did.

And I hope that the reductions aren't so significant that we can't figure that out. People joke around. It's like the DMV. That's what it feels like. You know, you're just waiting around and something crashes. They send everyone home. They come back. We're sorry, we had it released at noon.

Well, we meant noon at some point, but they've crashed. So, you know, it feels like a situation. But this does bring up a big question for big tech in general, not necessarily just the, obviously we're waiting on the affidavit, but when it comes back to the FBI conversation with Facebook, because as we said, if you just tune in, Mark Zuckerberg had a lengthy discussion on the Joe Rogan experience. And was pretty honest and pretty upfront about when he said, well, how does that work?

How do things get squashed? Something like the hundred by a laptop controversy. And he said, well, you know, the let me just be honest, the FBI contacts us, says there's some stories coming and we have to go on high alert and figure out what we're going to do about it. That does start a really interesting discussion. I feel like with people in the way that they interact with social media and sort of the power of big tech and the responsibility of them in it kind of jeopardizes that protection a little bit. I think it clearly does. And Mike, this idea that you have the government agencies like the FBI directly interfering with news.

I made the point earlier. I mean, the New York Times printed the Pentagon Papers over the protests of the then White House, over the protests of the CIA, over the protests of the FBI. But the New York Times says we're a new news agency. We're going to report this. But that ethic is gone now. I mean, it's you know, the FBI came in, said this is disinformation and all these tech companies figure out, well, we're just going to follow what the FBI says.

No, that's exactly right. It should always be the case, too. If you're making some decision, if in fact there's something that is dangerous to be published, there's a terrorist threat, you can imagine. But you should always, especially when it comes to information that is not threat-based information.

100 button laptop, no more put anybody at risk than a man on the moon. When it's not a threat-based situation, you should err on the side of publishing. And that's historically what our media, our companies did. And today they've taken a very different approach. They've taken an approach when the FBI approached them with something that fits their narrative, their version of the world. They're all too willing to pull it down, close it down, censor it, shut it down.

That is dangerous for America. I'm also concerned that the, in this particular case, that the FBI, and I've had some experiences, you know, with this, it was just like Crossfire Hurricane. They knew initially within weeks of their investigation that there was no Russian collusion. That they spent the next two and a half years trying to build a case for obstruction. And the memo just came out actually from Steve Engle and Ed O'Callaghan, the Justice Department lawyers that reviewed the Mueller report and laid out eloquently why there was no basis to bring an obstruction charge against President Trump, even if he wasn't the President. But I keep asking myself, Mike, how do we get to the point where this is what the FBI is spending its time doing?

You got exactly the right question. This is the argument for separating the intelligence function of the FBI from its law enforcement function. I think it is something that ought to be looked at. The FBI has historically been aimed at gathering facts and picking up bad guys. And that ought to be what we're spending our taxpayer money on. There's great FBI officers out there doing that every day, but when they begin to get involved in this political game, in this process involving this most fundamental thing, American elections, this is a place the FBI ought not to go.

It is dangerous. You know, the other thing I haven't seen, you haven't seen anybody say my bad. I haven't seen anybody even acknowledge whether it was the Russia hoax or now this, that they made a mistake because I sadly believe that the political leadership of the FBI and the Justice Department doesn't think they made a mistake. I think they think what they did was okay. And the fact that this may well have had an impact on voters' information as they went to the polls in November of 2020. I think they think, well, you know, we were just doing what it is we're supposed to do.

And we can all see that that's simply not true. Very good. We appreciate it, Mike, as always. We've just gotten our hand. This is the affidavit, correct?

We have it. So we have the affidavit. So we are going to break this down.

Let me give you the six reasons. So the FBI put in the six reasons why they want the affidavit redacted, and the judge found this to be the reason. Number one is the information is from a broad range of civilian witnesses who may be subject to witness intimidation or retaliation. Two, the information regarding investigative avenues and techniques that can provide a roadmap for potential ways to obstruct the investigation. Three, information whose disclosure is prohibited under Rule 6C, that's the disclosure rules, such as grand jury's subpoenas testimony. Four, information whose disclosure could risk the safety of law enforcement personnel. And five, information whose disclosure could harm legitimate privacy interests of third parties.

