Today on Sekulow, did the FBI just leak top secret info to the Washington Post? We'll talk about that more today on Sekulow. Welcome to Sekulow and the saga continues. Give us a call.
1-800-684-3110. So as you know on Labor Day, the judge ordered the appointment of a special master. Now that we got to yesterday, finally the liberal media started piling on, surprise surprise, their favorite branch of government to attack these days. Judges.
Federally appointed judges confirmed by the US Senate. When we attack the FBI or even question the FBI Department of Justice, you get a speech by Joe Biden calling us enemies of the state. But when there's a co-equal branch of government, I think it's important to point out, a co-equal branch of government that happens to make a procedural ruling that they don't like.
When it comes to the special master, then all bets are off. You can criticize that part of the government all you want. But how about this? Let's just make it fair. We should all be able to criticize whatever parts of the government we want. It's America. It's America. So don't tell me I'm an enemy of the state for questioning one if you're going to question the other.
But if we're not going to play fair like that, I am going to point out every time you're doing the same thing that you're telling people is so bad for the country because you are delegitimizing or attempting to a equal, co-equal branch of the US federal government. So they get upset. They're angry. And then guess what we get out of the DOJ and FBI? A leak of what's in the documents that they're so upset about. But of course, they botched handling these documents already, as we pointed out in the judge's order.
That's part of the reason a special master got appointed. But now they're leaking to the Washington Post some of the specifics what's in there, which means it must be so top secret, right, that they felt comfortable leaking it. They didn't feel like that was going to cause them to get criminal liability. That's like James Comey leaking a conversation he had with the then President of the United States, Donald Trump. But listen, Lawrence Tribe from Harvard, here's what he said. And you talk about it, they love attacking judges. Schumer screaming at Supreme Court judges, that's fine. You know, making all these statements about the decision in the Dobbs case, fine.
They can criticize. So Lawrence Tribe, Cannon's order, that's the judge, will go down as part of the judicial anti-Cannon. The body of decisions like Dred Scott, which said black people were not people for the purpose of the Constitution. Or Karamatsu, which allowed the interment in basically camps of Japanese Americans during World War II that lawyers used for generations to teach students how not to wield the judicial power. They disagree with the judge's decision, who by the way obviously was correct as she pointed out in her footnote to her opinion on page 15, footnote 13. She said that, you know, I don't find the government's untested premises satisfying. Perhaps most concerning is the filter team's report does not indicate that any steps were taken after documents were given from the team to the investigators that were privileged.
No corrections were taken place. And then the FBI, so concerned about what happened at, what documents were down there, leaks it to the Washington Post and say these were the highest level of security clearance. Now look, you realize what's going on here, right? They want this, the truth of the matter is, they want the kerfuffle right now. Because it distracts you from all the other mess that we're having to deal with globally and domestically. Yeah, we were talking to Rick Rinnell about some of that that could be hitting us as temperatures begin to fall, which I know most of us are in place right now where it doesn't seem like that's happening anytime soon. I know on the West Coast temperatures are high, but we will get to a point where you're going to need to turn the heat on in a lot of parts of the country. And what's happening to Europeans as they're starting to issue the problem, the electrical bills and why. So we get to that second half hour of the broadcast, because those are the issues they really don't want you focused on. They don't want you freaking out before midterm election that your electrical bill could go up a thousand percent. Because that's what's happening in places in Europe right now. A thousand percent, not a hundred percent, a thousand percent.
Imagine your small business that you may own having to pay a thousand percent more for energy to keep the lights on, to keep the factory going, to keep the business operating. 1-800-684-3110. They leak again. This time it's supposedly, you know, what they consider top secret. I mean, it's worth criminal investigation over. Be right back. Alright, welcome back to Secular. We're going to take your phone calls to this too.
1-800-684-3110. Because, you know, you read the Washington Post headline, they're not calling what it is to them, what we know it is, it's a leak. I mean, when you read it, Washington Post, they get into this detail.
Some of the seized documents detail top secret U.S. operations so closely guarded that many senior national security officials are kept in the dark about them. But not the Washington Post reporter or the FBI agents who leaked it to them, who definitely don't have that level of clearance. Think about that for a moment.
I mean, just think about that for a moment. It's so classified, so important that it not be leaked, so important that there's a maintenance of control over these documents and that a special master was going to interfere with the investigation. That the FBI, Department of Justice, decided, well, we'll just give this information to the Washington Post because this way we could show how bad what the documents were that the former President maintained. It's exactly, I go back to this footnote in the judge's opinion. They're attacking this judge. By the way, you know what the judge did?
He said, I'm going to put in a third-party special master. She didn't decide the ruling on the case. She didn't hold the search warrant unconstitutional. In fact, she said the opposite. She said, I don't think there's been widespread constitutional violations at this point, but I do think she said, then she said, but I do believe that there are enough issues here that a special master is warranted. But she said that she was concerned that after the two, at least two times, when the department in their taint team, the review team that says, oh, this may be privileged, this may be protected, gave it to the investigators, which they weren't supposed to, happened at least twice.
