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

BREAKING: SCOTUS Halts Title 42 Expiration

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
The Truth Network Radio
December 20, 2022 6:08 pm

BREAKING: SCOTUS Halts Title 42 Expiration

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 762 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

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

December 20, 2022 6:08 pm

In breaking news at the border, Chief Justice Roberts of the U.S. Supreme Court put an administrative stay on the ending of Title 42 at the request of a number of conservative-led states. Jay, Jordan, and the rest of the Sekulow team discuss. This and more today on Sekulow.


Breaking news today on secular is SCOTUS halts the title 42 expiration. Keeping you informed and engaged. Now more than ever, this is secular. We want to hear from you.

Share and post your comments or call 1-800-684-3110. And now your host, Jordan secular. Hey, welcome to secular folks, we're going to get into the January 6 criminal referrals, the ethics referrals in the second half hour of the broadcast.

We're not going to miss that. But breaking last night, really yesterday afternoon, was this move by Chief Justice Roberts of the U.S. Supreme Court to put in an administrative stay on the ending of title 42 at the request of a number of Republican led states who said this is going to lead to a massive crisis. We're talking about from taking numbers from a thousand a day to 7,000 a day. From, you know, tens of thousands a month to 400,000 people potentially trying to cross the border a month. So now the Department of Justice through the Biden administration has their opportunity to respond by 5 p.m. today, Eastern time, as well as some of the other parties that are opposed to title 42 staying in place like the ACLU. Because the media is saying, oh, this is just very temporary and title 42, even the White House, they're planning that title 42 is going to be gone, you know, at midnight tonight. Well, it's called an administrative stay. So I've handled literally dozens of these, probably more than that at the Supreme Court. So what happens is case goes against you in the lower court. You go to the Supreme Court of the United States and say, hey, look, justices, while this is all pending, we need to keep things as status quo. So what we want you to do is to grant a stay while you determine whether you're going to hear the case. So what's happening right now is title 42 is not being implemented. In other words, it's being implemented.

Excuse me. They're allowed to use title 42 while the appeal is pending. Now, what the Chief Justice did was issue the order yesterday. Let me read the order because I think that kind of will give you a sense of what it is. Do we have a shot of it we can put up on the screen as well?

This is for our TV and social media audiences. Here it is. It says Supreme Court of the United States. The case is 22A 544.

A means application. So I've done, like I said, I've done a bunch of these at the Supreme Court. It's Arizona versus Mayorkas, Secretary of Homeland Security. Upon consideration of the application for counsel for the applicants, and that was Arizona and the other states asking the court to issue the stay, it is ordered that the November 15, 2022 order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is hereby stayed. That order said title 42 expired.

It stayed. That means it does not go into effect. It is further ordered that a response to the application to be filed is going to be filed on or before today at 5 p.m. At which point there's three things that can happen. The courts could leave the stay in place. The Chief Justice can refer the case to the entire court. They can leave the stay in place while they're considering what to do. They could deny the stay at that point if there's not enough. You've got to get four justices to say they want to hear a case before a case is heard.

It's called the Rule of Four. Four justices to grant certiorari. Or they could refer to the whole court and there could be an order in a week or two. I mean, I've had a stay that's gone for four months.

You've been on those cases too. So it could go for a while, but in the interim, but the interim could be literally 12 hours. What is going to be interesting to folks, I know that they, because the White House has shifted their discussion, and we'll play it when we get back, to say, well, we're under a court order to end title 42. But now the Department of Justice is going to have to respond again to say, I'm assuming, that they want title 42 to end based off the CDC recommendations. So they've been hiding behind these court rulings. I guess they could change their mind and say they actually want title 42 enforced, but that would go against everything they've been saying.

So we come back, we'll play that for you. What the White House has been saying about and Karine Jean-Pierre has been saying about title 42, who they are blaming. By the way, they also throw in the Republicans, even though they control right now, the House and the Senate. They had the House, the Senate, the White House, they could have passed comprehensive immigration reform.

They didn't do it. All right, folks, we also want you to support the work in the American Center for Law and Justice. That's at Any amount you donate to the ACLJ, we get a matching gift for it. We're in the last 10 days of the month here, folks.

I mean, this is when it really counts for us. Let me encourage you, if you haven't already done so, support our work. Go to That's Any amount you donate, we'll get a matching gift for. You donate $10, we get another 10, so it's 20. Again,

Back with more, including your calls at 800-684-3110. All right, so this is where it gets tricky for the Biden administration. It was Joe Biden himself who said he wanted to do away with Title 42 and that he agreed with the CDC recommendation. Now, of course, then we had this explosion this fall of respiratory viruses in the United States. So you wonder why not go back to the CDC and say, hey, with RSV, with the flu, with COVID mixed in, maybe we should be keeping Title 42 right now. We've always had laws when it comes to disease that can be spread when it comes to immigration. That is the norm going back to the days of Ellis Island. Trying to keep out either disease that we don't have in the US or people who can spread it because they have not been properly treated. And we know these migrants have not been properly treated. But I want to play for you. Karine Jean-Pierre yesterday, because she, on the one hand, blames Republicans, blames the courts, but forgets that it's the Biden administration that has advocated to end Title 42.

