Biden’s DOJ Attempts to Silence Whistleblowers?

This is Jay Sekulow.

Is President Biden's Department of Justice attempting to silence whistleblowers? 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. Everybody welcome to the broadcast. We've got a lot to cover today. Let me give you kind of an overview of where we are and before we do any of it, let me say thank you to our ACLJ donors. Yesterday was the last day of our Matching Challenge Month for August and it is the second largest Matching Challenge August we've ever had in the history of the American Center for Law and Justice. So I want to say a huge thank you to all our ACLJ friends and members.

Now we've got a lot of things to cover. There's a hearing today in Florida on a special master involving the raid at Mar-a-Lago. There is a Department of Justice memorandum to all personnel regarding communications with Congress. This comes on the heel of the communication from Merrick Garland, the Attorney General, regarding political engagement. And then you have a filing at the District Court in Florida dealing with the response to the government where the government, I just want, can I just put this out here for a second? This isn't the brief of the United States government. So one of the things they argued was that you don't need these, what's called a taint team or a special master because this is what they said, the government asserts that the court should not exercise its equitable jurisdiction.

That gives me authority to appoint a special master because of the urgent interest in continuing its review of the materials. That's what they say in one sentence. So they're still reviewing materials. In the next sentence, they say elsewhere, however, and this is what the former President's lawyers say, the government states that the filter team has already completed its work of segregating any seized materials and the government's investigative teams have already reviewed all the remaining documents.

It can't be both. You can't be, quote, urgent interest in continuing its review and not completing its review. And this is where that goes back to the government overreach issues that we keep talking about, Logan.

It's amazing to me. And of course, I've done this, so I understand this as a defense lawyer. You point out the weaknesses in the case, but there's a glaring one.

And that hearing is today about what time we go off the air live. Yeah, maybe people should also break down to what we're talking about here. What is a special master?

What does this mean? I think a lot of people hear these words and they don't necessarily, they know it has something to do with the raid. They know it has something to do with these situations, but they don't know exactly what it is. So when the government comes in on a case, especially if a lawyer was involved, for instance, there could be attorney-client privilege. Now here it was a former President, so you have executive privilege issues and you probably have attorney-client privilege issues as well. So a special master is appointed by the district court judge.

It's usually what? Usually a former judge that then reviews the various documents, hears arguments about the documents and says, this should go to the investigators. This shouldn't go to the investigators. Now, some are going to argue that isn't the cat out of the bag already because the government asserts that they've completed their review. And that's when it goes back to the briefs that were filed. Well, they're still saying they are doing the review, but even if the review is complete, the special master should be there. So that special master, he or she can determine whether that evidence can be used. So that is, I think number one on, I think you'll hear today at the, whether you're not going to see the oral argument, they may have audio of it by the way.

Check. There's a lot going on. We're gonna be taking a lot of calls as well. If you have a question or comment, this is a good time to call. If you are like me and are asking, what are these things? What is a special master?

What are all these words that get thrown around? Maybe you have one of those questions yourself. 1-800-684-3110. We'll be joined by Rick Grinnell later in the broadcast. And we'll also be taking some calls on some other topics as well, including the one in the headline about what's going on currently with the attorney general department of justice. What about this electric car thing in California?

Yeah, we're gonna talk about that as well. You know, three or four days ago, maybe a week ago, two weeks ago, they said no more cars that aren't electric in California. They said that just a few days ago coming in less than 10 years. And then of course you get a warning today and yesterday saying, by the way, don't charge your cars right now. We're under a crisis right now. We can't really go out there and waste energy.

Please don't be charging your electric cars. So we're going to talk about that, what that means, what it looks like in the future, in the future of the state of California. 1-800-684-3110. 1-800-684-3110. I'd love to hear from you today. This is a great day to call.

We're out of a matching challenge. We're back to normal. Give us a call. Welcome back to the broadcast, everyone. So the attorney general, we've got a lot to talk about, and we'll talk more about the special master.

We'll take your calls at 1-800-684-3110. But the attorney general sent out a communication to all department personnel, so everybody at the Department of Justice. And it's called, the subject of, let's put it up on the screen, it's called Communications with Congress. Now remember, this report comes on the heels of whistleblowers going to members of the United States Senate to report on the assistant special agent in charge of the DC field office, Agent Thiebaud, who was the one who opened the 2020 criminal investigation on the election involving President Trump, and also was trying to squelch the investigation of Hunter Biden. So this comes on the heels of all that because whistleblowers went to Congress and say, hey, you need to know about this guy and a couple of others that are causing these, they're making everything very political. So here's what's interesting to me. The memorandum says this, in light of the confirmation earlier this month, and they talk about the assistant attorney general, it's appropriate time to reaffirm and remind all department personnel of our existing policies regarding communications between the Justice Department and Congress.

So that's what it says. Then it says these policies can be found in the Justice Department manual. Then it says, like the policies regarding communication with the White House, these policies, quote, are designed to protect our criminal and civil law enforcement division and our legal judgments from partisan or inappropriate influences, whether real or perceived, direct or indirect.