This is, you know, every time they do this is what's so amazing to me. She said, perhaps most concerning is that the filter team's report does not indicate that any steps were taken after these instances of exposure to wall off the two team members of the investigative team. Now I want to ask this question. Where is the inspector general of the department of justice determining who leaked information that was at the highest levels of classifications? Even if they didn't say, here's the document like James Comey did. Oh, that's right. James Comey didn't do that.
What he did was he gave it to a friend of his who leaked it to the newspaper. So this is the game they're, they play the same playbook every time and they lose every time. I said, here, it's like, it's like, here we go again.
Same issue, same time. And they, they, they bring this breaking news last night at nine o'clock. And what happens after they make this breaking news? Here's what happens.
People like us start saying, well, wait a minute. If this was so top secret, if this was so secure, first of all, if it was so secure and only a few people in the government could have it, how did it end up where an agent or a DOJ employee could say, hey, by the way, Washington Post, here's what we got. Think about that for a minute. It was so important that they were able to get it to, that people saw it that did not have that level of clearance.
Maybe they did and they decided to leak it anyway. That'd be worthy of an investigation, I would think. Yeah, absolutely. I'm gonna go to the phones, Jerry in Pennsylvania on line one. Hey, Jerry.
Well, then go down and eat. Jerry, you there? All right, we'll go back to Jerry in a minute. I wanted to play this because this shows me it's, I don't usually play Stephen Colbert on here and I know he's probably very angry because Greg Gutfeld is getting more ratings than him.
A lot more. But when the late night guys start going in line with the daytime TV commentators and the primetime hosts, you know that there's a cabal going on, if you will, of this is our talking point on this. So guess who's going after a district court judge on national television at a late night show? Stephen Colbert, take a listen. So why is Judge Cannon going so far out on this very, very stupid legal limb?
I don't know. Maybe because she was appointed by the former President and confirmed just days after the Presidential election in November of 2020. So she's a brand new judge who was handpicked by the guy doing the crimes to preside over the jurisdiction that includes the place where he was committing the crimes. That's like if the head ref of the Super Bowl was Tom Brady's dad.
Pass interference, defense, first down, my beautiful boy. His theory then, because he's a moron, he doesn't know what he's talking about with law, is that any Obama judge I could have recused if I'm more conservative? Yeah. Because that doesn't make any sense to Stephen Colbert. No, but Stephen Colbert made another statement that's ridiculous. This judge is so bad, but the judge that issued the search warrant, did he do a commentary on her? Did he do a monologue on that judge, that guy? Did he say, hey, you know, maybe this judge that recused himself from a civil case involving Clinton and Trump, maybe he should not have been the one that executed or signed and authorized a search warrant on the guy he posted negative statements on social media about, who's now, and this guy happens to be a magistrate judge. Did any of those talk shows talk to them?
No. We're pointing this out, folks, because we want to give you the real, I'm trying to get behind the headline here. Because the headline, like Jordan said, it's a glaring headline. Top secret, highest level security clearance.
Yeah, go ahead. It sounds horrible to people. They read it, right? They say, oh, this is very bad. But then you realize, what other criminal investigation are you told about what they find? I mean, if you think they're going after a drug cartel leader, you're not getting any info. They won't even tell you if they are. They will not confirm.
They don't speak. But when it's politics, and this is what we talked about with the FBI, the problem here is that when they get too involved in the politics of the day, they just can't help themselves. And because we know the top brass has gone so far left, and they've been on this purge of conservatives based off whistleblowers to people like Senator Grassley, the fact that we're using these terms, these are terms from U.S. senators from whistleblowers. So it's not just Jordan Sekulow's term. If you're purging out conservatives, you're leaking to the Washington Post the day after you get a decision on a procedural matter that you don't like.
I mean, it's not like this is the end of the game for them, but the way that they just cry foul on these situations. I mean, this is procedural. It's the appointment of a third-party arbitrator to look at documents. This is not like a constitutional case, like we've struck me and the search warrant is unconstitutional.
Not even close. No, that special master is not going to be able to decide if President Trump's guilty innocence should be indicted, all that. This is just about the pieces of paper.
And what pieces of paper the investigative team can actually utilize in pursuing potentially criminal charges. Correct. That's it. 1-800-684-3110. If you want to talk to us on the air, let me make sure I get this. Is it Ariah? Erla. Erla. Erla calling from Kansas on Line 3. Hey, Erla. Hi.
Thanks for taking my call. I just wondered who's going to be held accountable for this in the FBI or the Washington Post? Have they leaked this now? Well, the Washington Post has no liability. New York Times versus Altman, they're protected, they're the press, and that's the way it should be.