Take a listen. When Title 42 goes away, as we are, as we have to do because of a court order, which is on Wednesday, as all of you know, we will go back to Title 8, which allows a process to make sure that people can make their asylum claims heard. Those who do not have a legal basis to remain will be quickly removed. And so we will continue to fully enforce our immigration laws in a fair, orderly and humane manner. But again, we need Congress to deliver on the funding that we're requesting from them.

You know what's so interesting about this? She said, we'll go to Title 8 and we'll do the asylum cases as normal. You know what the backlog on this is for an asylum case?

Someone comes to the United States without proper documentation. They apply for asylum. There's a process. There's adjudication.

Years. They're here for years. You know, they can't process the number of cases. Then listen to what, this is the mayor of New York, Mayor Adams, he said, the flow of asylum seekers to New York City, although it has slowed in recent months. We've been told in no uncertain terms that beginning today, we should expect an influx of buses arriving coming from the border and that more than 1,000 additional asylum seekers will arrive in New York City every week. Then he says this, truth be told, if corrective measures are not taken soon, we may very well be forced to cut or curtail programs New Yorkers are relying on and the pathway to house more people is uncertain. So they can't even house the people that are trying to get to the United States. And he's saying it's going to affect benefits and programs for New Yorkers that already exist. Well, the Arizona Attorney General, Mark Brnovich, who led the charge for the states here, said in a statement just yesterday that getting rid of Title 42 will recklessly and needlessly endanger more Americans and migrants by exacerbating the catastrophe that is occurring at our southern border. He used the word catastrophe. Unlawful crossings are estimated to surge from 7,000 per day to as many as 18,000 a day.

You're talking about nearly 400,000 illegal crossings a month. Listen to what? This is Mayor Adams in his own words. Take a listen. It's bad.

It's bad. And the projected numbers we have to continue to evaluate. You know, this is a national problem and the national government has a responsibility to, number one, have a decompression strategy to resolve the issues at the border, to make the municipalities whole who had to take away from their citizens to pay for this. We should not be paying for this. You know, he's right that this is a national problem. And remember we told you saying, well, New York's not a border city. No, but people are being shipped all over the country. Every city is a border. Every town is a border town.

Every state is a border state. The problem that you have here, and this is the aspect of this, is I think I would bet that there are people within the administration that are hoping John Roberts and the court tonight continues this stay. So they can use Title 42 to try to manage what already is an epidemic of border crossings. But the way that this works, if you're just joining us, the Supreme Court has issued through John Roberts an administrative strategy. That means the Attorney General for the states that applied asked the court to hold everything in abeyance, let Title 42 continue to go into effect, take the district court opinion and court of appeals opinion, don't implement those while they're determining what they're going to do. In other words, keep Title 42 in place. The Supreme Court said yes, but he ordered the government to file a brief honor before this afternoon. This is President Biden, this is back again in April of 2022, when they were already trying to get rid of Title 42. That's what he's talking about here.

Take a listen, Bite 47. We had proposed to eliminate that policy by the end of May. The court has said we can so far, and what the court says we're going to do, the court could come along and say we cannot do that. So, I mean, they own this.

Oh, they totally own it. He is the head of the CDC. He can instruct the CDC to say because of the rise in viruses that are similar to COVID and mixed in with COVID that are making it more difficult to determine what you have. You have to take three tests now.

You take a flu test, an RSV test, you take a COVID test all at the same time. And because of that, we're going to keep Title 42 in place. I mean, this is just the bare minimum, by the way. It's not like that's securing the border.

This is just stopping it from going from 1,000 a day to 7,000 a day. The problem is that this, and people are resting a lot of hope that Title 42, including law enforcement, that Title 42 is going to stay in place for a while here because of the stay that was issued by Chief Justice Roberts. That could literally expire tonight. Now, they're getting briefed, so it's likely that it'll go on for a few days, and then if they decide to hear it, it'll probably go on for a few months. If they decide to hear it, they could do it expeditiously, but in that case, what would be interesting would be how long it would take them to actually review the case to get it ready, and I suspect it would probably take the normal, maybe a shortened term, but it would be this term. We've got a case up at the Supreme Court right now that's supposed to be in the first conference in the new year, and if they grant review, it's going to be heard this year.

If they don't grant review, if they hold it for a couple of weeks, by the time you get to end in January, probably not, but in a case like this, I think they would take it out of, I'll add that. I've had cases where they've come back earlier, or they take it out of order, or they shorten the timeframe in which you can respond. Yeah, because they ask for responses by 5 p.m. today.