They are also designed to ensure that Congress may carry out its legitimate investigatory and oversight functions. The manual also makes care of these policies and do not intend to conflict with or limit, so in other words, it's not going to conflict with or limit whistleblower protections. But then it goes on and it lists a policy that says any communication with the Congress is the responsibility of the Office of Legislative Affairs of the Department of Justice. And that would be inappropriate for other people to communicate directly to the Department of Justice. So the question is, gee, this is coming out on the heels of a special report that was done by Senators Grassley and Johnson involving what? A whistleblower. So three weeks later, the Department of Justice sends out an email to all his personnel saying, by the way, you sure you have whistleblower rights?

But remember, you're really supposed to go through the Office of Legislative Affairs. Their miscues on this, Logan, are all about the on this, Logan, are incredible to me. Well, I think people can see that you're talking out of both sides. You know, you're coming up with, you know, in the, in the commentary, it's, you know, we're not necessarily limiting, saying we want to limit whistleblowers.

However, what's the point? We'll even have this conversation if that's not the case. We got a bunch of calls coming in about this as well. Let's go ahead and take Tony in New Jersey. You're on the air, line two. Hi, Tony. How are you doing there? How's everybody doing?

We're good. Go ahead, Tony. Are you folks, though, as livid as I am, in the fact that no, you know, between the press numbers of the House and the Senate, nobody coming down on this Merrick Garland, isn't this like criminal? I mean, could you imagine if President Obama came before Trump, and they were doing this to President Obama?

I think it'd be a much different scenario. And you know, when was this going to stop? Here's the thing. Well, look, elections have consequences. So the Department of Justice is part of the executive branch for the government.

What does that mean? That means that the Department of Justice works for the President. They are not going to investigate the President. And there's all kinds of consequences why they don't. The way you hold things accountable is you meet them in court. Now, that's what's happening today in Florida, involving this motion for a special master to be appointed in the case involving the former President of the United States. But what is interesting about that one, and I pointed this out earlier, and I think it bears repeating, the government in its pleading, and it got a lot of press, obviously, when the government did their brief, but they say that they are, the court should not exercise the appointment of a special master because the government's urgent interest, this is the quote from the government, in continuing its review of materials it seized. Then the government says later in the brief, at the next page, the government then states that the filter team has already completed its work of segregating any seized material, and the government's investigative team has already reviewed all of the remaining materials. So in one sense, they're saying they have to continue their review. On the other, they say we're complete. It can't be both.

You can't be complete and done. A special master should be appointed here. We're going to find out, we may find out today. Yeah, a lot of people have questions about that as well. Let's take a couple of those. Let's go to Steve who's calling on in North Carolina on line one. He's got a question about that. Steve, welcome.

Yeah, thanks for taking my call. I was just curious, once he, once a, if a master gets appointed, can't he, like you were talking about the other day with the judge that signed the warrant that shouldn't have signed it because he recruited himself from the Hillary case that couldn't he just then throw almost basically all that stuff out? They haven't made, that's not the motion they've made. The motion they've made is for the appointment of a special counsel. They have not yet filed what I would call a motion to quash the subpoena, which should have been filed in my view early on. And the motion to quash the subpoena says the judge was biased. He acknowledged his own bias when he recused himself from a civil case involving President Trump and former President Trump and former Secretary of State Clinton. He had, I think Logan, some posts on social media that were... Yeah, that would just, especially during election time, were anti-Trump or anti some of the statements he made, having political commentary for sure on public Facebook posts. This was before he was a magistrate. And beyond that, then after that, like you said, recused himself from, you know, rightfully so. Did the right thing eight weeks ago, 12 weeks ago probably. And it doesn't do the right thing when it comes down to a criminal search warrant, which is mind boggling, but they haven't moved to quash that yet.

Maybe that's coming. These guys get to become celebrities. It's the same situation we had the other week, which is now they get to go be on MSNBC for the rest of their lives. You know, they get movies made and they're part of the topics. And it's a sad state of commentary. It starts a sad state of affairs when it comes to that, because they could see the Hollywood lights could make them more money than, you know, sitting... As a magistrate.

Yeah. Well, here's an interesting aspect of this also though, with regard to the special master. The government also argues that any involvement by a special master will quote, interfere with now ongoing intelligence community reviews of materials. First of all, a special master is the judicial branch of government.

They will work for the judge to review the material. That's not interference. It's called due process. And that's where they're conflating the government. The department of justice is conflating these issues. And that's not the way it's supposed to be. They said never as an argument against interference, better underscore the need for judicial involvement.

Trump's lawyer said this, which I think is right than this particular case. So on the one hand they're saying, oh, by the way, we've completed our review. It's done. So no need for a special master.

On the other hand, don't put a special master in there because we haven't finished our review. So they are setting themselves up for total failure in my view. Now the judge is going to hear the case today. Here's what will happen. There will be oral arguments.

The briefs have all been submitted. So now it's going to be oral argument time. Could the judge issue an opinion from the bench? The answer to that is yes. That could happen. The judge could issue an opinion from the bench, could take it under advisement. We may know today what the judge is going to do.

