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

NEW Trump Special Counsel’s History of Targeting Conservatives

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
The Truth Network Radio
November 21, 2022 3:34 pm

NEW Trump Special Counsel’s History of Targeting Conservatives

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 1022 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

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

November 21, 2022 3:34 pm

NEW Trump Special Counsel’s History of Targeting Conservatives


This is Jay Sekulow.

The new Trump Special Counsel has a history of targeting conservatives. Keeping you informed and engaged, now more than ever, this is Sekulow. We want to hear from you. Share and post your comments or call 1-800-684-3110. And now your host, Jay Sekulow. Hey everybody, welcome to the broadcast.

We'll be taking your calls at 800-684-3110, 1-800-684-3110. Special Counsel has been appointed by Merrick Garland regarding the investigation of Donald Trump. Interesting, the individual selected has a history of engagement on conservative issues, including the Tea Party cases.

He was in fact, Jack Smith was one of the lawyers at DOJ who said with Lois Lerner, if you remember, can you go ahead and get your group to investigate some of these organizations to see if we could bring criminal cases against them. That will, you know, teach them a lesson, so to speak. And that became part of the case actually that we dealt with. So we're going to talk a lot about this. We've got a lot of conversation to get through, a lot of topics to hit.

We'll take your calls at 800-684-3110. But before we do, you know what today is? Today is Logan Sekulow's birthday. And before we go talk to Logan about his birthday, I'm putting up on the screen for our audience, and I'll explain it to our radio audience, Logan has been worried about legal issues since he was a child. This is your Knowing Your Rights cartoon that you did in, you're probably three years old, four years old, back in a long time ago. And it's about, on it it has these people saying here's your right, you can't be told to not talk about Jesus, on and on it went.

My penmanship has gotten worse somehow, I'm not quite sure how that works, but it's very nice, thank you. This is my birthday, for all of you who are cursing me on Friday, hopefully today you're celebrating me on air. So yeah, we are going to be taking calls and comments on this. You got a little flack on Friday? Oh, you know, it just happens. Well, you know, look, I mean it's because you're talking about a sensitive topic, and sensitive topics are going to bring out people that, you know, and the sensitive topic being, you're talking about former President Trump, and look, people are going to be running against him, we're going to talk about this, but we're going to talk about this whole special council thing.

So a huge happy birthday to Logan first, glad we did that, his mother found that, Pam found that, those pictures, it's great that we're able to, I think it's great that we're able to use those. And then we're going to take your calls. How do you feel about this appointment? Do you view it as a political move?

How does it impact an election coming up? Merrick Cartland, we have the sound where he said I'm doing this because President Trump announced, do we have that sound clip? I'm sorry? They're working on it right now, they're working on some technical issues for our friends over on Rumble, so we're working on that, so they're focused on that right now. I'm sorry, I missed. No, we're just having some problems with some of the streaming stuff.

Ah, that happens, that's why we have Terrestrial Radio and Sirius XM or, so we encourage you to do that as well. Look, there's an appointment of a special council, this is the way it works, only the Attorney General can do this, the special council gets their own budget, their own office, they're still accountable to the Attorney General, but they set their own agenda. I am not a fan of special councils, as you know, I have some experience with that, representing the former President during the Mueller investigation.

I thought it was unruly, I thought it was out of control, and I thought frankly that the end result of it was pure politics. We do have that bite now. Here's the appointment bite, here we go. The Department of Justice has long recognized that in certain extraordinary cases, it is in the public interest to appoint a special prosecutor to independently manage an investigation and prosecution. Based on recent developments, including the former President's announcement that he is a candidate for President in the next election, and the sitting President's stated intention to be a candidate as well, I have concluded that it is in the public interest to appoint a special council.

So there you have it, and the answer being, well because we're now in a political season, you asked yourself this question though, did Merrick Heartland do that immediately after the former President announced, because he wants it off his plate and he just says hey I'm just doing whatever they say? I think there's a lot to that. But again, the special council is not an independent council, they still report to the Department of Justice. We need to in the next segment really break down what that process is, people just hear the term special council thrown around, it's like we get those terms thrown around whether it was in the investigations or the Mar-a-Lago raids, there's all these different words that get all of a sudden put in our vernacular and we're not exactly sure how to describe them.

Special master, special council, all these different things. So we'll talk about that coming up if you did a lot of questions though, 1-800-684-3110, that's 1-800-684-3110. Hey welcome back to the broadcast, we're taking your calls at 800-684-3110. I'm holding a letter in my hand that's dated May 22, 2014, it's from the Congress of the United States, we can put it on the screen, that'd be great. This was a letter that was signed by Jim Jordan who was then the chairman of the subcommittee, he will be the chairman of the Judiciary Committee going forward. What's interesting in the letter is that it's about the IRS as the Committee on Oversight and Government continues to examine the IRS's targeting of conservative taxes and organizations, which by the way we won that case and I'm holding in my hand a copy of the order.