Yeah, so they're going to move, I think. Yeah, I mean, I think that if, again, when they get these kind of responses to add, so they're going to get them in at 5 o'clock, does that go to the full court or just Roberts? Right, it initially goes to John Roberts. So if he says, you know what, I'm not convinced by their argument yet, what happens next? Okay, so then he would refer it, usually what he would do is refer it to the full court for consideration.

That could be the next, probably they're done with conferences for the year, they could still conference. Here's what, let me tell you what's going on. The brief comes in, John Roberts clerks immediately review it. Then the Chief Justice is going to review it, he's going to say, you know, this is either meritorious now that I've got both of these briefs, or it's not. If it is meritorious, what is likely to happen is he will then refer to all nine chambers. Those clerks will review the two briefs that have been filed, and they'll make a recommendation to their circuit justice, their justice, or they could do what's called the cert pool, where they do it very quickly.

And I would expect you to have an answer, you know, by the, before the end of the year. You remember those tax return cases we handled for the former President, that those administrative stays stayed in place for months. Right. Pending the disposition of the case.

I mean, they didn't, they didn't remove them until after the decisions came out. So just because he asked for responses so quickly. Doesn't mean you're going to get an answer so quickly. Right. That it will go to the, more than likely, it goes to the full court.

Because it's such a big. It is a big, big enough issue. And then the court will decide whether they want to hear it. Yeah. So I mean, again, Like I said, four justices have to say yes. You know, we were talking about this, I was talking about this, our ACLJ action team too, is that the media has downplayed this issue so much.

Oh yeah. That I feel like, you know, Americans who are tuned in, listen to our broadcast, that watch conservative media, they get the concern. And the politicians on both sides of the aisle are talking about it.

Yep. But the mainstream media, if you just tune in, doesn't talk about it at all. That we have this Ukraine-like humanitarian crisis going on, on our southern border. By the way, talking about mainstream media, or media generally, we are, Jordan and I are hosting Sean Hannity's radio program live today. So we get a little bit of a break for lunch after this broadcast, and we go right back to a three hour broadcast live on Sean Hannity's broadcast. We're very, very excited about that. And that's, you can go to and listen there, or stations all over, including Sirius XM. Yep. So we encourage you to do that. I think it airs 3 to 6 p.m. Eastern time.

Eastern time. We've got a great guest coming up on that as well. So we'll talk to Jim Jordan, Congresswoman Claudia Tenney, Senator Bill Hagerty, Rick Rinnell, Mike Pompeo, they're all going to be joining us. The lineup is great, and we're thrilled that, I was thrilled that Sean asked us if we would host it, which is great for us and great for the ACLJ.

Talking about that, remember, we're in the last 10 days of our matching challenge, folks, so any amount you can donate, we're getting a matching gift for. I encourage you to go to Jordan's going to tell you how it works, but folks, it's really straightforward. And we'll also take calls on this border issue and other issues as well at 800-684-3110. So get your calls in, 1-800-684-3110.

Will the Biden administration argue to the Supreme Court that they want Title 42 lifted, even though they know the consequences? 1-800-684-3110. Now, for our matching challenge at, it's very simple. You go to, you'll see on the homepage, donate, matching challenge. And if you, I know people, budgets are tighter right now, it's Christmas spending, you're trying to provide for your family, maybe do a vacation if you can. And you're cutting back some on your charitable contributions. But if you haven't cut back completely, this is a great time to donate because let's say you can't donate your $100 right now, but you could donate $50. Well, we have a donor that can match that $50.

So it will still be like you're donating $100 to the ACLJ by donating that $50 and being part of the match at All right, welcome back to Secio. In more breaking news, we now know the Department of Justice was snooping on the House Intelligence Committee investigators during the Russia probe. These new subpoenas that have been released show that the Justice Department used grand jury subpoenas to secretly obtain the personal email and phone data of at least two top House Intelligence Committee investigators back in November of 2017, just as their boss, Devin Nunes, was assembling bomb cell evidence of FBI abuses in the Russia collusion probe.

Let's talk about what was going on in November of 2017. Well, there was one grand jury that was assembled, and that grand jury was the Mueller grand jury. That was the grand jury looking at Russia collusion and obstruction and the whole thing, which became the Mueller report. So at this very time that this was going on, that's when this grand jury was put together. The ironic thing is they're asking for intelligence information, basically phones, emails from staffers on the Intelligence Committee, including Professor Hutchinson to senior staffers.

I think that's precisely correct. And so you can look at this particular investigation launched by the FBI in several different ways. Number one, it was an act of retribution. Number two, it was a violation of the separation of powers between the executive branch and the legislative branch.

Let's talk about that for a moment and get to your other point in a minute, because that gets overlooked. You have three branches of government in the United States, and they're supposed to operate in their sphere. Here you had the judicial branch or the executive branch, actually, in this case.

You actually had all three, if you think about it. You had courts oversight with the grand jury. You had the executive branch, which was technically Bob Mueller, believe it or not, looking at the legislative branch, which was Congress.

