DENIED: Speaker McCarthy Boots Schiff and Swalwell from Intel Committee

This is Jay Sekulow Denied.

Speaker McCarthy, Boots, Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell from the Intel Committee. 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, we've got a lot to talk about today. We've got Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell are being officially denied seats on the House Permanent Intelligence Committee. This is a big development. We're going to get into that.

We have indictments have been issued against two individuals involved in vandalism of pregnancy resource centers in Florida. That's a big development. The Department of Justice went from not helping at all to indictments, so that's a big development.

And then we're going to get into this whole gathering of how do you handle classified materials, which is, of course, on everybody's mind. But I want to start with the situation with Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell, two of my favorites, I might add, from having to deal with them during impeachment proceedings. I will tell you this, Kevin McCarthy made a very direct statement. Now, Hakeem Jeffries, who's the Democratic leader, so he's the minority leader in the House, wrote a letter saying, I write today to submit for renomination two eminently qualified legislators to continue their service on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell, who they named. Together, these members have over two decades of distinguished leadership providing oversight of our nation's intelligence community, in addition to their prosecutorial work in law enforcement. To which Adam Schiff received, or I should say Hakeem Jeffries, received a response from Kevin McCarthy, the Speaker of the House.

Those of you that worried he wasn't going to be strong enough, well, guess what? Here's what he writes. I cannot put partisan loyalty ahead of our national security, and I cannot simply recognize years of service as the sole criteria for membership on this essential committee. Integrity matters more. That's what McCarthy wrote, Kevin McCarthy wrote in a letter to House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. This was a very bold move, and he said, in my assessment, the misuse of this panel during the 116th and 117th Congress severely undermined its primary national security and oversight missions, which remember what the Intelligence Committee is for. And that's what his mission is.

Yeah, I think I'm very proud that he has done this because he has made a statement that he's not just playing politics, that he has a definite reason for doing this. This is a committee that goes to the national security of America, and he says, I'm going to put Americans first, and they are not fit to serve on this committee, so I think he did the right thing. He did, and, you know, Colonel Smith, we talked about this yesterday a little bit when you were on, and you've handled, you know, classified information as you know what intelligence is. You had a Chinese national inside Eric Swalwell's office at the highest level who all indications are was probably part of Chinese intelligence.

That's what it looks like. Yeah, and he had this relationship with her. You know, I remember back when I was going through the first interview for all my security clearances, and they questioned my relatives, they went back to high school questioning my friends. Eric Swalwell in the out of Congress world, he would not even be granted a security clearance simply because of his relationship with the Chinese national. I've had fellow soldiers who were denied a clearance because they were dating a foreign national who was not a communist, and so he absolutely should not be on the Intel committee. You can make the argument, Jay, that armed services and foreign affairs and Intel are the most important committees in our Congress.

Yeah, I mean, from an economic standpoint, of course, it's, you know, it's appropriations and oversight. But here's what's interesting about that. Those forms we had to fill out for security clearance. You remember those forms? Oh, yes.

I mean, you had to go back before high school, every address you lived in, everybody, and then it had to be your neighbors, and then everybody gets contacted. So there was a misuse of the Intelligence Committee under Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell. Adam Schiff, after all, says he had the red hot evidence of Russian collusion, which, of course, he may have had it, but I guess he didn't because the special counsel didn't either. But are you about special counseled out yet, everybody?

About done? Because we got three going right now, but everybody forgets about Durham. So you got Durham, you got her, you got Smith, and maybe you get a fourth on the one now involving the former vice President. We're going to talk about all of this, taking your calls, 1-800-684-3110, 800-684-3110. Support the work of the ACLJ. You do that at ACLJ.org.

And by the way, that includes this broadcast. And I want those of you that are listening or watching right now, if you enjoy this broadcast every day, ACLJ.org. We appreciate your financial support for the ACLJ. We'll be back with more, including your phone calls, your reaction to all this, 800-684-3110.