I mean it's a lengthy order that we won, obtained a victory on. But this is what's said, while we knew the Justice Department engaged with the IRS in May of 2013 to consider prosecution of politically active non-profits, we were shocked to learn that this engagement started in October of 2010. According to Mr. Pilger, the Justice Department convened a meeting with former IRS official Lois Lerner on October 2010 to discuss how the IRS could assist in the criminal enforcement of campaign finance laws against politically active non-profits. The meeting was arranged at the direction of Public Integrity Section Chief Jack Smith, who was just named Special Counsel, Logan. So there you have it. So this is, I kept saying the name is familiar, the name is familiar, he's done work at the International Criminal Court of The Hague, I'm thinking maybe from there and then when we started drilling down on it, it became obvious that's what this was.

Yeah, absolutely, and I think a lot of people have those questions but maybe we need to break down exactly what that means. There actually is a call that kind of sets up this as well, maybe we should go ahead and take that call. And if you want to be on the air too, 1-800-684-3110, that's 1-800-684-3110. Tony in New Jersey, you're on the air.

Hi guys, thanks for taking my call. I just got one simple question because I'm so disgusted we hear it all these years from Trump. What is the predicate for this Special Counsel?

That's a great question. So the way it works under the law is the sole determinative person to appoint a Special Counsel is the Attorney General, so Merrick Garland was the one that can appoint. It means that the Department of Justice may be conflicted, that there were concerned there'd be conflicts inside that will look too political. Sort of like recusing yourself some way.

Yeah, like halfway recusing yourself. The problem is they appoint then, the person they appointed is a person that has, and again it's nothing against the lawyer, but he was involved in the Tea Party targeting cases. He also prosecuted Bob McDonald, the Governor of Virginia.

He won an 11-count conviction, which was summarily overturned by the Supreme Court, 9-0. So someone who feels like at least has some bias going into this. Yeah, I think the problem is... It was his job, I guess, at that point. Yeah, he was the Section Chief of Public Integrity, but to say that he's coming to it with no preconceived notions is ridiculous. He had preconceived notions.

So I think you just have to look at it that way. And what's his job? So now they pass it to him? He's in charge. He's the lawyer in charge. So everybody reports to him. He will probably take his staff, will be a lot of the people that are working on it. He can add to that staff, will be given a budget. He's probably, you know, technically they're supposed to move expeditiously.

My experience was it took two years. It's a perfect timing. Sure, because they come out with their announcement in March of 2024, right? Right, as really the stuff heats up. Either that or they're going to move very quickly. It's going to be one or the other. Generally, these don't move quickly.

These take on a life of their own. So I'm concerned about it. I don't like the special counsel statute.

I think they should do away with it. Initially, they didn't think they needed a special counsel, but obviously that changed. The rationale that he announced. That is the basis upon which Merrick Garland said, I need a special counsel here because we don't want to look like we're going after President Biden's rival. And he pointed out in his statement that President Trump had announced and Joe Biden has indicated that he intends to be a candidate as well. So he concluded that it is in the public interest to appoint a special counsel. So that's, they don't want to look like they're taking sides. But ultimately, Merrick Garland decides. Now, yeah, I'll tell you what he'll do. My guess is, whatever Jack Smith and the special counsel come up with, that's what they're going to put in place.

That's my guess. Well, I guess that's sort of just hedging their bets. They can kind of... Yeah, but you got to worry about the timing.

Like you said, I mean, you know, wherever you stay... I'm sure they are worried about the timing. It seems like that seems to be one of the big concerns as you look at it. They're doing everything they can legally to take the guy out.

Let's be honest, okay? The New York DA said today that they're reopening an investigation against former President Trump. All this is happening simultaneously and you're two years out from a general election. That, by the way, it's one of the perils of announcing so early is all this regulatory oversight comes in, which is exactly what's happening. Yeah, because theoretically, if he hadn't announced, there would be no special counsel, which I guess could be good and bad. No, I think you don't want a special counsel.

There's nothing good coming out of a special counsel. Let's just be clear, okay? But the only thing they're doing is focusing on this. To bring cases against that person that's the target. So that's what they're doing. I mean, that's the goal here. So I think we need to be clear on what that is. That's what they're looking at. And, you know, I think at the end of the day, look, I mean, it changes the calculus because now you've got these sprawling investigations that are targeting one individual primarily. There'll be others that'll be in the periphery, but targeting one individual. Let's take another phone call.

Yeah, I think they're still – I think they're still screaming that call. I'm not positive. Is it ready? Okay, let's go to Jerry in Rhode Island. On line one, Jerry, you're on the air. Hi, Jerry.

Happy birthday to the birthday boy. Thank you. You know, those of us who've been in long-term calls, we already know what side of the aisle we're on. I would just love to hear the independents or the one-time callers who've never called say, what do you think of this? We have been through this with the impeachments and the calls.

And the timing, you've got to be ignorant not to see the timing and make the connection. And the ACLJ and you've done – you're pretty uniquely qualified to discuss these matters and obviously an IRS targeting and everything that's happened before. Yeah, both of the things – We've been involved in the – like Jerry said, we've been involved in these situations a long time, so I think people need to understand we're not just commentating off the top of our heads here. No, no, listen, and the last special investigation that was aimed at a President – well, the last special counsel was the case we handled. So, I mean, I handled it.

I know what it is. That's what I'm concerned about is the way in which the trajectory of these things – We were very – you know, Mueller's team was aggressive. We had an aggressive team. We pushed back hard.