Precisely. And in addition to all of that, you had the FBI putting its finger on the scale of justice by lying to the FISA courts. And so the FBI really didn't want, in my opinion, the American people to know about its misconduct commencing in 2016 with Peter Strzok, with Lisa Page, with Jim Bakker, and with James Comey. Arguably, all of these actors had engaged in creating a fictional insurance policy involving Christopher Steele, who was apparently paid by the FBI for bogus information, which they could then use against Donald Trump. So in many respects, if you think about it, the FBI keeps talking about protecting our democracy, saving our democracy. In reality, the American people need to be saved from the FBI, need to be saved from the Department of Justice, because they've engaged in misbehavior that corrupts our democracy and basically prevents the voices of middle class and working class people from being heard. And so you really had this Mueller collusion investigation, which was engineered, if you will, by the FBI itself, and it was designed to do one thing, and that was to impair the presidency of Donald Trump.

All right. So what's interesting here is the only reason this came to light is Google has a policy that they will notify their customer if their information had been subpoenaed by the FBI or Department of Justice, but they wait until five years after that period of time. The five-year period expired a couple of weeks back, and that's when these two staffers received notice that these subpoenas were issued for these documents. But this whole idea, Jordan, that you've got the Department of Justice investigating senior staffers of the legislative branch is outrageous. Of course, the whole thing was outrageous with the Mueller probe, but this was really outrageous.

Yeah, I mean, it's what Devin Nunes told John Sommons, what they're doing is targeting us to figure out what do we do, what do we know, how do we know it, and how do we learn it, what are we going to do with the information, and secondly and most likely, to look for anything they could potentially blackmail us on. I mean, they were trying- This is also when the Peter Strzok stuff was going on. Don't forget all of that.

Right. Yeah, all that was happening. This, again, I think it's a little bit of a preview of what it's going to be like for, and we'll talk to Jim Jordan on Sean Hannity's radio broadcast later today, for these individuals who are going to lead these investigations because they're going to have the full force of the executive branch trying to undermine them at every step.

A hundred percent. I mean, that's to me one of the, I think probably the most concerning thing of all this, the information now is old news in one sense. I mean, we knew there was nothing there and there ended up being nothing there, but the intrusion onto the separate branch of government here, that they thought they could do this. That's what I guess, Harry, is so shocking to me is they actually said, oh, we'll just go ahead and do this. We'll issue these subpoenas.

Yes. I think the FBI's behavior over the last five to 10 years has been shocking. And basically the FBI, if you think about it, and the Department of Justice, they essentially have been run, I would argue, by Adam Schiff. So basically his preferences encouraged the FBI and the DOJ to engage in snooping so that the investigation by the House Intel Committee would indeed be impaired. Keep in mind how many times Adam Schiff went on CNN and breathlessly announced that they had definitive information of collusion when none existed. And indeed, what evidence did exist showed that the FBI and the Hillary Clinton campaign had engaged in, quote unquote, Russia collusion. So I think at the end of the day, this behavior by the DOJ is outrageous, but also keep in mind in January of 2018, what did Rod Rosenstein do?

He threatened the House. He threatened to subpoena them. Well, apparently the FBI was already engaged in such misbehavior. You know, it's interesting because the subpoena doesn't specify which component of the Department of Justice was actually leading the investigation for this particular grand jury, but included a numbering system. And these things are numbered, and that's how you have these court number systems, suggesting it was being handled by the U.S. Attorney's Office in Washington, D.C. At the time, that's when DOJ had Special Counsel Robert Mueller investigating the Russia collusion issues. The Department's Inspector General was probing FBI misconduct related to the Russia case, and several agencies were investigating leaks, including one traced to a former Senate Intel Committee staffer.

So all of that was going on at the same time. So the most interesting aspect of this to me is what in the world was the Department of Justice thinking going after senior staff on the legislative committees? Because we do have a separation of powers. We have three distinct branches of government. But nevertheless, they thought they could just go ahead and do it, and they tried to get away, and they did get away with it.

The end result would end up being nothing because there was no collusion. Having said all of that, it took five years. Why? Because Google's policy is five years after it happens. That's when they notify you. So that's what happened there. Yeah.

All right. Now, coming up, January 6th Committee. They are done with their public hearings. They've issued their report. They've issued their criminal referrals, their ethics referrals. Of course, the top line criminal referrals were the four criminal referrals made to the Department of Justice against former President Trump, which has never happened in history before.

We're going to break that down for you when we come back for the next break. So if you've got questions about the January 6th Committee and these criminal referrals and what they mean and don't mean, give us a call. 1-800-684-3110.

Be part of the broadcast at 1-800-684-3110. And don't forget to support the work of the ACLJ at We have our matching challenge right now where you can double the impact of your donation. That's at And again, if you had to cut back on donations, we understand. So it's a great time, if you still can donate, to do it during a matching challenge because you double the impact of your gift. Donate today. We'll be right back. Keeping you informed and engaged. Now more than ever, this is Seculo. And now your host, Jordan Seculo.