So what they then do release is all the information that looks bad for President Trump. Yeah, I mean, I'm looking at it right now. We have the affidavit in front of us.

We're going to break this down and continue to go. I will tell you this. What gets seen in this is a lot of what we've heard. The 15 boxes is in there, almost every other paragraph.

And it is not super specific. I mean, some of it says, I mean, just reading all of it, newspapers, magazines, printed news articles, photos. It says the FBI's investigation has established that the documents bearing classification markings which appear to contain national defense information were among the materials contained in the 15 boxes stored on the premises. Now, let me ask you this. Eleven thousand documents on Hillary Clinton's email that were top secret and secret and classified.

Did her house get raided in New York? No. But listen, we have we have it now is being printed right now. We have analysts going through it right now.

Legal team going through it right now. We're going to break it down over the next half hour. We're staying live during this minute. Absolutely.

Stay live. We have a full half hour of the show coming right after this. If you are on local radio right now, some of your stations may not carry the next half hour.

One, they should. But right now, we're broadcasting live on social media. Aclj dot org, Facebook dot com slash J secular. Find us on YouTube on the official Aclj page. We're going to continue this conversation going. We're going to break this down fully again.

Support the work of the Aclj at Aclj dot org. And hey, a lot of you are listening right now as we break this down. We got new podcasts launching on September 12th. Me and my brother, we're going to break down this kind of content even deeper at secular brothers dot com. Go and subscribe right now. Come September 12th. You can write and review right now to make sure this kind of message gets heard.

We'll be right back with more. 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. They're most important to you and your family. Give a gift today online at ACLJ dot org. We'll be right back. Whether you're on our social media applications, we encourage you to do that right away. We've got a lot of information that we're getting out and that we're viewing. It does, the affidavit does focus on these fifteen boxes.

But go ahead, Logan. That's right. You can see fifteen boxes in bold, in all caps, kind of over and over and over again in this affidavit. Look at me for instance. Look, they're all, we're all starting to get it now.

Yeah, it's pretty wild. I mean, I got, right now I'm on ten pages, fifteen pages of just blacked out. This is what it looks like. If you're watching. So this is what it tells you, American people. If you're watching, if you're not watching right now, if you're just listening on radio, it's just pages of blacked out text.

Which, guess what that does? Add so much more to President Trump's claims. Here's one thing they say. So they said they found a document. FBI agents conducted a preliminary review of the fifteen boxes provided to the archives and identified documents with classification markings that included confidential and top secret. And so they have those and they said they have the former President's handwritten notes. Several of the documents contain what appears to be the President's handwritten notes. So now they are rating his house for his handwritten notes.

Then I go through another ten pages of absolute blackout. Then they do talk about DOJ counsel and former President's counsel that there was a letter which reiterated that the premises are not authorized to store classified materials. So the FBI is saying in the affidavit. So it's all down for people who don't understand. Yeah, the FBI is saying in the affidavit that the material was being stored at a location that was not appropriate for the level of classification. But this is where, understand, this was in June 8th of 2022. So obviously the parties were still talking. In fact, it says, as I previously indicated to you, Mar-a-Lago does not include a secure location authorized for the storage of classified information.

As such, it appears that since the time the classified documents were removed from secure facilities at the White House and moved, they've not been handled in an appropriate manner. So then you go, then it gets blacked out again. So it's basically, and then, I mean, literally blacked out for pages. I mean, well, like, like tons of pages here.

I mean, most of it's blacked out. Put your mic toward you. So if, let me tell you what this does. Builds distrust.