They pushed back. But, you know, we never went to court. You realize in that two and a half years – Just a lot of conversations. We never had to go to court because of the way we handled the case, and that's called good lawyering. This is different because he's not a sitting President anymore, so the protections of the presidency aren't there. There are protections of the President. You can't indict a sitting President.

So, you know, all of those protections are gone. So his lawyers have a unique challenge in that it's now a sprawling investigation. In one sense, it's coordinated that you have one person that's kind of handling it, but that one person is handling all of it, and that's a lot to handle.

I mean, you have to realize it's a lot to handle when you have a situation like this. So he's going to be relying on deputies. He's going to build a step. He's leaving The Hague.

He's supposedly not – he had some kind of bicycle accident in the Netherlands, and it's going to be coming back. But it's interesting that he was the appointment. It was also interesting that this was the person involved in the Tea Party targeting issues. Yeah, I think that's what a lot of people tuned in to hear about.

What is this? We say that the special counsel has a history of targeting conservatives. It's not like it's vague. We know specifically his job was to essentially go after a lot of these people.

We actually have a throwback bite from Lois Lerner to kind of give you a bit of a setup to what he was involved in. And what happened last year was the Supreme Court, although the law kept getting chipped away and chipped away in federal election data, the Supreme Court dealt with a huge blow, overturning a 100-year-old precedent that said basically corporations can get directly in political campaigns. And if everyone is up in arms because they don't like it, then the election officials can't do anything about it. They want the IRS to fix the problem.

The IRS laws are not set up to fix the problem. Okay, so basically it was – if you had trouble hearing it, it was from a couple of years back. And she said it was because of the Supreme Court decision that these groups were allowed to engage in 501c4.

You mean the Supreme Court said that that kind of activity was constitutionally protected, thus the IRS decides how can we fight it. And the guy that was the head of public integrity, Jack Smith, is now – it was the section chief for public integrity. That means he was in charge of that unit. He is now in charge of – he is now the special counsel appointed by Merrick Gartland. Now, we don't know the scope of his engagement, but it appears that it's all of the investigations that are going on. I think there's three grand juries that are going on right now. Yeah, 12 years ago, that clip. So that was just showing you how long.

Yeah, he's been around a long time. Career guy, like I said, prosecuted Bob McDonald, got a jury conviction on 11 counts, went to the Supreme Court of the United States. And all nine justices said the Department of Justice – basically the legal theory that they were operating under, under bribery and obstruction and all these things, did not meet the statutory requirements and unconstitutional. Nine to zero.

The most conservative members of the court and the most liberal members of the court. So there you have it. Yeah, we're going to take more phone calls at 1-800-684-3110, but head to this next segment. I do want to tell you we are in the middle of our matching challenge here at the ACLJ, which means if you give any donation during the month of November, it's effectively matched.

So if you do have the means, which we know it is tough right now, so if you don't, it's not like we're sitting here pressuring you, but if you do have the ability to do it, this is a good time. Because essentially your financial support is doubled. So if you give $10, there's another donor on the other end who's already pledged to match that donation.

So 10 becomes 20, 100 becomes 200, so on and so on. And if you have to do anything special, just go to and all donations are effectively doubled. Also go to that website and look around at all the great content. I say this a lot because I think we obviously promote it as a place to go and support the work of the ACLJ, which you should. But also go take a look at some of the incredible work that we have there. Great videos, great blogs, great news stories.

It's updated almost every day with brand new information for some of the leading names on the planet. Check it out at Again, matching challenge happening right now. We're going to be talking about obviously this appointment of a special counsel, but we're also going to be talking about a big issue that the American Center for Law and Justice is involved in. And we've talked to this with you before, the Biden administration, how Department of Veterans Affairs has, because VA is now in the abortion business, which is hard to believe, but that is what has happened. But they're also targeting pro-life employees for discrimination. And we are handling one of those cases right now. And CC, this one, it's so bizarre in my mind that this became an issue for the IRS. Excuse me, for the VA, because everybody was allowed to basically display these kind of, I guess we call them personal identifiers on their... Yeah.

So our client works, he's a medical health employee at the VA and they use Microsoft Office applications. So most people know when you use Microsoft Office, you're able to put up a little picture beside your profile. And so he decided to put up a pro-life picture.

One I think was just a heart and a cross with a pro-life message on it. He was literally singled out and targeted by his supervisor. And they specifically said that he had to remove these offensive pictures.

And he was accused of conduct that was unprofessional and unacceptable. But the twist here in this story is that everybody else uses these personal profile pictures and they have different logos and they personalize them. And they have not been asked to pull those down at all. On a whole variety, wide variety of different topics these people can put in their personal profiles. And some of them are more political in nature. It's not like you've just been, okay, if we said no politics, no faith, you may not agree with it, but at least there'd be some sort of universal standard. This is saying do whatever you want unless.

Unless it's pro-life. Right. And so we've sent them a demand letter and basically all we're saying is please just follow federal law. This is the veteran affairs. You know, they should know federal law. And if you're going to have a policy, then you need to implement it equally.