I think a special master is absolutely necessary. This comes in from a representative, Jordan, Jim Jordan, he just tweeted it. He put the Biden DOJ spies on parents at school board meetings, cooks the books on domestic violent extremism cases, and now attempts to chill the rights of whistleblowers to speak to Congress. Well, listen, this memo, I mean, the, you got to put everything in context. The whistleblower, it's created a big stern Washington DC.

Why? Well, you've got these investigations going. You've got a search warrant executed on a former President's house. And now all of a sudden, after the whistleblowers went to Senate, the attorney general just wants to remind everybody, of course you could be a whistleblower, but I just want you to remind you that any communication with Congress is really supposed to go through who? It's really supposed to go through the office of legislative affairs. So this is typical of the government. I mean, this is typical of how they approach things, but this is now publicly released.

We have a copy, put it back on the screen. There it is, signed by Merrick Garland. I mean, his leadership capability, I mean, the left complained about Bill Barr, so they're going to say, well, the right's complaining about Merrick Garland.

I'm going to tell you something. Authorizing the execution of that warrant, I think was a huge mistake politically and legally. Not going to a different magistrate when you realize the one you got is conflicted. Big mistake.

Filing a brief that says we're done with our review, but we're still reviewing is a big mistake. When you put it all together, you know what it means? This is a mess.

You better get a special master in there. And the lawyers need to be filing a series of motions. We got a lot of calls coming in on this next segment. We'll take more at 800-684-3110. Yeah, that's a good day to call in because this is interesting topics.

I know you got a lot of questions. Obviously, we're also on the heels of a pretty interesting speech, the unofficial kickoff of the 2024 election, as I would say, as President Biden is really about that. This is what the Washington Post just sent out as a push notifications. It said Biden to warn of threat to democracy from MAGA Republicans, in quotes, election deniers in prime time address. So that will be interesting to see a prime time address tonight from a sitting President, technically not yet running, but he has filed. So this will be a interesting kickoff to the next two years, if we're just being honest.

Okay. This is the kind of rhetoric you're going to get used to. That's going to come out of this because they're going to compound all of these issues. You can all feel it. You can all see where things are going. Look at all the topics we're covering today.

They all have one central issue. So we're going to talk about that coming up. I'm sure you have questions or comments.

1-800-684-3110. If you're watching on social media, share it with your friends. On Facebook, click that big thumbs up. If you are on YouTube, look, I'm looking at it right now. YouTube, there's about 200 people have thumbsed up, but there's over a thousand people watching right now. So I'm going to ask all of you, hit that thumbs up right now.

It's out to a lot more people. We'll be right back. Hey, welcome back to the broadcast, everyone. There is a hearing this afternoon after the broadcast, actually, if you're watching us live in Florida on this appointment of a special master, the judges indicated that she was inclined to grant the request for a special master. And Logan, you asked that question of exactly what is a special master.

You hear those terms thrown around. All of a sudden, I feel like we're all supposed to be able to quickly interpret legal jargon that no one's ever heard before. And all of a sudden we're all experts talking about special masters.

Yeah. So a special master is an appointed position by a judge. Usually it's a former judge, retired judge that will review the evidence rather than the FBI taint team as it's called, that's the review team saying, oh, this might be privileged, this isn't. And that judge makes an independent review and determines what is admissible and what is not, what's privileged, what is not. What's interesting here is the Department of Justice in response to the motion that was filed by the former President's lawyers, they came back and said, we're continuing our review, but then the next page in the brief, they say, we've completed the review, there's nothing for a special master to do. Well, it can't be both.

You can't be continuing your review of these documents to determine applicable privileges and it's already completed. It's one or the other. And I think the judge is going to see this and that's why you say, you know what, this involves a former President of the United States, it's unprecedented in our history, there's all kind of concern about the initial warrant that was issued by the judge in the first place, as we previously said, put a special master in place. I expect that's what's going to happen. We will know, I think, in the next five to 24 hours.

I think we'll have an answer on that. We're getting a lot of calls on this topic, so we're going to keep taking your calls. 1-800-684-3110, that's 800-684-3110. Let's go to Anthony in Georgia at line four. Anthony. Hi, Anthony. Welcome to the broadcast. You're on the air. Yes, sir. This will be real quick. This is Sekulow. Could you give us a little background information concerning the judge that's going to make this decision on a master's investigator?

Is she a Democrat? Yeah, Anthony, I think there's... Sorry, Anthony, we just had some connection problems there. He was asking who is deciding who the special master is. So the U.S. District, not the judge that issued the search warrant.

I think that was the concern. Not the magistrate judge, which is the judge that is not a Article III judge. Magistrates assist judges. They are judges, but they're different tenure.

This went to an actual U.S. District Court judge, happens to be the appointee of President Trump's was confirmed in November of 2020. So she would be the one that makes the determination of who... If a special master will be utilized and who that special master is.

And they usually negotiate that back and forth on who it is. I've litigated the special master's issues. And what you do is you go document by document. So for each document you have an objection to, you argue it to the judge, to the special master.