All right, so if you're just joining us, we are taking your calls at 800-684-3110. Kevin McCarthy, and some of you are concerned about Kevin McCarthy and whether he's going to be tough enough. Tough enough, he threw off the Intel Committee, Eric Swalwell and Adam Schiff. He was leading the Intel Committee, Adam Schiff. And he did it in part because of the situation. Eric Swalwell had the Chinese national spy get into his office. We've talked to you about how dangerous the Chinese government is on this stuff.

And then Adam Schiff was the one who said he had all this evidence of Russian collusion with Trump and, of course, nothing. And he said he had it in his hands. So I want you to hear from, I want your calls on this, 1-800-684-3110, especially those of you who may have been skeptical. I told you he would lead with courage.

1-800-684-3110. Here's what he said on the floor of the House yesterday. No, no, let's answer her question. You just raised a question.

I'm going to be very clear with you. The Intel Committee is different. You know why? Because what happens in the Intel Committee, you don't know. What happens in the Intel Committee, although the secrets are going on in the world, other members of Congress don't know. What did Adam Schiff do as the chairman of the Intel Committee? What Adam Schiff did, use his power as a chairman and lied to the American public. Even the inspector general said it. When Devin Nunes put out a memo, he said it was false. When we had a laptop, he used it before an election to be politics and say that it was false and said it was the Russians. When he knew different.

When he knew the Intel. Okay, so I want to, let's start, first of all, this was a bold move and I appreciate that. You know, clearance on these kind of things are a big deal, Wes. You went through it. The forms, as I said, are voluminous. But you had a situation where Adam Schiff knew information he had was not correct.

Said it differently. The inspector general said it. When Devin Nunes put out a memo, he said it was, remember Adam Schiff saying it was false. Swalwell had the spy in his office. This is serious stuff and McCarthy's taken a bold move here. He absolutely is. Both of these gentlemen were compromised, in my opinion.

They really were. And they don't need to serve on the committee that deals with the nation's most important secrets that impact directly the security of the United States of America. So I think it's a bold move on his part. You look at what Adam Schiff did. He really took Intel and he politicized it. There were certain things, remember, he would leak out that were technically not to be leaked. And other things that the American people had a right to know, he wouldn't tell us. He lied, as McCarthy said, to the American people. He used Intel for blatant political purposes.

Both he and Swalwell do not need to be dealing with the most important secrets of our nation. I'm going to tell you this right now. I'm going to play this bite from Adam Schiff. But I also want to find the one from Adam Schiff where he said, and we may take as while to find this one, where he said he had the info on Russia and collusion in his hands. It's real. It's an indictment.

Let's see if we can find that. But let's play this one, number 27. McCarthy's rationalizations, justifications keep shifting. The cardinal sin appears to be that I led the impeachment of his master in Mar-a-Lago for withholding hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid from Ukraine, a nation that was even then at war with Russia. Okay, first of all, I want to say something about this withholding because I dealt with that on the floor of the United States Senate. That's not true.

The only President that gave lethal weaponry to the Ukrainians was Donald Trump and Mike Pompeo when he was Secretary of State. So let's be clear on that, number one. So Adam Schiff's not telling the truth there. The whole matter of what he did on the floor of the United States Senate frankly was an embarrassment.

But you have to give credit to McCarthy for standing up to all of this. It's great because you know he's getting pushback, especially from the media, trying to claim this is all political stunt. You know, it's a political play. But he has been very clear this is not a political play like the Democrats have done where they literally just kick people off every single committee.

He is doing it in a just way with justification. He has said these two gentlemen will not serve on the Intel Committee because they are not fit to do so. He gives specific examples and he is standing up for the American people because this is a national security committee that deals with national security and he cares about the American people more than politics. Look, the Intel Committee is like Wes said. The Intel Committee handles the most sensitive information about our national security, both domestic and foreign. So these guys were compromised. You're compromised, you don't get it.