I'm sorry? Just get on the mic. This builds distrust with the American people because you have an unprecedented move by an unprecedented judge who should have recused himself as he recused himself from the civil case involving the former President. And then you get the FBI, we now know, dealing with Facebook, Twitter, these other social media platforms saying, hey, don't publish this stuff about Hunter Bynes' laptop. Then that same FBI is raiding the former President of the United States House. We want to take your calls on this at 800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. Yeah. And again, during an election cycle, all of this is happening as we head into the midterms in just a matter of weeks, just a matter of weeks until we have the midterms. And guess what that means, right? When that's over, we kick into the general election. And we can already say, I think it's pretty safe to say, as of right this second, President Trump is the presumptive nominee if you want to be for 2024, right? Whether you, whether he's announced or not, if it happened right now, we see the polls, we see what would happen.

So you have more interfering, more, people will not care about this. I think that this is going to backfire so majorly when you actually see that this is about 15 boxes of documents from a former President of the United States. He was the President of the United States. You said he declassified these.

Okay. But he classified documents. Of course he did. He was the President of the United States.

And most people go, who cares? That is not enough to raid someone's home. It was not enough for Jim Comey to make an announcement on Hillary Clinton, but he did it anyway. If they had set a precedent, if they had set a precedent with Hillary Clinton, at least you could say, well, at least they're being a bit consistent. But what it is, political nonsense that we see over and over and over and repeated and repeated, whether the FBI is doing this, whether they're colluding with Facebook and social media, it's the same story over and over again. And this isn't going to get anyone to change their mind.

It will not. No, worse, actually. No, because what this does, it infuriates you. Would you read the probable cause here, by the way, which I will get into in the next segment?

I mean, this is OK, probable cause to believe that there are additional documents that contain classified information. So let's raid his house. Exactly. All right. Here's what I need you to do right now.

If you're watching on Facebook. Hey, share right now. Click that share button.

Make sure they're not, you know, putting it down. Share and more people will see this because we get this document. We're going to break it down more and more.

We're going to give you the truth. We're also going to do that if you're watching on YouTube. Hit that thumbs up. That's what it does.

It gets it into more people's feeds. So do that right now. We're not taking a break. We're not taking a break.

If you're listening on radio, we'll be right back in just a minute. You know, it's interesting. Ben Sisney in our office says that the affidavit actually cites documents, governing principles that involve the executive branch employees, but not the President of the United States. I mean, think about that because the President is different than everybody else. Remember the President under the commander in chief clause of the United States Constitution, of course, has declassification authority, which employees do not have.

That's number one. Number two, if you look at what their probable cause is, the probable cause is we believe there are other documents down there with these classifications. Now, they were down there for 18 months, by the way, so nothing happened. So ask yourself, is it worth causing this kind of political and civil discourse and tension? Because what are they going to do? Indict Donald Trump for this? It sounds like they're not even barely talking about Donald Trump. They're talking about executive branch employees, which again, now you're going to get one step deeper.

And, Gil, you're not even talking about the President. This whole thing was really about executive branch employees because you're using some sort of weird words game to be able to get in and to raid his property and to take who knows what else that was unrelated to this. As we know, passports were taken, things like that. I'm sure more of that will be uncovered over the next few months. But if this is the case, that it really had to do with not only those 15 boxes of classified documents, of which presumably the President had access to.

I mean, it had to have at some point. People won't be thrilled about this. And when they find out it's really not even to do specifically with the President, that they use that just to get in his property, that is going to be a huge deal. And we need to make sure people know it's a huge deal because it could happen to him.

It could happen to you. For people that are watching on our TV or social media platforms, I'm holding you what most of this is, redacted. And we were specialists in redactions. We fight over redactions. Here's the problem. They have created a firestorm, the FBI and the Department of Justice over this, a firestorm over what is clearly 15 documents.

And then, as Ben Sisney points out, they cite statutes and code of federal regulations that don't apply to the President but apply to employees. Let's go ahead and take phone calls. I'll take phone calls. I do want to say one thing. I said during this week and last week that, look, getting this affidavit out there, it's going to be bad. You're going to see stuff you're not going to feel good about. Now, after looking at it just briefly and reading through it, I'm sure there's going to be stuff in there we need to break down more specifically.