That's how it's done. Okay. Hopefully that answers some of those questions for you. If you have a question or comment, we will be taking those calls throughout the next half hour. If you don't get us on your local station after half hour, we continue on live. So we'll give you information on how to do that.

We do it live on all social media platforms, Facebook, YouTube, Ron Ball, and on aclj.org. Let me just say one thing before we take another call here, Logan, and that is this. The government also in their brief, and this is to me is pretty unbelievable. They actually say that a special master will quote their word, interfere end quote, with an ongoing and intelligence community review of materials. Why? I mean, why?

It's a special master. It's called due process. The fourth amendment guarantees you the due process of law. So the due process of law, they sat on this stuff for two years, year and a half, right? Without getting them back until they executed the warrant.

Do you think two weeks is going to make a difference? So what the government's doing here is what the government always does, whether it's, you know, a whistleblower goes up to Washington to speak to the Senate, and then the Department of Justice sends out a memo saying, you know, communications are really supposed to go through the Office of Legal Counsel. Oh yeah, you've got whistleblower rights, but you just want to remind you, we have an Office of Legislative Affairs. They're supposed to handle this. Or whether the government argues in its brief in opposition to the special master's appointment, oh, we've completed our review. Or no, we haven't completed our review and this will interfere with our continuing our review.

In the same document, a page apart. That's what they're arguing. All right, let's go ahead and take some more calls. Let's go to Edward who's calling in Ohio. Edward, you're on the air. Yes, sir. Thank you for taking my call. And I appreciate everybody that we don't see on the backside of your broadcast.

I'm looking at them right now, about six of them back there. Go ahead. My question is, now that the FBI, TIA, and DOJ have looked at this, everything, is the special master still able to do what they should be able to do when they already looked at the document? Yes, the special master could turn around and say, we disagree with the FBI's position on this, we think this particular document, I don't know what the document would be, one of the documents, let's say, should not be used by the investigators. That means it cannot be utilized as evidence, either leading to other evidence or evidence of a particular act that might be deemed to be criminal or subject to indictment. They can't use that evidence.

So the special master still can say that evidence is tainted and should not be part of the investigation. All right, let's continue. That's a great question because it's the risk of waiting three weeks to do this. I think this will be the last call for this segment, but you can still call in lines are open 1-800-684-3110. Let's go to Lonnie in Louisiana, I think with a very interesting question. Lonnie, you're up. Yeah.

Thanks for taking my call. Sure. My question is, with these documents being high security level, does the special master need to get some type of security clearance as did some of the investigators?

Yes. So the answer to that question is yes, that the person selected would have to have security clearance. Now, there may be people on the list that already have security clearance. So either they will have to get in on an expedited basis or because some of this material is allegedly very high levels of security, SCI and so forth, that they would have to have security clearance. But there could be judges selected by this particular judge, a retired judge that has security clearance already. We're allowed to go deep into it, but what is the process of getting security clearance?

Okay, so it's a questionnaire you fill out, it's extensive, where you've lived the last 20 years, who are your neighbors, who are your friends, where do you bank, how do you have any financial interest. And it's very thorough. It can move very quickly though. The government can put these in place in a matter of weeks, not in a matter of months. Because they're getting a home loan, that's what it sounds like. It's very... Yeah, I mean, with a lot of documents.

Oh yeah, they ask you all the financial questions too. Yeah, no, it's the same thing. So yes, it's a serious matter. And look, this is an unprecedented time in our history.

There's never been a search warrant executed on a former President of the United States home. They should be dotting every I and crossing every T. You know what the government should have done on the special master thing? Said, of course.

Of course the special master would be appropriate here because the stakes are so high. But that's not what they did. Instead, they filed a document that says, we have completed our review. And on the next page say, hey, we are working to complete our review. It can't be both. Then they have the nerve to say, you put in a special master, that's gonna interfere with our national intelligence assessment.

As if the due process clause of the United States constitution doesn't apply to this. So our phone banks are jamming up. So I think people really want to talk about this, Logan.

1-800-684-3110, 800-684-3110. We are here for... First of all, thank you again to our donors. Second largest August 31st date we've ever had in ACLJ history. We thank you for that. Also, hope you enjoyed the concert last night.

The band did it live. We thought it went great. We appreciate you watching and supporting our work through that venue as well. And again, we'll take more calls and comments when we come back.

That's right. There are some phone lines open at 1-800-684-3110. We do have another half hour of the broadcast live right now. If you're listening live, it continues on. Some networks don't carry it. If they don't, find us right now, broadcasting live.

If you're looking to see us, it's a nice experience. Find us on ACLJ.org. On Facebook.com slash J-SAT Killers, go to the J-SAT Killo page.

Rumble. You'll find us there on the front page. YouTube, search for the ACLJ channel. We're there right now, broadcasting live. Again, for an additional half an hour. Phone lines are completely full right now, but well, actually one just opened up. So it's perfect time for you to call.

1-800-684-3110. Rick Rinnell joins us in just a few minutes. We'll be right back. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines, protecting your freedoms, defending your rights in courts, in Congress, and in the public arena. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life-changing work.