Alright, welcome back to Seculo. We are taking your phone calls too as well. Some on the immigration issue with Title 42. There was other breaking news yesterday.

We knew it was coming. The January 6th Committee would issue their final report, their final public hearing, and they would issue criminal referrals. And the most high profile of those criminal referrals to the DOJ are the first time ever that Congress has referred a President or former President to be criminally charged and asking the DOJ to do that. Four charges specifically.

Obstruction of an official proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the U.S., conspiracy to make a false statement, incite, assist, or aid or comfort, and insurrection. These now all go to the DOJ, which Dad, I assume now, would go to Jack Smith, the Special Counsel, because he is overseeing everything Trump-related. Listen, what the Congress decided has no bearing on the Department of Justice investigation.

Zero. It's advisory, if you will. It's what they found. You know, as even experts were pointing out on CNN and MSNBC, the evidence that the Special Counsel can use has to be actual admissible evidence in a court of law. Congress can use hearsay and even hearsay on hearsay.

I heard this person say to this person such and such. That would not be admissible in a court of law. So they came up with four charges referring the President.

Again, whether they indict the former President or not, which would also be an unprecedented move. I want to start with the one that raises the most concern from a First Amendment perspective, and that's this idea of inciting, assisting, or aiding or comfort and insurrection. Now, look, the First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects robust speech. What you can't do is yell fire in a movie theater. But the standard case is called Brandenburg versus Ohio. I don't want to get overly technical, but what that all means is that you have to have imminent lawless conduct and you're telling the people to do it. Your words incited that action and you knew it was going to incite that action.

So that's a very high burden. Having said that, okay, then there's a high burden for them to meet to be able to prove that there's no First Amendment protection to these statements. Even if you disagree with the statements, the First Amendment is in play here.

Then you have the obstruction of an official proceeding. Now, look, I have said this. I will say it again. What happened on December 6 was horrific. It was an attack on our Constitution.

It was an attack on our republic. And the people responsible are being held accountable. And I also will say this. Mike Pence had nothing. There's no legal authority for Mike. I've said this on January 4th and 5th.

I'll say it again two years later. Mike Pence didn't have any authority to change electors or certify stuff back to states and recognize an alternate slate. His job function was administrative. But to prove an obstruction of an official proceeding, you've got to now draw a causal connect between the former President, his lawyers, Eastman and Rudy Giuliani, and associate attorney, which was Clark. Now, the problem with Clark's situation is he was working for the Justice Department, so they brought in all of those factors. The other lawyers were private lawyers coming up with theories.

I mean, those are harder cases. But it all now goes over to the Department of Justice, who's way down the path already on all of this. So that's where that is.

Yeah. So we're going to take your calls on that. 1-800-684-3110. If you've got questions about those referrals, questions about the ethics side of it, too, we'll keep going through the others as well at 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. And again, a reminder, if you're just joining us, we're going to be hosting Sean Hannity's radio broadcast today. 3 p.m. Eastern time on stations everywhere. You go to You can find out where you can listen to it.

You can listen to it online. Kathleen on YouTube said, could this be seen as double jeopardy since they tried to impeach him on this? No, because the impeachment proceedings, which he was acquitted of on both of them, are not judicial proceedings. Those are political proceedings. Rumble comment was January 6th committee is nothing more than an angry mob who despises the former President. It was certainly a partisan mob, if you want to call it a mob.

It was a partisan group. The end result is they're done. And now it goes over to the Department of Justice. Hey, support the work of the ACLJ at

Remember, we're in a matching challenge campaign, If you want to talk to us about any of this, immigration, Title 42, what happened with the January 6 committee, we'll take your calls at 1-800-684. We're opening those lines up 3110. That's 1-800-684-3110.

Back with more in a moment. All right, welcome back to SECU. We continue to take your phone calls to 1-800-684-3110. We'll go through more of the January 6, but I do want to take this call on the migrant issue. This is huge because Title 42 came right back into the news because there is a chance that it doesn't expire at midnight 1201 tomorrow. So very late tonight. Now the White House and many of these border states are planning on it.

And certainly the cartels, they're planning on it too. So I want to go to Billy's call out of Kansas on Line 1. Hey, Billy. Yeah, this is Billy. Thanks for having me. My statement, I don't know if you got to read anything as you recorded or not, but anyway, my statement is I was a clinical psychologist with Mexican American ministries.

They no longer do this. But we used to work with immigrants. And we worked with thousands and thousands of immigrants. And that was the ones who became the dream generation. And but the one thing I want to say is, people came in here, where I live, there's packing plants. And so thousands of people come in here all time. And they live here for several years before they migrate on to the bigger cities, they get whatever their children need and stuff like that move on. But the government has never been able to keep up with the people that they release and say, we're going to catch in court. Well, they're not going to catch them in court.