I don't know if I necessarily agree with the statement that I've been saying the whole time, which is you're going to be going through it and going, oh, well, that doesn't look great. Oh, that's not good, because you thought for them to get this raid, even if you believe it to be true or not, there is going to be some damning stuff in the content. It doesn't seem to be. If it is, it's redacted, which, I mean, that's where we're at right now. The methods are redacted, but if you look at the timeline where this is, it looks like you had a document dispute that the FBI decided to escalate to a literal constitutional crisis, which they have now done. When you have all of these other problems happening around the world, this is what we focused on. That's what your FBI decided to focus on.

You know, not every sort of crisis that's happening. I mean, they were in negotiations, according to the affidavit, in May and June. And then in negotiations for return, something happened, and they then raid the premises. All right, let's take a call. All right, we'll take some phone calls.

There are a lot of people who are talking both about the President and about the situation with FBI and Facebook. Mark Zuckerberg said we'll take calls on both of those. Let's start there with Beth in New York.

And it's an interesting question. Beth, you're on the air. Yes.

Thanks, Jay, for taking my call. My question is, will President Trump have the right to know his accuser's names or his lawyers be able to see the unredacted affidavit? Only if there was an indictment. So if there's an indictment, they unseal the affidavit at that point, and it's not redacted. And if there's not an indictment, you never know. And I do not, you know, I'm guessing here, but I just can't imagine that this results in an indictment as to these documents. It's politically ridiculous. It's the FBI doing what they do now, which seems like this is what they do. And I just, I don't understand for the life of me how this escalated to this kind of issue.

And it has, but no, the lawyers have not seen the unredacted, the President's lawyers, and they don't see it until if there were to be an indictment, and then they unseal the affidavit at that point. Yeah, I think that this is, that kind of answer is going to be deeply disturbing to people. I want to be clear with this, because I think we went at this nuanced and legal, and we looked at it every way that this could be. And now we're breaking it down. We're seeing what it is. This is where people get incredibly frustrated.

Yes. Because it seems like a joke. It seems ridiculous. And that's not just coming from conservative right wing spin. OK, we're pretty nuanced on here. We're pretty moderate on some things on here. We'll tell you that you're not even moderate. We just tell you the truth. There's a lot of conservative, far right organizations, things that don't tell you the truth.

We tell you the truth. And the truth is, looking at this document, kind of offhand, there's nothing here. There's nothing here. This was a document dispute. A document dispute that caused a national- That they escalated to an FBI search warrant raid of a former President's home.

Hundreds, or a thousand people took to the streets that night in or around Mar-a-Lago, because this is what felt like was happening. Because you don't do this in the United States of America. And now this judge, who already should have recused himself because he made anti-Trump statements online, and had recused himself already on one thing, goes out there and says, you know what, we should put this out and release it. Maybe he was wrong. Maybe he shouldn't have released this. Because maybe the President, you know, the President of Trump was right when he said, release the document, show the affidavit we want it out there.

He was right. Because looking at this right now, as far as I can tell, and again, we're just now getting sort of the highlights from our legal team. There's nothing in here that's really- No, it's a document dispute, Logan.

I mean, I've been doing this for 42 years. This is a document dispute that they elevated- And it doesn't talk about why it took so long? Right. It's a constitutional crisis. Any of the kind of concern, that was from one of our attorneys, said, you know, this is consistent with sort of the narrative we've been kind of thinking it was going to be.

And it's also consistent with the narrative of the FBI. Let's take another call. Yep. Okay. All right.

All right. Let's go to Roger. No, let's not go to Roger. Roger, we'll get back to you.

We can talk about that topic. Let's go to Brian, who's calling in New York. Didn't mean to cut you off there, Logan. Sorry. You did. I'm sorry. Go ahead, Brian.

You're on mid-sentence. Go ahead. Okay.

I got like two quick questions here. How can they say it's an unsecure location when they have, you know, the Secret Service Guard in the place- Good question. It's a good question.

Go ahead. And the FBI, you know, we've lost all faith in them in the Justice Department. It really needs to be dismantled or, you know, taken down. It's got to be fixed because you do need the FBI and you do need a Justice Department.

But it's got to be fixed. How can the documents not be secured? It's not a skiff. Is that technically secure? It's not a secure apartment facility.