Become a member today. ACLJ.org. Well, the legal documents are flying. There's a hearing, if you're watching us live, there's a hearing this afternoon on this issue of the appointment of a special master.

The special master, as Logan asked me in the beginning of the broadcast last half hour, is an appointment by the judge, usually of a retired judge, to actually review the documents that were seized from the former President's home in Florida, and they do an individual review. The government objected to that. I would have thought it would have been on the better side for the government to say, yes, we'll consent to a special master review this material.

They didn't. They're fighting it. And in their brief, they actually say that the special master will interfere with the ongoing intelligence community's review of the material. I mean, actually, that is the phraseology they use. So your due process rights are going to interfere with what the government is trying to do.

So guess what should win? Your due process right. But there also is something else interesting in the brief. The government asserts that the court should exercise its jurisdiction to appoint a special master because of the, quote, urgent interest in continuing its review of materials it sees, which indicates that they're still reviewing materials and it's not complete. But then on the next page of the brief, the government says that the filter team has, quote, already completed its work of segregating and seized materials and the government's investigative teams have already reviewed all of the remaining materials. So in one sense, they're saying it's an ongoing review of these materials. And the next sentence, next page, they say, we've already completed it. In fact, our investigators have it.

Folks, which I told you, I told you that a week ago or two weeks ago, the way it works is not they go through the whole thing and then they start, once they say it's not tainted, the government, they give it to the investigators. So a special master should be appointed. The judge indicated that she would. I hope they do that today. That would be the right move.

It would've been the right move three weeks ago. Yeah. There's a lot of people calling in asking about this. We can maybe take one of these calls and we're going to have Rick Grinnell in the next segment. And then we'll take as many calls in our final segment for the day.

So stay on hold. We may take one with Rick. Let's go ahead though and take one. Let's go to Mary in North Carolina. You're on the air. Hi. Hi.

This is Mary from North Carolina. My question is how do we know that they're going to give everything to the special master? How do we know that they haven't hidden stuff away from the special master if it gets through? Well, if they did that and they certify that they've given all the documents over to the special master that were seized and they actually didn't do it, they would be in contempt of court, which is a crime, a felony. They'd also be filing a false statement with the court, which is also a felony. Having said that, don't forget that during Crossfire Hurricane, the investigation of the former President, an FBI lawyer filed a false statement, changed an email, filed it with the FISA court, was ultimately caught. So they're on notice that they better be very, very careful as they do this. They will have to disclose all of the appropriate information.

There's no way that they can, I mean, they could hide the ball, but the consequences of that would be very, very significant. But look, the irregularities on this are so extreme right now, it's hard to believe. All right. Hey, we're going to take some more of these calls coming up in the next segment. I do want to encourage you all to get engaged right now. If you're watching, we've been doing the matching challenge for the last few months, asking you for your support. We thank you.

Right now, easy way, a free way to do it. If you are watching right now, and there's thousands of you that are, on all the different social platforms, there's ways for you to engage. So obviously you can comment and all of that's great. I'm going to ask you specifically, there's 1400 or so of you watching.

When I asked us last time, there were 800 of you watching just on YouTube. And that's because I asked you all to give a big thumbs up. And when you do that, when you hit that thumbs up button, it's right below the title, what that does, it really does help.

Let's flip back over to me real quick. Let me tell you how to do this. Click the thumbs up. And what that will do is get more people to see it. So when I asked you to do it, like 20 of you had done it. Now almost 600 have done it.

So I'm going to ask you to do that. More people then see this content. Not only does it help us, it helps you because you get to have your message and look, we know we support it. You support a lot of the messages we get out there.

Facebook, same thing. Click that like button and click the share. You can comment as well, but like and share. If you're on rumble, there's a little plus sign, hit that and make sure you're sharing the rumble link with people as well.

There's always different ways you can engage that are non-monetary that really do help spread the word of the organization. Also, if you're on YouTube right now, subscribe. If you're on rumble, subscribe. If you're on Facebook, like this page, that's what you can do right now. Make sure you get alerts and you know what's going on and always engage with us on every platform. We are there.

We are on truth. We are on Instagram. We are on Twitter. We are on Facebook. You can find us on every social media platforms. That's one of the big things here is make sure that we are being heard by as many people as possible. So I appreciate it.

Thumbs up if you're on YouTube, like if you're on Facebook and the plus if you're on rumble, you'll see it. Yeah. Do that for us right now. We appreciate it. All right. We'll be right back. Hey, welcome back to the broadcast.

I mean, we're taking your calls at 800-684-3110, 1-800-684-3110. Our Senior Advisor for Global Affairs and National Intelligence, Rick Rinnells with us. And Rick, I've got to start with, to get your reaction, there's a hearing today for a special master, which the judge indicated will be appointed. And I pointed out in my comments today that the government in its brief says, in one hand, they say, hey, the review is complete. So there's nothing for a special master to do, which by the way, isn't true because it's the question of due process. And then on the other hand, they say, don't appoint a special master.