They were compromised and they took this rule you could call sacred information about America and they used it for their own personal and political purposes. And I love what McCarthy said to the Congresswoman who was questioning him on the floor yesterday. He said, what happens in the Intel Committee and this conversation that we had about Schiff and Swalwell, you do not know. In other words, it's because it's secret that I'm not telling you, you know.

Right. I want to play, can we play this flashback? This is Adam Schiff with the evidence of collusion. Now remember, I was counsel to that impeachment, I was counsel to the special, I was counsel to the President when it was the Mueller investigation and also on Ukraine when it was part of the, what was the basis of impeachment.

This is Adam Schiff, listen to the, this is super cuts, this is a number of different times he said it. So there's clear evidence on the issue of collusion and this adds to that body of evidence. There's ample evidence of collusion in plain sight and that is true. Have Democrats found any evidence of collusion?

Yes, we have. You can see evidence in plain sight on the issue of collusion, pretty compelling evidence. And there is significant evidence of collusion. There is ample evidence and indeed there is of collusion of people in the Trump campaign with the Russians. I think there's plenty of evidence of collusion or conspiracy. All of this is evidence of collusion. There is significant evidence of collusion between the campaign and Russia. Yeah, two million, two years, 40 million dollar investigation by Bob Mueller to conclude, there is no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. And this guy was on the, he was the chair of those committees, the Intel Committee.

I mean, I want you to think about that. And Kevin McCarthy as a speaker of the House of Representatives gets there and says, I'm not going to tolerate this. We're not doing that. I'm taking your calls at 800-684-3110. Waylon is calling from Colorado on Line 1. Waylon, welcome to Broadcaster on the Air.

Hey, thank you so much for taking my call. My first comment is, I am so glad that what I call the 20 Righteous Rebels held out, because they actually, I think, did shape McCarthy into being the great leader he's becoming. And then my question to you guys is, is there any possible way that maybe another attorney group could actually step into these special counsels or do their own? No, the way it works is, look, there used to be a thing called, your thing about in the old days, they had an independent counsel, independent prosecutors, independent counsel's office.

That was done away with because it took, it just did not serve the country well. So they went to the special counsel, appointed by the attorney general only if he's disqualified by the deputy attorney general. And then they are still within the Department of Justice, but they operate in a more independent manner. You've got three going on right now. Durham, who's still investigating the investigators.

I don't think that's going anywhere. You've got Jack Smith, who's investigating the former President of the United States. You've got Rob Herr, who's investigating the current President of the United States. And now the FBI and Department of Justice have said that the Pence matter, because now he's got documents at his home, is being reviewed now by the FBI and the National Security Council.

Now, I'll tell you, we're going to get to this later in the broadcast. This makes us look ridiculous, that the current President of the United States, the former President of the United States, the current, the former vice President of the United States all have this going on at the same time. And I think it's a misuse of the special counsel. And I've never been a big fan of the special counsel for that reason because I think it politicizes everything. And the FBI has been weaponized and now it's weaponized on everybody.

So I think if I was Mayor Carlin, I'd pull off the dogs here and say, you know what, this is obviously a much broader issue than we think. Maybe we're not government handling the documents correctly in the disposition of these. So maybe we look at everything rather than having three criminal investigations proceeding at the same time. Yeah, I think there's definitely an administrative way that they can handle this that is not going after three top leaders, you know, legally and criminally.

So I think there's a very, you're exactly right, I think they should say, okay, let's deal with this administratively and get rid of these cases right now. All right, we're taking your calls 1-800-684-3110. Let's go to Eric really quick. Eric, go ahead.

Hi, good afternoon and thank you for taking my call. So my question is, with the secret counsel, like are there cell phones accessible? Are they getting investigated themselves? These special counsels, well no, I mean they have phones, they're given Department of Justice phones like any other government lawyer.