And then, you know, not retaliate against this particular employee. And we have tried to settle this and they are not settling. They haven't responded to the demand letter. So an EEOC complaint has been filed.

Yes. And I don't expect it's going to get resolved there, to be blunt. I mean, these cases tend to not get resolved, especially with this administration.

So, but even in the previous administration, to be fair, they generally didn't get solved. So the next step could well be, and will be, federal court if necessary. And it's going to be necessary, unfortunately. And if we do need to, if we can't get this resolved, we will definitely take this to court because this is a situation where this employee was definitely singled out and targeted and told it was offensive. And to remove his offensive, you know, photo and that his conduct was unprofessional and unacceptable, but no other employee has had, you know, has been told that. And that they have to, if they have a policy, they have to apply it equally across the board. You know, the pro-life issue right now, let's be clear, is fraught with people, you know, it became the big issue because the Supreme Court overturned the right recognized in Roe versus Wade.

Not unsurprising to me, unsurprising in the sense I never thought I'd see it in my lifetime, but constitutionally that decision was never firm. But what you have now is this, I call it this kind of shotgun approach to anything that's pro-life is now going to be viewed, at least by government entities, as a problem. I think Christopher Wray testified that the number of violence cases on the abortion issue, I don't know if we have that sound, was like 60% of the cases, 70, go ahead, Will, tell me, 70% of the cases were in fact targeting the pro-life groups. The question is, what is the FBI doing about it?

Yeah, well, and nothing, well, some, maybe a little bit. We have one case where we are talking to, to be fair, we have one case where the FBI has expressed interest and our lawyers are meeting with the FBI and the pro-life center. So we are pushing to get resolution, but 70% of them were aimed at the pro-life group. Right, and we know that the FBI and DOJ is going after pro-life groups instead of the people that targeted and harmed pro-life groups, they're going after 22 of the pro-life groups. So it's, it's a little bit strange that they know that the damage and targeting of pro-life groups is a big problem, but they haven't done anything to find the perpetrators and prosecute them.

Which is pretty unbelievable when you think about it, Logan. I mean, we've been fighting this battle for a long, long time, but there you have it. I mean, it's still ongoing. Yeah, and that's why we do the work here. We continue to push on and that's why there are important moments in our calendar year. I don't want to just make this be a pitch, but moments in our calendar year where you can support the work of the ACLJ.

And by doing so in the month of November right now, it's really a great time to do it because if you donate now, there is another donor on the other end who's willing to match that and make it double the impact. And as it relates to the pro-life cases, let me say this. We have a lot of work going on because it was a great victory at the Supreme Court, but what's happening in the states, we've got basically potential skirmishes in all 50 states.

I mean, it's that significant. We're on the phone with states, attorneys general, members of the legislature, city councils. I mean, it's very complex to get this matter resolved. I'm optimistic, but we do have to recognize that this is for real.

That's right. Not only in the 50 states, but HHS just did a new field guidance where any unaccompanied minor child who's pregnant, now there is a directive that abortion care must be afforded to them, which is in direct violation of the Hyde Amendment. But this is the kind of things that we're seeing, again, coming out of the Biden administration, anywhere that they can get push the abortion agenda. They are doing it even if it violates other federal laws. And so our battle is constant and ongoing, and we do need support to help fight this battle, which continues to grow every day.

I also want to say this. As you mentioned, Logan, it's an intensive battle, and our lawyers are defending the issue of life, not just in the state legislatures, but people speaking out against abortion, which are being targeted. The VA case is a perfect example of new cases that we're involved in.

Sidewall counselors still in litigation on those who just approved a brief this weekend going to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, I mean, could end up at the Supreme Court of the United States. So you look at the scope and nature of everything we're involved in on the life front, which has always been a central aspect of what we do at the ACLJ. I just want to tell you that when you're doing it, it's very labor intensive.

This is labor intensive work. And I need to also say that our media team is also involved in this because we're trying to constantly communicate, Logan, a message about the sanctity of life and the importance of life. And that's an important issue, too, on the media side.

Oh, yeah. I mean, our media operation is significant. It is run by some of the best people in the business because we want to make sure that people see this message. It's important to be, obviously, in court. It's important to be sending letters and being really engaged in people's communities and what's happening with the law. But it's also just as important, equally as important, to do shows like this and the other podcasts and the other broadcasts we do, all the channels that we operate, whether that be on Rumble or YouTube or Facebook and making sure that we are everywhere. So our voice and our message and your voice and your message is being heard and in the most professional way possible, not done in some thrown together, cheesy way. We make sure we have a great team that's putting together incredible pieces, incredible works of art, really, to make sure that the message is being heard. And we do that through our media center here at the ACLJ.

And again, an incredible team. This is why we want you and we're asking you to support if you're able to work at the American Center for Law and Justice. November and December are the two most important parts of the year. That's how we determine our budget for next year. So we have donors that are willing to match whatever you donate. So we encourage you to go to That's And any amount you donate, we're going to get a matching gift for. So I encourage you, if you're able to do that today, as I said, whether it's standing for life, religious liberty, standing for Israel, fighting at the U.N., wherever it might be, the halls of Congress, the American Center for Law and Justice is there. We've been doing this almost 40 years. for the matching challenge campaign. Back with a half hour coming up next. Keeping you informed and engaged. Now, more than ever, this is Sekulow. And now your host, Jay Sekulow. Hey, everybody.