The Washington Post has no exposure. The exposure would be the person that leaked it. Now, we don't know all of what they leaked, but you would think – this is how it would work, Erla – you would think that the inspector general's office would be on top of this. You would think the director of the FBI might go over to his office in Washington and say, hey, what are you all doing? Calling the press about documents you seized from a former President that you're saying are so top secret that nobody should have access to them.
Why are you discussing this with the press? So the inspector general's the one who should be involved in this, and I doubt it that he is at this point. It's probably not up to him. He probably has to get appointed to do it, and that would come from Chris Wray.
Chris Wray should do it. But they're already – it reminds me of the Mueller stuff. It's just they start doing these things. It's the judge who posts the negative tweets about the former President. It's the head of counter – the assistant special agent in charge in the D.C. office who's squelching the Hunter Biden story while he's also opening up 2020 investigations of Presidents and candidates.
It's all of that. And then now you've got the Washington Post getting a story, and you can't blame the Washington Post for taking a lead on this, but you've got to – and they've said this is devastating news. That's how they – this is devastating. I can't believe this information was there. I think it undercuts their entire investigation because if they feel comfortable leaking this – Is everybody getting access to it? Does everybody on the Tain team have that level of clearance?
I'd like to know that. If it's supposedly this level, I mean, there's only like a handful of people in the country that would have it, so they're already violating that. If they're violating that, you question then whether or not this is still even classified information. It's not even that many people.
I mean, we'll point this out. Or is it top secret information? How many people could it be on the Tain team? Let's say there's 50. I mean, 100. Who called the New York Times?
The Washington Post. That's what I'd like to know. Wouldn't be that hard to figure out. It would not be. But, again, we're in an institution where you have an FBI director who seems like he likes to say, oh, that doesn't sound good or that was bad, but has no control, it doesn't seem like.
It was very disappointing, very discouraging. Yeah. Do we have that soundbite from Chris Wright? Can we find that?
Yeah, I'm going to play it later. Oh, yeah, Senator, I don't like to hear that. And here's my deal. I just want the FBI focused on the bad guys trying to hurt us and foreign enemies, domestic. Focus there. We have a crime crisis, a drug crisis, an illegal immigration crisis in our country. I mean, there's always the threat of terrorism popping back up again, Islamic radical terrorism as well.
How about focus there? But instead, they're so sidetracked, which means you've got the top people of the FBI, whose that should be their job, are focusing on pieces of paper and leaking them to the Washington Post. And every time they leak that to the Washington Post, it undermines their argument that they're so top secret.
Because if they were that top secret, those guys would be worried about going to jail for life. Right? But this is the irony of all this. But it gets the headline.
Yep. And that gives the news last night from nine o'clock forward, three hours of coverage. And then nobody's asking the question we're asking is, why did this person leak this to the newspaper? If it's that we're putting some so much stuff at risk and how do they get access to it? And did Chris Ray call his head of his office, investigative unit and say, what are you doing here?
Of course, he's just horrified that this has happened. All right, we'll take your calls. 1-800-684-3110. We come back. We've got some life issues we want to talk to coming back as well. If you're listening or watching on any of our social media applications or platforms, share it with your friends right now. We encourage you to do that.
All right, welcome back to Secchia. We launched a new initiative, I talked about it a little bit yesterday, but it's at ACLJAction.org. That's our C4 organization, ACLJ Action. You can actually join as a member of ACLJ Action.
It's $25 a year, the donation, at ACLJAction.org. The second part of this, though, is we want you to take action. So to protect pro-life speech, the Biden administration, Department of Education just issued, and they want this to go, of course, unnoticed. But we noticed, of course, at the ACLJ.
And so we've got ACLJ Action not just noticing it, but something you can do about it. We issued this notice of a proposed rulemaking, which doesn't sound, again, like that big of a change is going to be happening. But it's to Title IX of the Education Amendments Act, so this affects Title IX. What the regulation would do, the proposed regulation would add abortion to its description of discrimination. So it would put killing the unborn child legally and morally on par with discrimination against a pregnant woman, which I think you understand that, why we have the laws in place so you don't discriminate against people who are pregnant.
How would you even discriminate against someone who's having a procedure they don't have to tell you about? Well, this is where we come in and are concerned. Pro-life speech, we know this would be interpreted, if this rule moves forward, to then condemn pro-life speech on college campuses. This is where this really affects the Department of Education.
Public schools, you know, so if you said something pro-life in front of somebody who you may or may not even know had an abortion or is planning on having an abortion, now you've committed harassment under Title IX and there could be action taken against you by, surprise, surprise, the federal government. So what we're asking you to do is we have a comment to almost 874 people who have written in comments to provide on this rule. And we have it set up at ACLJAction.org.