He's right. It's Secret Service. But there's Secret Service agents all over the place, 24-7. Look, they escalated a document dispute into a literal constitutional crisis. And that's because the head of the Justice Department didn't have the guts to stand up to the people that were pushing this agenda. And when you read this affidavit, what you see, okay, folks, is we wanted the boxes back. They didn't want to give it. He thought it was his. They thought it was theirs.

And let's go raid his house. I mean, it's pretty much how it is. By a judge who shouldn't have never heard the case in the first place. We had a question come in from Rumble I think it's interesting. And they said, is there any way the courts can get involved with FBI overreach?

Yes, but the lawyers for Trump would have to do something here. I think they mean in general. Oh, yeah, okay.

Just in general. With all the different FBI crises that seem to be happening. We are. So what we do is we file a – you've got to start it this way. It's a process. So you start with the Freedom of Information Act in place. And sadly it's not a fast process. It's not a fast process and you've got to litigate it.

Yeah. G-FBI, were you really telling Facebook and Twitter and these others to kill the Hunter Biden story? Because that seems a little odd to us. So explain this to us. Then they come back and say, well, we don't want to give you these documents and we go into the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and say, give us the documents. And then you fight that out.

But yes, you get them. But look, the President's lawyer – former President's lawyers could have been in court. They filed something last week. The court found – the judge that heard the case, that's been assigned the case, was appointed by President Trump. That judge sent the case back saying, I don't even know what you're asking me to do here. So they've got to get a coherent strategy.

I'm sure they're working on that. There's a lot of moving parts here. This thing obviously caught them off guard. I will be honest, because I'm always going to be honest with you, I can't imagine how this got escalated to this point.

I really don't. I don't understand how the FBI litigate escalated to this point. I don't understand what the President's lawyers were doing at this point to escalate this.

But then the FBI, to execute a search warrant, go to a judge who should have recused himself. You've got to – look, why does the – they continue to do this? Why is the reason they continue to do this? That's what I ask myself.

It just builds distrust with the American people. That's the problem with all this, Logan. Yeah, and there are thousands of you watching right now. Look, we know these shows are going to be big, and there's millions who listen on radio, but there are thousands of you watching on social media. Here's what I need you to do. I need you to – if you're watching on Facebook, we've heard about Facebook.

We need you to click that share button right now, because what's happening is we're seeing exponential growth right now when you're breaking down what's going on and what's in this document, what the FBI did. Same on YouTube. YouTube, the way to do that is you hit the thumbs up. For Rumble, there's like a plus sign.

You can see all the different ways that you can, which is a Rumble, you can get involved, and that is a really easy, free way, very quick way to get involved. Obviously, there's other ways, supporting the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org, making sure you're following us on all your social media platforms, signing our petitions, joining us, subscribing to our new podcast. Again, plug here. Sekulow Brothers Podcast. Write and review.

Send me a review, a screenshot of it from Apple Podcast, and I will post it. It's going to be good. We're going to break down more content like this.

Okay, paragraph 30. According to a CBS Miami article, moving trucks were spotted at Mar-a-Lago on January 18th, 2021. At least two moving trucks were observed at the premises on January 18th, 2021. Is that because the President was moving after the election? I guess so.

And also that means they're watching that closely, which is pretty freaky. Think about that for a minute. Yeah. Okay? I mean, this is, folks, this is what's the basis of the affidavit. So we're breaking this down for you.

Obviously, it's just come out. There's a lot of redactions here. It's like you're driving past your neighbors and being like, I guess they're moving, you know? I mean, that's what it is. No, it's not like that. So the FBI, good job on that. Yeah.

And then, of course, there's 10 pages of redactions. All right. Are we going to stay alive during the break?

Yeah. We're staying alive during the break. Logan, so pitch to the break here for radio. For radio, give us a call. We have one more segment to take your phone calls. 1-800-684-3110.

We'll be right back. So the media is reviewing, we're trying to also get the media analysis of what's going on here. I've been reviewing the actual affidavit. It may, clearly this is a records dispute. The President's team thought they had the right to have some of these records.