They do operate oftentimes in a SCIF, that is a secured environment where you cannot bring phones in, so that's what the SCIF is. But no, they have, they're not investigating the investigators, these guys have only been in office for, one hasn't started yet, the other one's only been around for a couple of months. The problem is, the administration weaponized the FBI on this, all of these investigations, Trump, Biden and Pence should all be handled administratively, civilly with the National Archives and not become criminal investigations.

That's my position, that may make some of you unhappy that I don't think Biden should be prosecuted for it, I don't think he should be prosecuted, I don't think Trump should be prosecuted, I don't think Pence should be prosecuted, Hillary Clinton wasn't prosecuted, Sandy Berger wasn't prosecuted. You know what needs to happen here? Resolve the matter, but they've weaponized these agencies. When we come back we're going to take more of your calls at 1-800-684-3110, also we're going to talk about this issue, we'll also talk about a major development by the FBI in a good way on Pro-Life Resource Center, so we want to get into that. I encourage you to support the work of the ACLJ, I mentioned if you enjoy this broadcast, whether you're listening on radio or any of our social media platforms, support our work, that helps keep this broadcast on the air, we want to expand it.

ACLJ.org for that, ACLJ.org, we're going to be back more with your calls at 800-684-3110. Hey everybody, welcome back to the broadcast, we've been talking about the fact that Eric Swalwell and Adam Schiff are no longer on the Intel Committee, big move by Kevin McCarthy, a good move, we're also going to let you update you on something, this is very important. We have been very concerned about vandalism that has been targeting Pro-Life Resource Centers, we represent Pro-Life Resource Centers from around the country. And we've been saying where are the investigations, they need to be going now, we do know of one that was going on because it was one of our clients, our lawyers were actually there for the FBI interviews as that investigation moved forward. Well, lo and behold, yesterday a big development and that is an indictment against two individuals who were involved in damaging Pro-Life Resource Centers in Florida, three different locations. Right, there are three different locations in Florida that these two individuals, actually a conspiracy claim was brought against them and then violating the FACE Act by intimidation, trying to intimidate the workers at this pregnancy resource center, Pro-Life Pregnancy Resource Center, and actually by damaging these centers. So it has been, you know, hopefully this is a good move and hopefully the first of many because many centers were attacked and now we're seeing that they're actually moving on this and they've arrested two people or indicted two people attacking these centers.

So I've shown on the screen pictures of what these people did, you know, you have vandalism of signs and you've got, you know, vandalism all over the property and then in others there's been, in other cases they have, you know, they put in bombs, explosive devices to blow facilities up. So all this was going on, let me tell you what they did, they did a multi-count indictment, I'm actually holding the indictment, I don't know if we have it on the screen but I'm holding it, there it is. So this indicted the United States of America against these two individuals, Caleb Freestone and Amber Smith Stewart. They were indicted for conspiracy against civil rights, that's the count one of the indictment. The second count of the indictment involves violation, which is also a felony, of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act because the FACE Act actually applies to pro-life centers too and protects them, so kind of flipped it on them in a way.

And then count three is another Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrance Act case. And it was interesting, in addition to the U.S. Assistant U.S. Attorney involved in the case and the U.S. Attorney, of course, for the Central District of Florida, an Assistant U.S. Attorney Special Victim Section has signed on, as did a trial attorney from the Civil Rights Division. So I have to say, and this is Merrick Garland's Department of Justice, here they did the right thing and we're finally getting movement on what has been a growing problem for these resource centers. Yeah, it's a full force effort that's going against, again, you know, these FACE Acts, they did, like you said, usually they're used against the pro-life centers but they can be used for them as well because they protect reproductive healthcare facilities, which pregnancy resource centers fall under that definition.