It's very easy to do. What we want you to do is, you can use the language we've provided, but we also want you to encourage three or four sentences of your own personal thoughts or concerns. So everything is up at ACLJAction.org right on the homepage there.
Love to have over a thousand comments in by the end of the show today. It doesn't take a lot of your time, but it is an opportunity to show how you can take those steps, and it doesn't cost you anything, but take those steps to protect life and protect really what I think is the next battle, which is it's the pro-life speech. Because we need to be able to go, Lord knows we've learned in post-dobs, we've got to be able to go and educate people. Kansas was an example of not enough time to educate voters on a ballot initiative. We were just involved through ACLJAction in a ballot initiative proposal in South Dakota where the language was very confusing, and it's not even on the ballot yet, they're just now trying to get the signatures, but from a pro-abortion group. And the language just wasn't clear that this would codify abortion as a constitutional right in South Dakota. We just want to make sure the voters know what they're voting on, because the other side doesn't want you to know. So that's how we're getting out ahead on those issues through ACLJAction, but I encourage you to go to ACLJAction.org.
Make sure to get a comment in on this. So the thing that I think we have to focus on here is what I perceive, and I'm going to ask Cece really to elaborate on this, is by changing the Title IX language or the proposed changes, they really, but when you say, you know, abortion is now sacrosanct as far as, you know, addressing it in acts of discrimination, which sounds very benign, but it's going to really go right to the heart of free speech, especially on the college campuses. So this is just another attempt of the federal government stepping in once again when the Supreme Court has said, this is an issue for the states to handle.
We see the Biden administration time after time saying, no, abortion is something we are going to fight and battle for, and so they step in in places where they can. This is another Title IX was enacted to bar sex discrimination in any educational institution that receives federal funds. So this is an attempt by the federal government to come in and say, okay, well, in the definition of what's going to be protected from discrimination, we're going to say abortion, and of course, when they are going to protect abortion, that means they're going to target any pro-life speech, any pro-life activity. So if you have CPCs or anybody that, you know, is on campus or has ministries to the campus, those are going to be shut down, and now there's an obligation under this new rule, there's an obligation that the school take prompt and effective action to end that discrimination. There's also a grievance process that now has to be put forward too here, and the grievance process allows for an adjudicator, and you know this is going to impact the colleges, and you're right, pro-life groups on the college campuses. So if someone takes a pro-life position on a college campus and the pro-abortion group, you know, the Planned Parenthood student group says, we're going to take them up on this, they're discriminating against people, they're, you know, targeting, if you will, or discriminating against people that have had abortions or might have an abortion, we're going to take them up on this. I think what you end up seeing, I mean, in my view, is just another example of the government's ability to target the speaker. Yeah, absolutely, because again, their obligation is to take prompt and effective action to end that discrimination.
How do you end it? You stop that speaker from speaking. So I'd say there's that speech element to this, but here's where it gets even more complicated. Let's say you're a Christian university, but you still fall under Title IX, the protection's in place there, and you've got a pro-life viewpoint as a university, and on your campus you might have a support group for mothers. Do you now have to bring in Planned Parenthood? Under this reading, I mean, if a student asks, I guess you would, I mean, to comply, or else you could be facing harassment lawsuits, discrimination lawsuits. So you see how what they do through these regulations, like you were just getting too dead, is a set of cases.
Yes. And like you can actually go through this and say, here's one, there's the speech case, here's one about now Planned Parenthood's got to have access to a Christian school, and if not, you get, you know, dinged by Title IX, and the feds are coming after you, and private rights of action too. So all of that, so whether it's the speech, whether it's the actions, it's why we need to speak up here and slow the process down. They try to speed these rules through.
The more comments that come in, the longer it takes. So tell everybody what you want. So ACLJ Action is a sister organization of the ACLJ, it's separate. It's a 501c4. You become a member for a $25 donation. That's all it is, and now you're a member.
You can donate more, of course, if you want to, and you become a member of ACLJ Action. But what are we asking people specifically to do here? Go to ACLJAction.org right now. It'll say right in the front of the home page, Action Update, Biden Targets Pro-Life Speech with Radical Pro-Abortion Regulation. You click on that, and right there you will see what we just talked about. We walk through what this is, the rulemaking, and it says click here to take action. So if you click here to take action, that takes you to the page that shows that 875 people have already done this, and then there's Act Now. So you put your name in, your email. That will then take you to the page where there's a pre-written comment.
You can edit it how you'd like, and we actually encourage you to add a few sentences to personalize it, and then you submit. So that's all. And how many have submitted so far? We've had 875 people do it in about 24 hours. That's great.
That's impressive. I mean, folks, you've got to understand, this is a new organization. It's a step further than signing a petition.
You've got to do a little bit more. But we've created this tool. Remember, I had to tell you, when we launched ACLJAction, we'd have all these new tools in place through the website.