Welcome back to the broadcast. If you're just joining us, special counsel has been appointed by Merrick Garland, dealing with former President Trump and the investigation surrounding January 6th, surrounding the documents and the document that were the subject of a search warrant in Mar-a-Lago. All of that now being handled by a special counsel. Special counsels are only to be appointed by the Department of Justice Attorney General. He's the only one that can make the appointment. They operate independently in the sense that they have their own budget. They're outside of direct supervision, but the AG is still in charge. So you can't just pass the buck.

But this was done at a time, the justification for it was, was that President Trump announced, Joe Biden announced, they want to depoliticize. Yeah, a lot of people are calling in. I think we should go ahead and just go in order. A lot of people have called in. So we'll get through some of these and we'll open up some phone lines. So let's go to Michael, who's calling in California online too. He's got some comments.

Michael, you're on the air. Yeah. Hello. First of all, thank you for, thank you for taking my call and thank you guys for the great work you've been doing.

And I will try to contribute pretty soon. Thank you. Okay.

Yeah. My, my comment is that I think that, um, Donald Trump did, President Trump did a brilliant move. It's like David running towards Goliath and I think he forced everyone's hand, everyone have to come out in the open. And so it's great that everyone could decide what they want to do, but now everything is on the table.

So I think it's a brilliant move and he could stay in his basement for two years. They're still, still be the news, driving the news. You mentioned the driving the news.

That's certainly true. I mean, millions of people watched his announcement and millions more watched online. So Michael's not necessarily wrong in the sense that the attention will always be, even networks that said they weren't going to run it ended up running it. We're hearing a lot more.

Obviously you have, uh, him having his Twitter account reinstated. What do you think is going to happen there? I think eventually I think the problem, I think he has truth social and that will be a conversation he probably has to have internally since it's his own company. It's also people who invested in it and thinking it'd be his exclusive home. However, you're running for President and you have the access to 85 million people already.

I think, uh, it's not necessarily a temptation as much as a necessity to reengage that audience. Uh, so I think inevitably it'll get there, but I think Michael is, is right and wrong in some ways. I think he's right that this does kick off the conversation with President Trump instead of him coming in as a spoiler in a couple of years. Let me tell you what you don't want.

Okay. You don't want a special counsel whose sole job and sole resources are to focus on you. And so that part of the, I don't think, I don't know if they calculated that in this process, uh, his lawyers. I don't, you know, I don't know what their, the lawyers representing the former President are thinking, but the appointment of a special counsel, and I can speak to this because I was the lawyer that handled the last special counsel is not something that is a, you don't look at that as a positive development in the cases. Well, and I think that's what we know what's going to happen since, you know, President Trump made the announcement that he was going to run again. I think we know that all guns are going to come out shooting towards him and the special counsel is just one more, uh, target.

But it creates a legal hurdle that, you know, you, you got to deal with and hopefully they're up to the challenge. Do we have time for one more or probably not loaded? What do you want to do? Yeah, it's on the edge. Let's go ahead and take one.

Why not? We need to knock some out. Let's go to Nick in Nevada real quick. Hey Nick. Hi. I heard somebody had a birthday today. Happy birthday.

Thank you, Nick. Okay. Uh, so my question is, um, well we know that this administration and the media like to distract from anything negative aimed at the corruption and the dirty beads of a certain side of the aisle. And with the announcement last week of a new investigation, you know, Hunter Biden's laptop, uh, is this Merrick Garland announcement also part of that distraction?

You know, it's interesting. Are they going to put a, are they going to put a special counsel in for that one? Because if they're all worried about the politicization of all of this, you've got the President's, uh, son under, which is public. He's under, uh, investigation by the justice department, but he kept in place the lawyer, the US attorney that was appointed actually under President Trump. I don't expect they're going to make a special counsel appointment there. It's, it's interesting. I think the special counsel statute needs to go.

I've said it, I'm going to say it right now. Again, I don't think it's helpful. And I think it's problematic and it's not good for the country. And now it puts another two year process in play, which is not a good thing. We're taking your calls at 1-800-684-3110. Hey, welcome back.

We're taking your calls at 1-800-684-3110. Well, Kevin McCarthy secured enough votes. It looks like to be the next speaker of the house since the Republicans now have that chamber. He has said that he is going to bar Congressman Swalwell Schiff and Omar from serving on various committees, which is not, by the way, he's not the first one to do that. Nancy Pelosi did exactly the same thing.

Yeah. When you're talking about finding specific people to go after, I think going after the ones who are the ones that are the most egregious in terms of their bias, egregious in terms of the rhetoric makes total sense. I was thinking it helps McCarthy actually have, get a little cred going into this.