The National Archives thought they did not. So let's go raid the President's house to get them. And that's what, if you boil it down, I hate to make it that simple, but that's kind of what it looks like. And then you got a lot of, of course, a lot of redactions. The interesting thing is they do have, can I read this paragraph, Logan?

This is paragraph 53. It says, I'm aware of an article, this is the affidavit, so it's the affiliate who is the FBI agent here. I'm aware of an article published in Breitbart on May 5th, 2022, listen to this, which states that Kash Patel, who is described as a former top, former President of the United States administration official, characterized as misleading reports in other news organizations that the archives, National Archives had found classified materials among the former President's documents.

Patel alleged that such reports were misleading because the former President had declassified such materials. And then after that, folks, two and a half pages of blank. So this is exactly what you're dealing with, Logan. It's not, I'm not shocked at this, but this just tells you what you're doing.

Well, let's go ahead and take another call. Yeah, if you want to know, we just talked about how the liberal media is spinning this. CNN's current Chiron, which is like the thing at the bottom of the screen tells you what the topic is, says search based on classified documents found in return documents. So that's what they're mainly talking about is obviously that the MSNBCs is about 21 pages of affidavit redacted. So even MSNBC is saying, eh, who knows what's in this? And they're both going to use that, realize that the conservatives are going to use that and say, 21 pages are redacted because you didn't want to share the truth. And the other side is going to say, can you believe how bad it is?

21 pages had to be redacted. So can I ask you different news sources, ask you a question, and then we're going to take some calls. So we've got, you know, thousands on Facebook, thousands on rumble and more on all of them on YouTube.

So is that just because of the way it's being featured in the feeds? Well, I appreciate all the thumbs up. Please keep doing that.

Like 2000 people have done that. That helps a lot. YouTube actually, we're just going to get real nerdy and analytical for a second. Majority of the people that watch on YouTube actually aren't your subscribers.

It is people who are being fed it in there. They go to youtube.com or they go to the YouTube app and that's what they start shows you those videos. So thank you, YouTube for promoting that on there because probably thousands of you are probably brand new and if you're brand new to this channel, we do this show each and every day. If you're brand new on Facebook, we do the show each and every day.

Plus additional programming coming very soon. YouTube, we put out new videos every day, so here's what I'm going to ask you to do right now. Hit the subscribe button if you're on YouTube. Hit that like and the subscribe.

I sound like my kids, you favorite youtubers like subscribe, ring that bell. Do all of that, that we really appreciate it. That continues to spread the word of what we do here. Not just presenting the news, but real legal analysis and real legal work here at the ACLJ. Welcome to the welcome to the channel and including finding out why the FBI was telling Facebook and Twitter and the other social media platforms. He don't run that Hunter Biden story.

We think it's wrong. Let's take a call on that. Roger, you've been a hold for like a half hour. I'm sorry about that.

We obviously had a little bit of breaking news. Roger, you're on the air. Go ahead, Roger.

Thank you for taking my call. Now that information is surfacing and being confirmed that Hunter's laptop is not Russian disinformation, will anyone, will anyone shine a spotlight on the 50 plus intelligence officials who signed a letter that Biden views to confirm and support that this was Russian disinformation? And the answer is of course not. Because the left gets away with this and they say, and anybody can sign a letter.

So there's no, nothing illegal about signing a letter. That was their opinion. They just happened to be wrong. As was the federal Bureau of investigation, as was the FBI when they conducted crossfire hurricane alleging Russian collusion with the Trump campaign, wrong. As was Bob Mueller when he tried to say Russia collusion and obstruction of justice, wrong. So you've got a pattern and practice of incorrect. And this is the political environment we live in. So we understand that, but you've got to understand that this is the environment we live in.

And that's why the ACLJ exists. Because believe me, our team's working on a freedom of information act requests as we speak. All right. Let's take some more calls to wrap this up. Go to Derek, who's calling on line three in Alabama, Derek, you're on the air. Thank you for taking my call.