This is one of those tools that allows us then to get these comments directly to the right place they need to go, and if it was something we'd need to get to Congress, we could get it to those. But, again, ACLJAction.org, you have until September 12th. So if you're hearing this now, this is the time to do it, and it gets right on the front of the home page at ACLJAction.org.
All right. When we come back from the break, we're going to get right back, and Rick Grinnell is going to be joining us. We're going to be talking about this whole leaking of information that the FBI, Department of Justice, did to the Washington Post about very highly classified documents that were allegedly during the raid of Mar-a-Lago. Now, folks, we're going to take your calls on this, too, so we've opened up our phone lines. 1-800-684-3110. That's 800-684-3110. Again, ACLJAction.org is a great way to go to get involved on a grassroots basis, especially on the fight for life here. ACLJAction.org. We'll be back with your calls at 800-684-3110.
If you're watching on our social media platforms, share it with your friends, hit like, hit plus. There you go. We'll talk to you in a moment. 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.
We are taking your phone calls to 1-800-684-3110. Getting back into the issue where you've got the now FBI, Department of Justice, what appears to be leaking right to the Washington Post, because who else would have this information? And, of course, the storyline that you get is, oh, they had these nuke documents at Mar-a-Lago, which, by the way, again, if these were the kind of documents described that they were looking for, they would not have waited on all these search warrants and all these different issues back in June when they had the ability to go right in.
But put all that aside. If they're so top secret, they're leaking it directly to the Washington Post. Directly. With a lot of specificity. So we have seen this time and time again with Trump derangement syndrome at the highest levels of the FBI. They can't help themselves. But you would think if these were documents, the way they describe them are so top secret, only a handful of people in the country could see them. But they're willing to leak that, which a document like that means for an FBI agent caught doing that and leaking that, they could face life in prison, even if they didn't say to the Washington Post, here's the document, but just read to them what it involves.
I think that's enough to be serious charges. Let's go back. Senator John Kennedy asked Chris Ray, the executive director of the FBI, about the whole situation with Agent Tebow. Just listen to the question and the answer, and this explains the entire problem. Isn't it true that Mr. Tebow, Agent Tebow, excuse me, and FBI supervisory intelligence analyst Brian O'Tan covered up derogatory information about Mr. Hunter Biden while working for the FBI? Well, again, I want to be very careful not to interfere with ongoing personnel matters. I should say that when I read the letter that describes the kinds of things that you're talking about, I found it deeply troubling. Deeply troubling? I mean, deeply troubling that agents are squelching evidence, putting one thing forward, squelching another on a political candidate?
Would you find it deeply troubling that some of your agents leaked to the Washington Post information about highly classified information that supposedly was taken during the raid on the execution of the search warrant? Is that deeply troubling? It's beyond deeply troubling. Is it deeply troubling that Peter Strzok and Lisa Page were texting all the anti-Trump stuff? Is it deeply troubling that under Robert Mueller's watch, they cleaned all their phones out before they handed them in? While they knew there was an investigation ongoing, that's when they did that. Is that deeply troubling too?
Because all of this is deeply troubling. You want to take a phone call or you want to wait? Yeah, we can take the call. Tamara in Texas online too. Hey Tamara. Hi, how are you today? Great. Good, I love your show.
Thanks for having me. Sure. So I have a question and I've seen a little bit about this in the news, of course, not much because the liberal media is not going to ask the questions or cover it, but why isn't, why aren't the classified emails that were found on Clinton's server investigated the way they claimed Trump? Well, I mean, they were, they were investigated.
I mean, they had the, you know, James Kobe made multiple statements. So there was obviously an investigation going on. They didn't raid her home, which they did in this particular case. Now, Secretary Clinton will said that there was not classified information. What did we find out about that? She tweeted yesterday that there was not classified information on her server, but Fox cites the 2018 DOJ report that says there were 81 emails containing classified, confidential or top secret levels.
Well, that's classic top secrets, obviously classified. So, but look, so we're shocked there's a double standard. No, we're not shocked. The FBI mishandled that too. Remember what they did to her three days before an election. We've got these documents. We're reopening the investigation. I mean, this is where the FBI is.
It's like you said, Jordan is really out of, not only out of touch, out of control, out of control. I mean, they didn't even understand because I guess they just expect the liberal media to just report it that when you think twice about what just got reported last night, you realize they're leaking. They're there.
It just undermines their entire case. It's so top secret. They shouldn't be leaking it to the Washington Post into the discussion. But we know that the FBI is a top leaking and one of the top leaking agencies, unfortunately, in our U.S. government. We'll be right back with Rick Renell. Welcome back to Secular, senior advisor for foreign policy and national security, the former acting director of national intelligence, Rick Renell is joining us now.