I think people were concerned about how he was going to be. So now you go into this situation and we actually have a comment, I believe it is from McCarthy on bite 11, kind of setting up what he's going to do. Congresswoman Omar, her antisemitic comments that have gone forward, we're not going to allow her to be on foreign affairs, but we're also going to stand up to what's happening, not just in the halls in Congress, but what's happening into our higher education institutions, the antisemitism that's going on on these campuses and others. We will investigate that as well and stop this to make sure that America does have the freedoms that we said we would keep. And we will stand up to it as we move forward. It's interesting because we're handling a lot of, we're handling cases right now for students and faculty that are subject to this antisemitism. But this is the person, Congresswoman Omar, who said, it's all about the Benjamins, baby. You want to explain to our audience what that means? Well, I mean, she was making reference, but obviously when it comes to all about the Benjamins, all about the money, all about the hundred dollar bills, Benjamins, but this specifically tied to, I believe that was to Israel, tied into AIPAC and all of that. So I think there was some connections there, but there, I mean, she's been, she doubled down on her anti-Israel, anti- It's a racist stereotype about Jewish people.

And it happens all the time from her. So it's, this is no shocker. Look, on Friday, I was out here saying, you know, I think that there are times when, whether it's the Hunter Biden situation, all that, should that be the first thing we lead with? Does it look good? Is that a good thing to present as the first thing you're going to do?

This one I'm fine with because these are your three actors who are really, like I said, the most egregious, the ones that people can't stand and the ones who are so far gone, there's no worth even trying to save them. Well, I mean, look, Swalwell had the Chinese spy situation in his office. Adam Schiff, Harry, said, you know, he had the direct evidence of Russia collusion, which of course he never presented because there never was any. And, and Elian Omar, we have a list of statements she's made.

Absolutely. So let me congratulate projected House leader Kevin McCarthy for doing something. Perhaps for the first time in history, House Republicans are finally growing a backbone. And I think they need to push back at these bad actors that are coming from the Democrat Party, Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell, and Ilhan Omar.

And so if you look at Eric Swalwell, he is a confirmed security risk who has had a celebrated relationship with Christine Fang, a Chinese agent. Adam Schiff, as you correctly point out, has lied consistently about the existence of adducible evidence, suggesting that Trump was involved in some Russia collusion narrative when there was exactly zero evidence and time has proven that. We've gone through a special counsel investigation with Bob Mueller and no evidence was found. We've had House hearings. We've had CNN investigations. We've had Adam Schiff go on Chuck Todd's failed show and claim that he had evidence when he had no evidence. So I think it's about time for Republicans by and large to begin to push back and to learn how to fight effectively. Yeah, let's remember some of the greatest hits of Representative Omar.

So let's first start with, this one's back from 2019. Let's play that bite where it specifically talked about some of her more anti-Israel, anti-Semitic statements. You tweeted about Israel in 2012 during the offensive in Gaza. You wrote, Israel has hypnotized the world. May Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel. I wonder just what your message is this morning to Jewish Americans who find that deeply offensive. Oh, that's really a regrettable way of expressing that. I don't know how my comments would be offensive to Jewish Americans. I don't know. Israel has hypnotized the world.

May Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel. That might be offensive. That sounds pretty much like stereotypical nonsense. They were getting away with this with impunity. Now they're not. Nancy Pelosi set the precedent for removing people from committee. Right. And I agree with Harry too that this is a good thing for Republicans to do. Too often Republicans get into power and then trying to be tolerant. They don't take the actions that they need to take. And barring these people from committees, I think, is the right thing to do. And it's a strong stance. I think what Cece said, it is that concern that you're always going to have the political flip-flop.

But the problem is I don't really see how you break that at this point. When you have a 50-50 split, how do you break the fact that, yes, things are going to be politicized every time they go up? To just get back to normal governing, I think that, one, we have a fictionalized version of what that ever was. I don't think there was ever a time where the Congress and the Senate all worked in this sweet, unified place.

It never existed. Sure, it was better than it is now. It may be a little bit more respectful. There were times when it was much worse than it is now, including in the founding of our country.

So we've romanticized a bit of the past. But I do think there are times when you look at it and go, sure, I would love for us to get beyond this. But the problem is when you have these kind of people in power, you can't get beyond it.

When you have people who spew racism and spew stereotypes. I mean, here's what even Omar talking about the September 11th attacks. CAIR was founded after 9-11 because they recognized that some people did something and that all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties.

I love this. Some people did something. Also, CAIR wasn't founded after 9-11, been around before then. Also, what about the Holocaust brings her great peace? There was something about thinking about the Holocaust. Oh, that was to leave? Okay, well, same idea.

She should be bent. Put her on the ban list, too, in my view. Exactly. But I mean, this idea counts because some people did something. This was a typical Congresswoman Omar comment, Harry. But look, McCarthy, like you said, you got to give him credit. He's taken this action.

And a lot of people thought he wasn't going to do that kind of thing. I think he's to be commended for taking this action. But I also think the Republicans, they need to be on alert to continue to root out this type of misconduct from the Democrats. I think it's also a helpful thing that Elon Musk has taken over Twitter because there will be a little bit more pushback on Twitter against people like Ilhan Omar. And I think it's also good that President Trump has created Truth Social so, again, we can get some pushback against these bad actors who have run amok for years. Yeah, we take away Twitter from them as being their safe haven.

There's really not a huge place to go. I was going to ask you, how do you think this whole, Elon Musk, Twitter, what's it going to mean? I think it means, what do you mean what? Just other people, other voices now coming back on. Oh, I think other voices are good.