So the fact that they intimidated them, you know, saying things like, we're coming for you, your time is up, you know, if abortions aren't safe then you're not either, those kind of things were intimidation and then actually destruction of the property as well. So those are the two counts violating the FACE Act and, you know, I'm super pleased that they have filed these and they're actually going after these people that did the destructive, took destructive actions against the PRCs. This is a big development because it's the Department of Justice moving on something that was unequal enforcement and now at least they're moving on it. And listen, this is where your advocacy with us makes a huge difference. We have been very vocal about our concern that the pro-life resource centers were not being investigated fully by the Department of Justice. We were concerned that there were not indictments being brought and lo and behold there they are.

So you know what you want to do in a situation like this? This is good news. Rejoice. They are finally getting some justice here and that's all we were asking for. Equal justice under the law and now we're seeing it happen.

And I got to tell you, you know, you have to be pleased with this because I am sure internally the sympathies were not with the pro-life centers politically and worldview. And yet they applied the law in this case, it appears, in a very non-biased manner to do the right thing which is go after people that they, and this is Jane's Revenge, where everybody said, oh I don't think we can find them. And I kept saying, you can find them.

You can do the cyber security on this. You can find these people. Yeah and they did. They did. They actually found these two that they have charged but they said, you know, they have co-conspirators.

So there's probably more people that they're rounding up. And it is because the ACLJ spoke out. Our supporters helped us speak out. And we see when you do that, you do get justice.

Even from the FBI and the Department of Justice we are seeing that. Yeah and I got to tell you, like I said folks, I'm really pleased with this. I think this is a positive, positive development. And at the same time, Florida Supreme Court denied a temporary restraining order, TRO request that pro-abortion groups had to stop Florida's 15 week, after 15 week no abortion ban from going into effect. That was also a big development.

That happened yesterday as well. So the Supreme Court is going to hear that case where Planned Parenthood has come against the 15 week abortion ban that Florida has in place. But the Supreme Court did not allow a stay to be put in place saying that the law doesn't go into effect while they're handling this case and they're reviewing this case. So that is a win too. And then we'll just watch that case as it goes up to the Supreme Court of Florida, which is the 15 week ban is the same ban that we saw in the Dobbs case. And you know that is something protecting a baby in the womb at 15 weeks where they can feel pain, where they have a heartbeat.

And we'll see how that plays out. But I think it is a win that the court said we're not going to stop that law. The law is still in effect. So there still is a 15 week abortion ban in Florida right now while the Florida Supreme Court is going to hear this case.

This is really good news. And again, I want to say this. We are representing crisis pregnancies in how many states?

Listen to this folks. This is right now our current representation. We have been contacted from California, Oregon, Washington, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont and Iowa. And we're representing almost, well, I guess 10 of those with three others that we're in contact with. And we're talking to all of them.

So 13 from across the nation. Folks, when you support the work of the ACLJ, this is what happens. So we're able to motivate people through the broadcast. Then we're able to take legal action. Then we're representing the crisis pregnancy centers that are subject to this stuff. And also the overregulation by the states that they're operating in. Because remember, they're the front lines on the abortion battle right now. And the states are trying to eliminate them. So we're fighting on all of these fronts. We've been to the Supreme Court for them.

We've been to city council meetings in Colorado for them. So understand the nature of what we're trying to do here. Communicate a message of hope to women in need. That's what these crisis pregnancy centers do.

They're now called mostly pregnancy resource centers. But the fact of the matter is, when you look at it, what they're doing is front line work to defend human life. And it is our privilege and honor to stand with them. We just had a big event in our offices a couple of months back.

We've had other events since then. Your support, this is where you come in, folks. Your support of the ACLJ makes all this possible. Including this broadcast. Where we're able to motivate all these people because of you. Without you, we're not on a thousand radio stations.

We're not on multiple media platforms, including Rumble and YouTube and Facebook and others. We're not on TV without you. And now you're seeing results. You saw that with Kevin McCarthy. Look what he did. He said he wasn't going to tolerate the abuse. He wasn't going to let people that are dangerous to national security on committees.