I can't think of a better time, Rick, to have you on because we saw this news story break last night after the special masters appointed at the left goes nuts. So the next step in Washington, the FBI then leaks and what appears to be the leak out of the FBI right to the Washington Post about what documents they've got, which, of course, to me, Rick, undercuts the whole classification top secret part because if they were that concerned about it, I don't think they'd be talking to the Washington Post because the jeopardy that would put them in with handling these documents, talking about the agents themselves. But yet we see again out of the FBI and these intel agents leaking to Washington media, Rick, and they're leaking what is supposed to be our nation's top secrets.
Yeah, first, a couple of points. One, they're leaking a document which they're criticizing President Trump for because it was too sensitive. So it's too sensitive for President Trump to have, but they're going to leak it to the Washington Post.
It doesn't make sense. The second point is, of course, we've got that same anonymous person, someone close to the situation is how they describe them. You know, we don't know who this person is.
We don't know this anonymous person. We don't know their motives. But what we do know is that anonymous has been so wrong with the Washington Post for so long. Remember, they're the ones who said Donald Trump was a Russian agent. They're the ones who said that the FISA warrant was legitimate. They're the ones who said Hunter Biden's laptop was Russian disinformation. And they're the ones who told us that Kim Jong Un was brain dead. So this anonymous person who keeps leaking to the Washington Post is really playing the Washington Post. They need to have more scrutiny. And the editors at the Washington Post should be ashamed of themselves how they keep pushing anonymous intel, which over and over proves to be wrong.
Rick, you know, the thing that's hit me kind of, you know, right between the eyeballs on this as someone who lived this for a number of years is it's like, here we go again. So, you know, a judge comes out with a decision that says, you know what, this is sensitive stuff. As a former President involved, there's the current administration that's authorized this. I'm going to appoint a special master to review the documents, not judging the constitutionality of the search warrant, just the documents. And then left goes on this attack of the judge who, by the way, prophetically puts in footnote 13 that she was concerned because there are at least two incidents, government admitted, where documents that were deemed privileged from the taint team ended up over at the investigators.
And then she put in, and there's been no evidence of any corrective measures to fix it. So they attack the judge, and they love attacking judges. They attack Justice Kavanaugh. They attack the Supreme Court justices because of the Dobbs case. Now they're attacking this judge because of a procedural decision appointing a special master. So then what the government does is, let's leak it to the Washington Post to show how serious this is at nine o'clock at night, prime time, so there's something else to talk about on the news.
That's what it seems like to me. Yeah, it's just more proof that the FBI leadership really needs a gut renovation. What they're trying to do is hold the information, not have any outside sources being transparent about it. We have a system in the United States where transparency and double checking and scrutiny is supposed to be a good thing. The FBI has proven, the leadership has proven to be so problematic when it comes to accurate information and putting forward nonpartisan prosecutions and investigations that the courts are now saying, let's have an outside entity like the special master. Let's have an outside entity try to bring some sanity and double checking to DOJ and the FBI because they won't do it themselves. Chris Wray finds out about that he's got this agent, the assistant agent in charge of the D.C. field office who was squelching the Hunter Biden evidence and then part of the authorization of the 2020 investigation of the former President. And he's now, that agent's gone and Christopher Wray's words are, I found his comments deeply troubling. We have a judge that had anti-Trump statements on his social media a couple of years back, now becomes a magistrate judge, recuses himself from a civil case involving Clinton and Trump and then signs a search warrant, okay, signs a search warrant for the President, former President's home.
Doesn't recuse himself from that, that's not a constitutional problem, but from a civil case he has to recuse himself. So I look at all of this and then you got the leaking now and the judge says special master and the swamp reacts and Washington reacts and I'm thinking to myself, we have been in this fight for decades and boy, and you and me and Jordan know what it was like the last, you know, six years, let's say, of what was going on. But you were the acting director of national intelligence, you were the DNI. What is going on with these agencies, Rick? Is this just these people embedded in there or is it a leadership problem or all of the above? It is a leadership problem at DOJ and the FBI. What we have is a comfort level with being partisan.
Washington, D.C., remember, has voted for the Democrats more than 90% in an election. So the bureaucracy is extremely left and so the leadership becomes very comfortable with having partisans within their system that are attacking Republicans, especially Republican Presidents. And it only is when we raise it to a level in the media, with the center right media, with organizations like ACLJ, when we put it in front of them and present it as look at this person who's being totally partisan, then you get years later someone like Chris Ray saying, oh, I didn't see this until now.
Well, the big question is why? Why didn't you see this partisanship when it's right underneath your nose? And the answer is because he's partisan, because he's comfortable with all of these, you know, the same people giving him the same information and he's not interested in dissenting information. That's the real problem in Washington, D.C. Yeah, I mean, Rick, I want to get to some two of the politics going on. Before I do that, I want to get a little about Europe, because Europe is facing what looks like a massive energy crisis that could also be coming here. And that implicates our national security, too, of course, but also the cost of just doing this. So we saw because of Russia announced that they've cut the Nord Stream 1 pipeline that so many European countries were reliant on.