We spent years, almost 25 years tracking people down and getting people to trust us and tell us things so we could get their parents and people like that registered and even become citizens. So here's the problem. Title 42 was an expulsion capability without asylum proceedings. You eliminate that and the numbers that Jordan had them earlier are astronomical. You've got the mayor of New York saying we're going to have a thousand crisis cases a week, he said, which they can't handle.

That's 60,000 in a year. Just crisis cases, cases where they've got to use services of the city that they don't have available that's going to affect the services is exactly what the caller said. But all of this is happening now. Title 42 right now is the is the emergency order that the Trump administration put into place. And it has been utilized by the Department of Homeland Security. The Biden administration wanted to do away with it. The problem is Democrats on the House and Senate have said don't do away with 42 until you have something in its place.

Because if you don't have something in its place, we're going to end up with a problem without control. These are Democratic members of the House and Senate. And now the Supreme Court has stayed the issues. That means the court said you can still apply Title 42 until such time as we make a determination.

When is that going to be? It could be tonight, it could be tomorrow, it could be referred to the whole court. There's a lot of ways it can go. But this is the problem that we're seeing. And it's affecting every town and every city in the country.

So let's not be naive on that. Everywhere. Again, we're taking your calls at 800-684-3110.

That's 800-684-3110. We're also getting comments in by our social media as well. So we'll be looking at those also. When you see a move like this by the Supreme Court, I think what everybody has to do is prepare for this to vanish tonight. Correct. Because very easily the court could say we've considered the briefs, we're not hearing the case. Don't put all your faith in this.

Yeah, do not put all your faith in this. It's an administrative stay. Yes. So we could be seeing the mass influx. What do you think that does? I mean, we're talking about crime at a level that we haven't seen. 7,000 people a day.

A day. Think about those numbers. We're talking 400,000 about that same size as New Orleans. That's what they were... And if you've got cities like New York City, we can't handle it.

New York can't handle 30,000. Could you imagine what it's going to be in... El Paso. Birmingham.

Yeah. Nashville. Atlanta.

San Diego. I mean, the numbers are numbing. Annie Ann Rumbel said... Let me do this, going back to the January 6th. We're talking about both issues. The January 6th issue and this. January 6th, they made the referral yesterday. Questions coming in.

We'll take your calls too at 800-684-3110. Annie Ann Rumbel said, is the January 6th somebody just doing anything they can to try and keep the former President permanently at bay? They're hoping that he's deemed disqualified from seeking office because if you're involved in an insurrection, constitutionally, you are removed.

You can be removed from the states. The states would determine who could be on a ballot. So if the former President runs... He says he's running. If he continues to run and then were to somehow prevail in the Republican primaries, could a state say, no, he's been aiding and abetting an insurrection?

That's what people are thinking is going on here. Now, I think that requires a court adjudication, not a legislative body, because if not, any political opponent could go after any other political opponent, make an allegation. And if your party controls the branch of the House or the Senate, the House rather, they disqualify you. So there's got to be more than just an allegation from the... Now, if the court comes out and says you're guilty of it, you're disqualified.

Yes. That is, I think, the goal this whole time has been, one, I don't even know if it's to get a conviction. They want to see President Trump arrested.

They want that imagery. I think that's when they issued the... I made the statement, what normally comes after a search warrant, an arrest warrant. Now, I don't think they're gonna... I have no knowledge of whether they're gonna do that against a former President or not, but they're taking an unprecedented move here.

They're just Democrats of the House. But, you know, and then him running for President and announcing so early probably doesn't help the situation. I think that just made it more of a... Urgent. Too urgent. They gotta move quicker. Exactly right. So I think that's all part of that. You wanna take a call?

Yeah. Let's go to Rick in Texas on Line 1. Hey, Rick. Hi.

Good afternoon. My question is about the omnibus bill. If Senate passes this bill, will the incoming Republican Congress majority be able to do anything to stop any of that money? It's a continuing resolution, really.

So my sense is no. I mean, I think where the Congress can make moves are some of these allocations in the other bills that had, you know, 87,000 new IRS agents. The Congress could say, you know what, you should reallocate that to the border maybe. So we're gonna talk about that with Congresswoman Claudia Tenney on the Hannity broadcast later today. She's got a legislation put forward to take the money that was supposed to go to the IRS for these 87,000 new agents to go to border agents.

Which would make a lot of sense, by the way. We're really excited about hosting Hannity today, by the way. That's 3 o'clock Eastern time. And if you go to, you can get information where you can hear it. Of course, you can hear it online as well.

And we're very, very excited about it. It's an interesting question that came into one of our YouTube listeners. Did the committee not look at the security failures? No. They did not.

No. They may have, but they didn't put it in the report. Well, that was, that's seen as the partisan nature is they never got to even a discussion with Nancy Pelosi or her staff about why they didn't add additional security that day when they had warnings, why they didn't add additional police forces, the National Guard, all these different issues. Why didn't that get discussed at all in these hearings? And that's because they were purely partisan, aimed at Donald Trump and his allies.