It's ongoing, our review. So, you know, this is a typical government response these days. I hate to say that, but that, that appear, apparently that's how it's coming down. But to clear this up, I think a special master has to be put in place. I want to get your sense of that. Well, I would say that a special master, as long as that person is independent, I fear that we have a whole group of Washington type that literally are fighting for their survival, their way of life, their rules. And that doesn't necessarily mean transparency will rule the day. We have a system in Washington that is threatened by anything on the outside that is going to change it, a force like Donald Trump. And so I would be nervous to see who is appointed. But I think the idea that we should be pushing is there should absolutely be a third party independent person who is not part of the swamp. Hey Rick, I wanted to bring up, obviously you've spent the last few years really talking about what's been going on in California, obviously California local.

But today we've seen some pretty interesting stories come out. You know, we had a few weeks ago, maybe even not even that you had to stay in California and say, Hey, we're going to be ending the sales of new gas powered vehicles in the coming years, just in a handful of years, maybe under 10 years. And then you have statements coming out today from Governor Newsom saying, Hey, you obviously know you've been outside and it's hot.

And that means you need a pause charging your EV, your electric vehicle. How is California reacting to hearing kind of both sides of this, them talking out of both sides of their mouth as usual? Well, I will say that Chancellor Merkel and Gavin Newsom have one thing in common, and that is neither one of them have an energy plan or had an energy plan.

And both of them also get glowing coverage from the media. So the scary part of what's happening in California is that we have no energy plan other than conserve, conserve, conserve. There's no desire to add to the supply. And yet from Sacramento all the way down to San Diego, the media are only talking in California about how to conserve how to take your appliances and unplug them from 4pm to 9pm. Think about this, the largest state in the country is having to unplug its appliances from 4 to 9pm because we don't have enough energy. Yeah, I mean, it sounds like a third world country. You hear those kind of things. It really does. When you hear those things, oh, we got to cut the power off at night, you know, like you're going to Africa.

I mean, that's a lot of those things happen there. Yeah, but I mean, this idea that we're going to encourage no combustible engine in cars by 2035, but by the way, don't plug your electric car in right now because we don't have the power to do it. I mean, Rick, this is the door of what that could look like then in the future.

Because if you are reliant on that, you are reliant and then these kinds of restrictions come, then you're almost in another lockdown situation of your own control. But is there any indication, Rick, that California is increasing its electric grid capacity to meet these kinds of demands? No, there's zero. And remember that Sacramento is totally a super majority of Democrats. Republicans are not even an issue.

They can't stop anything. Every statewide office is controlled by woke lefties. The media here do not vet our politicians when they go look no further than Kamala Harris, Javier Becerra.

The disastrous people in the Biden administration are Californians. And yet, our media here are screaming about conserve energy, conserve energy, conserve energy. You know, look, I'm no great economist. But when you look at supply and demand, you can't just lower demand and expect that to be a plan into the future when you're trying to get more electric vehicles on a grid. You've got to find supply. It's the same thing with water, Jay.

We live on the ocean, but we're telling people to conserve water. Yeah. Go ahead. Well, I think that's interesting. Look, I've had an electric car. I'll be honest. I don't have an electric car.

I've had one preordered for going on three years, I think, now. Mainly because I just like tech. I think it's cool. I think there's good stuff coming out, whether it's from Tesla or whether it's from the main GMC or whoever's creating them. I think that we can have improvements.

But when you have these kinds of situations, it makes all of us that even are just guys who like tech go, hey, hold on. Maybe this is not the best thing for us. And like you said in the water crisis, and we're seeing that in Mississippi, where it's absurd what's happening in Mississippi. All over the country, it's starting. I mean, look, you don't want to be the person saying the sky is falling, but it does feel like things are crumbling and crumbling from coast to coast.

I'll give you the sky is falling. Are the police cars going to be electric cars? Are they going to tell them only power up halfway? So I hope you don't have a high-speed chase.

Your car runs out of battery. I mean, just think about this for a minute. I do want to go to this, Rick. That's how you confront the police. We're getting calls on this, and I want to get your view on this.

We'll take the call, or we'll take Tanya's call in just a moment here. And that is the President is making a big speech tonight. And he used the phrase semi-fascist, which as I said on air, I don't exactly know what a semi-fascist is, except he's calling basically conservatives and pro-life for semi-fascists. What I don't understand about that is a fascist is a fascist.

That's a pretty horrible label. Was Mussolini a semi-fascist before the rise of Hitler? I thought he was a fascist. He became more of a fascist. I'm worrying more totalitarian in his approach, even after Hitler rose to power. But the language utilization here, Rick, coming out of the Biden White House is really unbelievable.

Yeah. And once again, we have a media largely ignoring what this guy is saying. It's very clear, and everybody knows what the left is trying to do right now is shut down dissent.

Dissenting comments, dissenting information, dissenting opinion are all considered a threat to the ruling party. And so what they're doing is across the board, canceling or crushing anyone who doesn't share their line. Okay. Let's go ahead and take, I think this is a very important call coming in. Quickly, let's go to Tanya, who's calling on line six. You're on the air, Colorado. Hi there.