I mean, we've seen prices reported increases a thousand percent a month in bills. This seems like it's going to be very serious and one issue that the administration probably doesn't want a lot of Americans focused on right now as they lead into midterm elections, but it's right around those midterm elections that people start turning on the heat. Look, I think that this energy problem in Europe and the energy problem in places like California, there's a simple solution that is increasing the supply. We've had too many partisans that have decided to get rid of the traditional energy sources like nuclear energy or oil or coal and instead just have green energy resources, renewable energy. Now, we all know that renewable energy is part of the solution. We should have an all of the above strategy with energy. But when you put partisans in charge like Gavin Newsom or Angela Merkel and they begin to get rid of the large traditional sources of energy, they put the public into a terrible situation. We in California, just like in Europe, are being told to conserve constantly energy rather than having leaders look for additional supply. This is pretty simple.
So, Rick, I'm following that up. I mean, the situation, how do you view right now, you've got this situation with Ukraine, they're supposedly making some counteroffensive. How does this play? We're going to be going into the, I mean, it's still hot in most places in the country, unbelievably so. But we're about to go into, you know, we're just weeks away, months away from winter. And we're going to be back in the time when the war can get more aggressive over in Russia and Ukraine.
How do you see that playing out right now? What are the geopolitical implications of this kind of stalemate right now? Yeah, I think it's becoming not just a cold war but a lukewarm war because it's a lot more active. Putin now sees that he gets to weaponize energy. He's now talking openly about Nord Stream 1 and what he can do to dial that back to try to get Europe to change its policies. Again, Europe put itself into this situation by getting rid of the traditional forms of energy. Now they're over-leveraged. Putin is going to take advantage in any possible way as we go into the winter months.
They've put themselves into this situation and they've got to climb their way back out by having more supply. All right, Rick, as always, we appreciate it and appreciate you joining us with all this information. And folks, again, you go to ACLJ.org. Folks like Rick and Mike Pompeo, they're submitting articles too.
They're unique just to ACLJ.org, so I encourage you to check that out as well. But this saga is not ending. But it is playing out a very similar storyline that we have seen. We're going to continue to take your phone calls. Final segment of the broadcast is coming up. If you want to join us, 1-800-684-3110, that's 1-800-684-3110. Let me encourage you, as we told you, to take action at ACLJAction.org, right on the home page, protecting pro-life speech against the Biden administration, trying to make pro-life speech equivalent to harassment under Title IX.
Take action, ACLJAction.org. 1-800-684-3110, there are more leaks, by the way, and more disasters by the federal government. You know, the IRS with their 87,000 new agents, their 80 billion new dollars, they've also mistakenly exposed just 120,000 individuals' taxpayer information.
That may have been affected. A lot of this, of course, comes from their favorite target, which is the nonprofit World and C3 organizations and other organizations that file 990s with the IRS. You've got documents exposed. But again, 120,000 individuals. They just say, oh, well, it does have your social security number, but it does have your detailed account holder information.
Personal income tax returns are included in this. Now, again, where this, I think, goes is to when you have an IRS, big bureaucracy, operating from home, and again, they can't even use the technology they've got, which we know is to keep your information secure. And this is, again, this goes back to that problem of just in Washington dealing with these bureaucracies.
They do not function. You made the statement about dealing with the agents at home. I mean, here's what you had. You were literally faxing documents to their home, taxpayer documents, and this is absurd. So the Wall Street Journal had a great piece, and it's entitled Another Week, Another Leak at the IRS.
Let me read this for you. It says, Speedy isn't the first word we associate with the Internal Revenue Service, but the agency hardly wasted a minute in showing why it shouldn't be trusted with tens of billions of dollars in new funding. Once again, it has managed to fail its most basic mandate, keep taxpayer information private, which is their primary mandate of taxpayer privacy. That's part of their mission. The IRS held a press conference, this happened on Friday, that it had, quote, inadvertently, I love this, inadvertently published confidential information which details about 120,000 taxpayers.
Disclosures included names, contact information, and financial information. And the Wall Street Journal goes on to say the Democrats recently handed the IRS $80 billion new funding in full knowledge of these shortcomings. Not to fix them, mind you, because remember, the image they had for that, very little. Here's the problem. You now have 87,000 Internal Revenue Service agents going to be hired for a system that does not work. And are we at a point where we think that's okay? Because I think the answer to that should be, Jordan, no, it's not okay. And that's where Congress comes in and says, you know what, and that's where, if the Republicans get the House and the Senate, or even just the House, maybe you could defund some of this stuff.
Yeah, that's right. I mean, the idea here is if they can't get just the basics right, why are we saying, okay, it's smart to give them $80 billion when they're not spending that $80 billion on this, which is so that this doesn't happen again, so you don't have exposure of 100,000 people's tax information. And we know that it's not normal folks who are going to be accessing that online.