Right. That was all this was about. It wasn't about preventing this from ever happening again, because that would have been a fair part of the hearing would have been what were our failures in Congress since this is the building we oversee to protect. To be fair, they're issuing a thousand page report tomorrow. So we'll see if it's there.

And they're saying that there's, people are saying there's a chapter dealing with that. But they didn't do any public hearings on it. There was no public hearings on it, that's for sure. Let me ask you this politically. I mean, you've run politically, you've been involved in political Presidential campaigns, multiple ones. President, former President makes an announcement.

It doesn't, it kind of goes off like a thud. I mean, there was not much to it. What's your sense? Too early, period? Too early, though he continues to be in the news, not for good things.

Right. He continues by continuing to be a top story, even though the Democrats see it as a negative. The question is, do enough Republicans see it as a top story and say, this is just too much drama for me? It's not that I didn't like what President Trump did in office or the team that he assembled or his policies, but I just can't handle the, this criminal referral and this special counsel again.

And when does it stop? Some of it, I think, even with like the NFTs that were released. Explain those to people. So that was, you know, that big announcement.

And there was a second announcement that day about free speech online, but that was not what it was about. He basically licensed himself to a company, which is not weird for the Trump organization, to do that, to sell these digital trading cards that come with, if you got the right card, you might get a Zoom with the former President. You might get an hour of golf. You might get invited to an event at Mar-a-Lago. They were $99 a piece.

I think they said they sold out. So, I mean, he definitely has some super fans left still. But, but it just doesn't seem very Presidential. If you weren't running for President again, I'd say, go for it. Yeah.

All right. So when we come back, we're going to take your calls. Last segment, 1-800-684-3110. FBI filled the ranks of Twitter's investigative team. That's going to be interesting.

When we've got a brand new FOIA out on the FBI, we'll talk about that. And don't forget, we're going to be hosting Hannity this afternoon. Sean's asked us to host and we're thrilled to do it. Jordan and I are going to be doing that. It's three hours. We'll start at 3 o'clock, be over with at 6.

Eastern time, go to And again, support the work of the ACLJ Winter Matching Challenge campaign. Any amount you donate for us, we're getting a matching gift for. That's And like I said, if you donate $20, we get another 20, so we effectively get 40. Makes a big difference. We're also taking your calls at 800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. Back with more in a moment. So, let's go to Twitter's top ranks. Matt Williams spent more than 15 years with the FBI, mostly working out of Seattle. Was an intelligence program manager and senior supervisory intelligence analyst. Joined Twitter in June of 2020 as a senior director of product trust. And in June of 2022, moved into a more expansive role as senior director of product trust.

Dawn Burton, former federal prosecutor, served as deputy chief of staff to FBI boss Jim Comey. Joined Twitter in September 2019. Jeff Carlton worked for the FBI CIA and for the US Marines before joining Twitter in May of 2021.

The list goes on. I mean, I've got Kevin Michelin, 12 years of the FBI, before going to Twitter as a senior corporate security analyst. Michael Bertrand, 23 years of the FBI in counterterrorism, joined Twitter in January. Karen Walsh, 20 years of the FBI, joined Twitter as director of corporate resilience in March of 2020. Doug Hunt, joined Twitter as a senior director after spending 20 years with the FBI as a supervisory agent. Vincent Lucero also did two decades of the same role before joining Twitter. Mark Jaroszewski became a director of corporate security in August 2018 after doing two decades at the FBI.

Of course, that we're leaving out. Of course, Jim Baker. Who was the general counsel of the FBI for James Comey. He goes over. He was on both ends of these transactions. He goes over to the FBI. While he's FBI, he's talking to the FBI, saying, hey, did the social media companies watch this, you know, Russian interference on the, basically squelching one side of the campaign.

That's become clear. Then at Twitter, Elon Musk fires him because as Elon Musk trying to get information out that he had, guess what happens? Someone named Jim is blocking the release. Who is Jim?

James Baker. And then he had this whole cadre of FBI agents over there coming in about two years ago. Right as everything was winding down on the other investigation. So it's amazing what you find when you do FOIAs or now that when you got somebody else running Twitter. Yeah. And what people are now wondering that is the real issue is we're learning this about Twitter.

What about the other social media platforms? You got to assume it's the same. Have they been taken over by basically the FBI? Yeah.

I mean, and they're on both ends. The Intel Committee. And they were on the other side of the debate. Yeah. On the political spectrum.

Oops, sorry. Other side of the debate on the political spectrum when all this was going on. I mean, the FBI misconduct that we've documented at length. You had the whole Strzok page issues.

You had the insurance policy. All that nonsense. And James Baker is in the middle of the dossier. Remember Bruce Ohr?

Right. I think he's still at the Department of Justice. Getting the dossier that his wife was working on.