Thanks for taking my call. I was wondering with the Biden thing, basically just threatening all the pretty much manga country with SS teams, what kind of legal actions can we take against that? That's not discussing, actually. That's a direct threat. Yeah.

I think a lot of people are just worried about these labels that are happening. And she's referencing, there was a speech given where talked about the second amendment rights and said, if you really believe the second amendment of rights, that it's to go after your government to make sure that there's a check, well, then you better be getting F-16s. That's what she's referring to in that. But yeah, to say good luck is kind of what he was saying in that. When it comes to the phrasing that's coming out of this and what we know may come from the speech that tonight, and Rick, it doesn't seem like it's going to be painting a picture of unity. That's for sure.

No, I mean, it's called people semi-fascist and then, you know, ultra-maga. So how do you see this playing out tonight, Rick? It's changed in two years. Well, one thing that's clear is, you know, we obviously don't want to be the ones who are saying that he has to change his rhetoric or change his, you know, violence him in any way. I think what we have to do is demand transparency. And it's one of the things that ACLJ does really well is to be able to be on the front lines of saying, wait, what does your rhetoric actually mean for policy issues? So when he's trying to go after second amendment supporters or pro-lifers, we need to be able to jump quickly, to challenge him in the courts, to challenge him and hold the Biden administration accountable.

And that's one thing that we do well. I'm somebody who, you know, doesn't fear your comments, your first amendment rights, your rhetoric. No, I agree. But I mean, but the tone of the great, you know, Uniter here is becoming an unbelievable divider. They threw out terms like, you know, ultra-maga and those kinds of things that people were able to really rally themselves behind. And they found one they couldn't, which was obviously we're not all wearing shirts that say, semi-fascist. So they're coming up with these terms to try to figure out what's that line.

And it's pretty interesting of deplorables. Yeah. And look, we're gonna take some more calls. A lot of calls. We have a lot on hold. We got a couple lines open though at 1-800-684-3110. Let's get to 1-800-684-3110. Call in now. We'll take some calls coming up in comments coming up as well, whether you're on Facebook or rumble or YouTube.

Again, great ways to engage. Also, brand new podcast launching September 12th with my brother called the Sekulow Brothers Podcast. Subscribe right now on all your favorite podcast players. That is on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, however you get your podcasts. We're there on the Salem Podcast Network.

You can find that at SekulowBrothers.com with just some easy links to go there. We'd love to have you. It's going to be a lot of fun. It's going to be casual, a different environment, three days a week, breaking down news, current events, pop culture, regular culture. Obviously, those all intersect so much right now. We'll discuss that a lot more at length and again, a lot more casual of an environment. With this show, we have an hour hardcore to tell you exactly.

We're on a strict clock. This will be a bit more free. Go find that. It's free to subscribe.

It's at SekulowBrothers.com. Write a review. Say you're looking forward to it on Apple Podcasts.

Be right back. Take your calls. Welcome back to Sekulow. Taking your calls in this segment is the last segment of the day.

A lot of you've been holding for close to half an hour, so we're going to get through as many of these as absolutely possible. Let's start. Let's just go in order.

It's on all the different topics we've discussed today. Let's go to Fred in Tennessee on line four. Fred, you're on the air.

Hi, Fred. Yeah, thank you for taking my call. My question is, the DOJ, isn't what they're doing just smoke and mirrors saying one thing and saying, oh, don't look at this because of, you know, there's nobody behind the curtain? Yeah, I mean, here's, well, I mean, their filing is inconsistent.

They, first of all, the first thing that, I think the thing that jumps out the most is that they said a special master would interfere with their ongoing national security assessment. And I'm sorry, but there's a fourth amendment to the United States Constitution. It's called due process. And even former Presidents have due process. So that doesn't trump the due process clause of the constitution.

That's number one. Number two, in the brief, they actually say, I mean, Fred, and this is, I mean, inexplicable, they did this on page 29 of their brief. They said that their review is complete. No, they said they're in the process of completing the review. They're making analysis. So it's an ongoing review. That's what they say. And on the next page, they say, the review is complete.

We've distributed the materials to the investigators. It's done. So it can't be both.

It can't be complete and incomplete. So I think that's why the judge is right when her indication was she wanted to put a special master in place. I think that's a hundred percent correct. That's the way to ensure due process here.

And that special master can determine what evidence is admissible and what evidence is not. All right, let's continue on taking these calls. Let's go next to Michael in Florida on line five. Michael, welcome. Hey, thanks for taking my call. Appreciate it. I just have a comment. And the comment is, I really enjoyed your concert last night. I also wanted to say that I think ACLJ is akin to a modern day national treasure, like Thomas Paine and the Pample of Tears.

People always ask, what can you do? Well, the ACLJ steps up and does it. And me and my family really appreciate everything you do. Thank you, Michael. We appreciate that a lot. Hey, we're going to clip that out and use that for ads because that was like the perfect...

I really, really, really appreciate it. And Michael, look, I mean, we always try to offer hope on this broadcast. And we don't just say, oh, here's the problem. This is bad. We're always providing, here's the problem.