It's the bad actors who are waiting for those moments. They are going through those websites all of the time looking for the government so that they can steal identities, take identities. And that process is a serious issue in the United States and all over the world. So you get this kind of information.
You get taxpayer numbers, taxpayer IDs, personal tax returns. It's exactly what they are looking for to take the bad actors. Let's go to the phones, though, too.
We've got the information on the leak as well. Ronald at South Carolina Online One. Hey, Ronald.
Hey, thanks for taking my call. And this is a very important question that I want you to probably debate on, and that is this. When we got the affidavit for the search warrant so that we would look after this, much of it was redacted. Could it be that some of the stuff that was redacted may be some of the information this FBI had leaked to The Washington Post? And if it is, what are the repercussions?
So, Ronald, first of all, that's a great question. And it's quite possible that in those reiterated page and page and page of redacted information, that could have been the specifics as to the information that was obtained from the search of the property in Florida, and it very well could have included that. Let's say it did, okay?
Let's just take it for granted. Let's say they did list that as one of the documents they're concerned with. That does not in any way justify, in any way justify leaking that information by the government, who else would have it to leak, to The Washington Post. I'm not blaming The Washington Post. They're doing what they get paid to do.
New York Times versus Southerland. They could do all this. Pentagon Papers cases. But the question is, how is it that the Justice Department and FBI allows a leak of this kind of sensitive information, even if they didn't say, hey, here's the document, Washington Post. But they just said, well, let me tell you what this document's about. Why in the world is that okay? Why is there not an inspector general issuing a statement immediately that said, we are taking control of this situation and we're going to find out what happened here? But that's not what's happening.
Christopher Wray goes, I'm troubled by it. That's the statements to everything. Everybody's troubled by it, except if you're the defendant. So when they're attacking this judge, and I'll tell you, I think the attack on the judge and some conservatives have attacked this judge, I think it's ridiculous. The judge, first of all, the judge pointed out in her order there are at least two incidents where the taint team, that is the team reviewing this special information and saying, oh, this might be privileged, gave the information that was tainted to the investigators. And then she goes on to state in footnote 13 of her opinion, and by the way, they acknowledge it, but they didn't seek to fix it.
So yeah, put a special master in there and get this out of the hands of the agency that's in charge of doing this. You are dealing with the former President. That does make this different, folks. And the people are saying, well, it makes no difference. Of course it does. It does both in, I think the line that the judge said, prosecution have to be just, they also have to be fair. And all this judge did was say, I'm going to put a third party special master, which by the way, is probably a retired judge.
It'll end up being somebody like that, that has the clearance levels. And that is what's causing the left to go ballistic. So if you tell me that's not politics, I don't believe it for a minute.
Yeah. And the timing, the timing was the literally 24 hours, 24 hours after the special master gets announced, you get this leak like this to try to take the attention away from what was in. I think that order, like you said about how the, how the DOJ and FBI have already botched handling these documents, twice at least. And so, hey, maybe we need a special master because you guys can't get your job done the way you're supposed to get it done.
And then we of course see the leak the next day and say, okay, this is the same bad actors, the same level of Washington, D.C. who have no business running these investigations because one, they can't get the procedures down right. They can't even procedurally. They don't want to. Yeah, well.
They don't want to. But it's fast and loose it seems. Yeah. And that's what they accuse the defendant of. And I think what everybody commenting on this forgets is that our system of justice is put in to protect the accused.
Exactly. Protect the accused the most. They get the most efforts. They get the, because you've got the whole federal government coming after you. So a special, just the outrage here over procedural issues.
It's ridiculous. But yet, you know, we are evil and enemies of the state if we criticize the FBI. That's according to the President of the United States, Joe Biden. That's where we are right now in our country.
Will Haines puts this out, and I think it's Will's right, our producer. Mayor Gartland should be holding another press conference saying that the action they're taking to sequester this investigative team while these investigative leaks are investigating themselves. I think that's a great idea. On a rumble, this was a very good comment. Someone said, boy, Joe Biden could be a hero if he opened up our energy for our own country. True. And then Dorothy on YouTube said, just like the leaker in Roe vs. Wade, they hope we all forget, move on and be shocked by the next incredible act that takes place in our economy or on the global stage.
All of those are great comments, and that's a problem. ACLJ Action. We're talking about that today on the pro-life issue.
Very, very important. Jordan, tell everybody where to go again. So you go to ACLJAction.org right there on the homepage, and it will walk you through. It doesn't cost a thing to take the steps you need to submit a comment to the Department of Education on this Title IX reform that is targeting pro-life speech. So go to ACLJAction.org and take action.
Whisper: medium.en / 2023-02-28 15:25:19 / 2023-02-28 15:46:08 / 21