I mean, this stuff is, you can't make this stuff up. Well, one of the email exchanges was, is there any issue with us sharing classified info? And I think what Twitter did was put in enough FBI, former FBI people with clearances. Because they keep their clearance.

So they were utilizing Twitter as an FBI subsidiary. Yeah. So you can, if you leave the government and you had, let's say a top secret clearance, that stays normally for a total of 10 years. Yeah.

And it can be renewed. So they had clearance so they were able to, exactly right. We can share this in a skip, a secured office. And I'm sure they had those at Twitter too. So this was all part and parcel of... And they get all for partisan politics.

Totally. That was what they couldn't do at the FBI, which was way too illegal. They did it at Twitter. Exactly right. Which was sending emails with names you never even heard.

I mean, these are not like blue check mark individuals. Every day saying, reminder, we've got our call next week. That came in from Elvis, you know, at the FBI.

And then he would say, by the way, you know, have a good holiday. Talk to you next week. Here's four people. Do you have location data on them? Yeah. And they would get it.

I mean, location data because we might need to visit. This was going on between the FBI and one of the largest social media platforms in the world. And none of these had to do with actual crime.

Right. This was all under misinformation. We talked about it yesterday, that misinformation is not a crime. No, but they're trying to, you know, they started trying to set up a misinformation disinformation board because they were trying to create that.

But it's interesting. We sent out a FOIA request today to the FBI regarding statistical classifications of domestic terrorist investigation. There were whistleblowers that came forward to the Senate Judiciary Committee saying, just so you're aware, the classifications and the way in which we determine what acts we're investigating constitutes domestic terrorism, which they were trying to skew that number up.

Those numbers, basically, what these whistleblowers were saying, those numbers were rigged. So we've asked for a lot of records involving the term domestic terrorism, domestic terrorists. We want logs, charts, lists, memorandums, notes, et cetera, because these whistleblowers have come forward. Now, what's interesting, now that the House is in the hands of the Republicans, the Judiciary Committee or Intelligence Committee can ask for these agents to testify. But remember what the Department of Justice said, we don't want – if you get a request, you're not supposed to speak to anybody. So they're all for whistleblowers when it's involving Ukraine.

They're not so keen on whistleblowers when it involves their own particular activity. So we've asked for records at the FBI headquarters and also with the field offices, and we've also looked at offices in Los Angeles, Portland, Oregon, Chicago, and Tampa. That's where we've gotten information so far. So all of that's being looked at. I suspect we'll have to go to court on this.

We've just sent out the request. They have 30 days to respond. And then normally we get into either a response, which normally there's not, or we get into actual litigation.

That is more probable here. But this gives you a sense of what we're doing at the ACLJ and the kind of issues we're engaged in all the time. And we encourage you, as always, support the work of the ACLJ at Now, let me say this.

We've got just a little over two minutes left. Jordan and I are hosting, just for finishing our broadcast right now, live obviously, and then we're hosting Sean Hannity's radio broadcast this afternoon live for three hours. And we will be talking about a variety of issues, and we've got a lot of great guests coming on.

That's right. We've got Congresswoman Claudia Tenney. She's going to be talking about taking that appropriation money from the IRS, the $80 billion for the 87,000 new agents, and putting that into the border security, especially in light of what's going on with Title 42 and this influx of migrants.

So we'll talk to her about that. We're talking to Senator Hagerty. He's talking about the Fentanyl, just the amount of Fentanyl. And just now, I just got a report from Fox News, actually, that Will texted me, our producer, and he said, Bill Maluja from Fox, that trackers with Texas DPS just arrested three illegal immigrants, they've got the picture of it, from Honduras who were smuggling two pounds of Fentanyl pills and 172 pounds of marijuana as they snuck through the extremely remote terrain of the Big Bend sector in West Texas. One of the smugglers, only 14 years old. So we talked about child trafficking. They're using children as drug smugglers as well.

You think that kid had a choice about whether or not he was going to be a smuggler or not when there was a gun to his head or his family with these cartels. We're also going to be joined by Congressman Jim Jordan. He is leading the charge on so many of the critical investigations, including the origins of COVID and the CCP's involvement there.

And then from our team, former Secretary of State and CIA Director Mike Pompeo and former Acting Director of National Intelligence and Ambassador to Germany, Rick Grenell. That is all going to be on the Hannity broadcast. You can go to Of course, there's thousands of places to listen on your local radio and on Sirius XM and online at

It's 3 to 6 p.m. Eastern time. And again, we want you to be part of that broadcast. And to let you know, my dad and I will be hosting that show today. So we encourage you to check it out.

Be a different show than from the secular broadcast today. Support the work of the ACLJ at In any amount you donate, remember we get a matching gift for us, so we encourage you to do that today. That's We encourage you to do that as we get the last nine days of the month. And don't forget, 3 o'clock today, Hannity hosted by Jay and Jordan. Back with more in a couple hours.
Whisper: medium.en / 2022-12-22 05:38:41 / 2022-12-22 05:59:18 / 21

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