And I appreciate all that you guys do for what I'm hearing. The implication is they are wanting Trump either before a judge or Congress for some kind of prosecution. So he cannot run for office again because he said, because the said documents are during President Trump's term in office, can President Trump still claim executive privilege?

Well that's a, you know, it's a fascinating question. So the Supreme Court hasn't weighed in on it, but what happened here was President Biden, and this was information that came out about a couple of days ago, White House, the current White House, waived the executive privilege, quote unquote, of President Trump over the former President. Well, that would make executive privilege absolutely meaningless. So I think that is something worthy to go to the Supreme Court of the United States.

But you know what you got to do to do that? File a challenge so the case can be heard. So if I'm talking to the lawyers out there, you know, there's a clean case to the Supreme Court. You got to start in the district court though.

Am I sure? I'm a little frustrated on that point. And also just, it's absurd that really at the end of the day, this is dispute with the National Archives. Let me tell you what I'm holding in my hand, our draft of our FOIA to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. This letter is a request in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, and it has a lot of information then about what you've been talking about, Logan, which is the whole Rogan interview with Zuckerberg, who Zuckerberg says, hey, the FBI told us to kill the story, so we did, basically. Yeah, killed many stories.

He said that pretty much they just knew a bunch were coming. Again, if you want to hear that, that is fascinating. Not that Joe Rogan needs our plug, but that clip's going around the internet. You can find it. We played it earlier in the show.

So if you're at the end of the show in a couple of minutes, you can go back and listen to it. There's a lot of fascinating stuff coming out of Mark Zuckerberg, whether you like him or not. I actually am glad he's being honest with his users and saying, yeah, the FBI approached us and we believe in the FBI.

That's what he said. And we believe they're a good institution and we should comply and talk with them. Obviously, if the FBI gives you a call, a lot of people take the call.

Yeah, but the New York Times published the Pentagon Papers when the FBI and CIA said don't because they were journalists. Let's go ahead and take another call. All right. We got, yes, we just got a couple minutes. Let's go to Brian quickly in Arizona. Brian, you're on the air. Hey, Brian.

Hi. Thanks for taking my call, guys. My question is, is this this kind of nonsense with the FBI has been ongoing for way too long. And I'm wondering what can possibly be done to remove half a dozen FBI agents? You have to show wrongdoing.

You know what you have to do? It was it happened to Peter Shrock. It happened to others when there was mis when there was deeds done during the Mueller probe that were inappropriate or illegal. Those agents were removed and fired. So it does happen. But, you know, Bob Mueller allowed the FBI hired on MSNBC, of course, and CNN has come. Bob Mueller himself, the so-called special counsel, allowed the FBI's their agents phones working on this to be scrubbed clean before the inspector general could see them. And all this was going on about this messaging going back and forth.

So that kind of tells you what it is. You want to try to take the last call? Well, OK, quickly, Nancy, really quick. We are running really close on time. Yeah. Go, Nancy.

OK, I'm calling to see if thanks for taking my call. I just want to know, is there any material in the indict in the part that's redacted of this document that would still justify an indictment? No, this doesn't justify an indictment. This is to justify the search. That's what I think she meant.

Yeah. Or justify the search. It's a document dispute. No, I mean, I don't you know, obviously, we haven't seen the whole thing because many pages. Look, if it wasn't, Donald Trump would have been a with the FBI gone in.

I don't think so. That's my view of it right now. I think this was a tremendous overreach. Absolutely. Absolutely.

And I think the American people feel that way. And if you do as well, we encourage you to right now support the work, the ongoing work of the ACLU. We're going to have some big news coming next week. We talked about a little bit in terms of some of what we can do legally. And all of you asked about that when it comes to situations like the FBI and the way they're interacting with social media. So go to work.

Go to aclj.org. Make sure you subscribe. Make sure you're following us on everything. If you're watching what I broadcast right now, you're brand new to the show, click Subscribe. Or if you haven't subscribed yet, subscribe on YouTube. Make sure you like all of our pages on social media. Subscribe to the new secular brothers podcast available on your favorite podcast players. And again, we're in the middle of a matching challenge to all donations are effectively doubled at aclj.org. More analysis tomorrow.