Is it still difficult? Oh, yeah, there's still people who are going after everyone on there. It's this false equivalency of, well, now he runs it, what's going to be the main difference? I actually don't see it being a gigantic shift other than the fact that a lot of people who you didn't want to hear from are no longer going to be on the platform for a little bit. Until they realize they can't get reach on other platforms. There are other people popping up with their sort of the reverse version of Truth Social, but we can say the same thing with Truth Social. We have a lot of tons of followers there, really appreciate all their help and support, but it doesn't make the impact of Twitter at this point. Even if, it may be for us, but for the mass majority of the people are still going to these other platforms. The problem is now for, and I think the reason you're seeing the freak out, the reason you saw CBS News withdraw from Twitter and then go back on after a couple of days, because they realize there's not a whole lot of, there's not that many outlets. Facebook doesn't operate like that anymore. The way you receive information, it's not real time as it used to be.

You know, Instagram and TikTok and all of those other, they're more entertainment based, they're not really based in sort of news, really Twitter is still the main place you go to get your breaking news. So there always is going to be some interest there. Now I think you're going to see a lot of shift over the next coming months with Elon Musk in charge.

I think he's drawing some very interesting lines in the sand that I approve of most of. So I'm excited to see. Let a lot of people go. Let a lot of people go. I had a lot of issues. I had a lot of people also, you know, 75% of the staff quit.

So that's a pretty aggressive turn. But then you saw most of the people who stayed on were the people that were kind of essential to making sure it was staying up. Do you think it will still be the power it has been, probably? I think it will be. I think it probably is actually going to shift back a little bit to where you actually do have a bit mix of voices. Because right now, until now, Twitter was where you were on the left, and honestly, as much as you guys may not like it, Facebook is where you were on the right. If you look at the top things shared on Facebook, the majority of it is coming from us or from Ben Shapiro or The Daily Wire or Dan Bongino. Those are the top voices on Facebook. Then on Twitter, you had the other side. So now you have a bit of a shakeup. We've been in the top ten a lot of times on Facebook. Oh, all the time.

Regardless of what people want to say, it's still probably the place where conservatives are. And then now you'll have Twitter being another alternative to that. Of course, and we also appreciate our friends at Rumble because you've given us a platform where we don't have to worry about beginning warnings. Oh yeah, well that's just for video side of it, sure.

I'm just talking about for social media in general. Yeah, no question. All right, back with your calls at 1-800-684-3110. Let's go to Bobby who's calling you in New York. Bobby, thanks for holding. I'm sorry I spent such a wait. 35 minutes on hold. You're on the air. Niagara Falls on the American side. Happy birthday, Logan.

Thank you. Listen, isn't it likely because the Justice Department is so powerful that this is going to have to go to trial with Trump? Because Bill Barr said yesterday, I thought I heard that he said he sees an indictment coming down. And if it goes to trial and if he's convicted, would he then take it to the Supreme Court?

How would that work? Well, I mean, the first thing they'd have to do is actually issue an indictment. So, you know, it's not like a civil case where you just press charges or file a complaint. They have to actually issue an indictment. And I think there's a big political calculation in that, and that is, is it worth the precedent of doing that? Is the crime that they would have an indictment on of significance?

Like on the documents stuff, it's hard pressed for me to see it. Now, I don't know all the evidence, but it's hard pressed for me to see how Hillary Clinton did her thing with the 33,000 emails on her personal server. And General Petraeus gave classified documents to his author and the Sandy Burger case. And then none of those get really prosecuted at all. And what happens to – but they do on Donald Trump. So I – but I don't know. I mean, but I will tell you that the appointment of the special counsel does not alleviate the jeopardy that the former President and those surrounding him find themselves in, because it's serious.

Yeah. And I think it is – it's a political move, obviously, you know, and just going after him constantly. It could backfire, because we've seen when they've gone after him before and then nothing comes out of it.

The American people could go, this is enough. It's clearly political. And it could backfire on them. It could. I mean, the difference you have here is you don't have the protections of the presidency.

That's true. It definitely backfires politically, because I think people do think anything at this point, this many years out that's still going after President Trump for stuff, like you said, and the new stuff that's coming up that's a decade old at this point, you do go, OK, well, he just announced he was going to run. Clearly, this is political. And all of his base – Well, they said it.

I mean, they said it. He announced he's running. We're appointing a special counsel. All of his base goes moving on. I mean, remember how – Legally, that changes.

Yeah. Remember how the special counsel got appointed? Jim Comey leaked a document to a friend of his that went to The New York Times for the sole purpose of getting a special counsel. And guess what happened two days later?

Special counsel was appointed, Bob Mueller. Right. So all of this is – for anyone to say this isn't political, come on, it's all political. Now there's just the legal ramifications of all this is what you're having to deal with. Yeah, that's the concern. The concern is the ramifications, not necessarily the process. I don't think the country is up for another one of these. The process doesn't – Honestly, is the country ready to go through another two-year event?

Not for this. I don't see it, but – Well, maybe they are. The ratings get there. I mean, the ratings go up and that's what ends up happening.

So who knows, like you said. All right, let's go ahead and take some more calls. Let's go to Art in California.