Here's how we're going to try to go after this, whether it's in the courts, whether it's in the legislature, whether it's in media. The band had a great time last night. I do need to say that. And my bandmates did a great job and our production crews did a phenomenal job. We played for over two hours.

And not easy songs. They were complex material and we had a big audience here live and then a big audience, I think it's probably over 30,000, 40,000 people viewed it already, maybe more than that. So we really appreciate that. Thank you so much for that vote of confidence. All right.

Thank you so much. Again, let's move on. Let's go to Mike who's calling in. Ohio, Mike, what's your question?

Yes. My question is, they show all these documents on the floor that they got and all these people are going through this. What's not to say that they take all the good stuff out of there to use it against him if he does get to run? And second question is, is how come the people that do lie, the Democrats, they never get prosecuted? Nothing happens to them. Yeah, because they end up doing it under their own administrations. So that's what happens.

And justice isn't blind, unfortunately. Now you asked the question about what, and we had a call earlier. I think people are concerned about this. How do we know that they're on the up and up?

Yeah. Well, here's what happens. They're going to have to certify to the court, these are all the records we took. This is everything we grabbed during the search warrant. And they have to give it to the court then for the court to make the determination of what is admissible and what is not admissible. That is the way the law is.

If they falsify that statement, which the FBI lawyer did just a couple of years ago to get a FISA warrant, foreign intelligence surveillance warrant against an American citizen and changed an email, totally changed the email, if they do that, that is a crime and they would be prosecuted. But listen, you know why people are asking this, Logan? Because it's happened. Yeah, they've learned, they lose faith. They know faith that things are going to work out. He also asked to our phone screener, what stops this from ending up just being leaked to the media anyway?

And I think the answer to that is nothing because we're seeing... All morning I'm dealing with that. Yeah, because they leak everything. It's just, you know, part of the, sadly, it's part of politics, I'd say on both sides.

Yeah, which should be part of the judicial system, but it is. But it's all politics at the end of the day because it's all compounding to a, what, the kickoff, unofficial kickoff of the Biden reelection campaign, which starts tonight. I mean, let's just all be on Front Street and be honest.

This all is a one calculated effort. Let's keep going. Let's go to Becky in Florida next. Becky, you're on the air. Hi, thank you for taking my call. And I agree with the caller.

We more than appreciate ACLJ. Thank you. But my question is, if a special master is assigned and they go through everything and, okay, it's good, it clears Trump, would he get everything back and would this be over?

No. So the special master is only reviewing evidence, material seized, that could then possibly be deemed to be privileged so it can't be used in a subsequent criminal indictment. Remember, the search warrant was for a search and they alleged three criminal acts, three different criminal statutes. What this will do if they removed evidence, it was that evidence cannot be used for those particular issues. But it doesn't prohibit, and this is important for people to understand, it does not prohibit an indictment from going forward.

You'd have to quash the subpoena to start that process. All right, let's continue on. Let's go to Charlene who's calling on line two.

You're in New Jersey and you're on the air. Yes. I have a question. Why would seven former federal prosecutors file an amicus brief asking the judge to deny Trump's request for the masters? Because, first of all, I thought the Department of Justice should have just consented to a special master. This is an unprecedented move against the former President of the United States, never happened in our history, agree to a special master. All that does is put it into third party's control to make a determination whether the evidence is admissible or not. So why did seven lawyers come and do that? Because they are taking this view that the Justice Department can do no wrong. When we know that the person that launched a lot of these investigations is now out of the Department of Justice, out of the FBI, we know that an FBI lawyer made a misstatement to a FISA court by changing an email, totally changed the meaning of the email, and was prosecuted for it. So this isn't, you know, figuratively speaking, this is reality.

So you got some of these left-leaning lawyers trying to do this. Let's grab the last call. Last call, Mary in Florida, you're on the air.

Hey, Mary. Hello, thank you for taking my call. My question is in regard to selecting the special master. Yes.

I am a litigation paralegal by profession. I know that the parties, each side can propose their special masters. I've only seen them proposed by the Department of Justice. Yes. But I haven't seen the Trump team propose any special masters.

Yeah, not yet. You're right. So the Department of Justice, fearing that this judge has indicated that a special master is going to be appointed, fearing that, they're saying, hey, here's a list of potential.

The Trump people can do the same thing. And ultimately though, it is the federal court judge, the U.S. District Court judge that will decide who that particular special master is. These were all really great questions. I really appreciate about this, our audience, you really understand the stakes in these things. And I'm glad we can come to you every day. Again, a huge thank you to all of you that supported the work of the ACLJ in the month of August.

We had our second biggest August 31st date in our history at the ACLJ. And we've been around a long time. And also Logan had people like and share, and it made a big difference on our social media.

It really did. So appreciate all of you who interacted with us today. Again, can you go to me? Interact with us today. That is at 1-800-684-3110.

When you want to call in, that'd be great. Also support the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org. Again, support the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org. And honestly, not only support the work, just check out the great content we produce and we put up there each and every day. Great blogs, videos, movies. You can find it all there, ACLJ.org.