Art, you're on the air. Yeah, I think Trump is about the only one that can drain the swamp in Washington and other places, too, and I think they want to get rid of them so bad they'll do anything. Yeah, Art, I do think there is definitely an effort involved to make sure that – you know, there's going to be a crowded field. A lot of people are going to be running. It's certainly not going to be the Trump show, as I think people expected. Some people expected once he ran, a lot of these guys would back off. It doesn't seem like the other Republicans are going to back off. No, I do not think that his announcement stopped others from announcing – I mean, you've heard very directly from people. I mean, you know, Ron DeSantis issued the statement saying to President Trump when he was going after Ron DeSantis, look at the scoreboard.

Yeah, I mean, you saw everyone at the Republican Jewish Conference this weekend. I think you could probably look at that and go – I'm losing. You could probably go, okay, well, there's 10 people who are potential – that are names, that are not insignificant names. No, no, you want a robust – whatever party you're with, you want a robust primary system. For sure, but I think people thought if he announced – That would be it.

– a lot of people would back off, and I think they – I don't think that's going to happen. – can go after him. Nope. Should we keep going with calls?

Yeah. All right, let's go to Susan in Virginia on Line 1. Susan, you're on the air. Hi. I've been – thank you for taking my call. I'm a conservative Christian mom in Virginia, and I have gotten so fired up because I just discovered you guys.

Oh, great. And I just – knowing how divisive Trump is, how can we communicate, you know, these issues to our kids? But the next generation is going to have to reap all the things, the consequences of Biden's administration, and just to get them empowered, get them as passionate as I am, that, you know, you don't want Biden in office.

It's going to hurt you guys so much. So I think this was – yeah, this is when I think you have to talk policy, not personality. And I think this is a big issue.

I think the policy is a big issue, and the policy differentials are very stark. You had a change in the Middle East under the previous administration with the Abraham Accords. We had energy independence. Stock market was secure.

We weren't in hyperinflation, which we are now. But you're right, though, but then when the rhetoric gets so loud and boisterous, you've got to turn it off because you don't want your kids hearing it. Yeah. Hey, Susan, question for you. How did you find out about our show if you just tuned in? Oh, I'm home listening to the radio. Just on the radio.

I just kind of roll around. And then, like, I just heard you, yeah. Where are you from?

Where in Virginia? Oh, yeah. There you go. Now, I was going to say, for Susan, for you and for your kids, that's the reason why we broadcast on 900-plus radio stations, why we were on Facebook. That's why we're on Rumble. That's why we're on YouTube. That is why we broadcast everywhere.

It's on every social media platform that's accessible and safe. We're on all of those. And we are always posting new content to make sure people like your kids also hear this kind of message. We have a whole program for young – Oh, yeah.

We have an American history YouTube channel called Bald Beagle where we run sort of American history education on YouTube. Look at that. They had the graphic ready to go.

I saw one of the ones you had had, like, 400,000 views. Yeah. Our Veterans Day one always – the reason YouTube's decided our Veterans Day video is worth showing to people. So we always appreciate that they do that. But, yeah, that's why we're here. And that's why the organization exists is to make sure the message gets out there. It's why the media department exists.

We talked about that. Because we have to be able to get the message out there. Being in the courts, very important. Being involved in Washington, D.C., incredibly important. It is the real on-the-ground, boots-on-the-ground work.

However, it is also equally important to make sure people like you and your kids have access to this information. We have to do that in engaging and entertaining ways. And that's why we have such a robust media operation. Yeah. It was interesting, though, to comment because some of the political rhetoric is so strong, including from our side, that it's tough for little kids to be listening to it. Because, I mean, the language can be very aggressive these days. It's a whole different environment.

It is. And like you said, you know, my kids are in college. And they have to engage in these discussions as well. But, you know, they're well trained that they do talk about the policies and not the personality. And I think that's when you can, you know, win arguments and change positions if you're talking about policies and facts. It would be nice, though, to have someone with a decent personality and good policies. I think that finding those people is not necessarily the worst idea either.

You know, just to prop up saying, okay, I'm going to vote for someone because I agree with them, but I don't like them personally, but I agree with them. That's fine. You can do that.

And I think we've all done that before. However, it would be nice for your children and for our children to actually have people who have a backbone and moral convictions and can stand up and make a good statement and have a decent, you know, everything put together. And you don't have to worry about that. So what you hope is that there are those people still out there. It doesn't have to always be this incredibly divisive struggle. Now, it's hard when the world is in a dark place. Obviously, if you turn on the news, even if the news is just giving you straight facts, it's going to be dark and hard for your kids to listen to. That's not what we're talking about here.

We're talking about sort of the more aggressive language. A fascinating program. Glad you all tuned in. You always know you've got a safe place right here, whether you're watching us on our social media platforms or TV or whether you're listening to us on radio or, like I said, any of the social media applications that we're on. We appreciate that. Support the work of the ACLJ Matching Challenge, folks. And we're getting close to Thanksgiving here. So this is when it really counts for us. Any amount you donate, we get a matching gift for Talk to you tomorrow.
Whisper: medium.en / 2022-11-22 20:29:14 / 2022-11-22 20:51:03 / 22

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