And he did it. So we're going to talk about how all that plays out in the next half hour of the broadcast. You're not going to want to miss it. 1-800-684-3110. Support the work of the ACLJ.

You do that at ACLJ.org. If you're watching right now on Rumble, hit the like, the thumbs up button because that will get it in the feed. A lot of people are watching on Rumble.

Same thing on Facebook and YouTube. We encourage you to do it there as well. We'll take your calls.

We're coming back. We have another half hour. 1-800-684-3110.

800-684-3110 is here. Remember, if you don't get the full hour of the broadcast, go over to ACLJ.org or to Rumble. Rumble does a great job for us. We really appreciate it. And that's a great way for you to get information. ACLJ.org. Support the work.

Easy way to do it. We'll be back with more, including your calls, in just a moment. Keeping you informed and engaged, now more than ever, this is Sekulow.

And now your host, Jay Sekulow. And if you're just joining us, Eric Swalwell, Adam Schiff, not going to be serving on the Intel Committee. Kevin McCarthy, the Speaker of the House, very direct about that, saying no go.

He's just not doing it. He thinks there's a risk to national security. And he said it. Remember, Swalwell had the Chinese national spy in his office.

Adam Schiff said he had all this evidence of Russian collusion that he didn't have. So now they're paying the price. They can serve on other committees, but not Intel.

And I think that's a big statement. And then you have the situation with pro-life resource centers, where indictments were issued yesterday. They were under seal. They've been released now. Where two individuals and other co-conspirators have been accused of violating conspiracy to violate civil rights, as well as Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, which covers the pro-life resource centers too. Three-count felonies have been issued by the Department of Justice and the FBI, and that's a good development. We're taking your calls, though, on 1-800-68-431 to a lot of people asking about the Swalwell situation. Bill is calling from Wyoming.

He's on Line 3. Hi, Bill. Hi.

Thank you for taking my call. Just a real quick thought is the fact that this whole thing puts a new view on the phrase, what's in your wallet? My comment is the fact that when I was in the service, I got to know several of these men that worked in the intelligence group. And what these people have done is basically shown a bad face to everyone who worked real hard to keep our country's intelligence secure.

And I don't like it. Well, that's why Kevin McCarthy has been so direct about why he's not putting these individuals on committee. And he's saying exactly what he said with Adam Schiff. He had the Russia collusion evidence that he didn't have.

He's lied about that. And this is what he said about Eric Swalwell. And if you want to talk about Swalwell, let's talk about Swalwell, because you have not had the briefing that I had. I had the briefing and Nancy Pelosi had the briefing from the FBI. The FBI never came before this Congress to tell the leadership of this Congress that Eric Swalwell had a problem with a Chinese spy until he served on Intel. So it wasn't just us who were concerned about the FBI was concerned about putting a member of Congress on the Intel committee that has the rights to see things that others don't because of his knowledge and relationship with a Chinese spy.

Strong enough? I'm saying that because it took two weeks to get him confirmed, basically, as the speaker. But look what he's doing.

And you got to give him credit where credit's due. But he's also calling it out. And that, Cece, what I like here is he's not afraid to say the reason why he's not putting them on the committee.

That's right. And I love that he pushes back on this is not politics. I am not playing politics. I have a reason.

These two gentlemen are not fit to serve. And if you don't believe me, I will give you the facts to support it. And he is holding firm and standing strong.

And I really appreciate and I'm proud of him for doing that. We're taking more of your calls at 1-800-684-3110. Gwen's calling from George on Line 4. Gwen, go ahead.

You're on the air. Thank you for taking my call. I just wanted to praise McCarthy for what he's doing. He's done a great job. And y'all have two at the ACLJ.

Well, I appreciate that. He really has done a great job. And listen, it's not like he's got a supermajority to work with.

I mean, it's a very close House of Representatives. But I think he's putting America's interest first and the country's interest first, which is the requirement, and especially on the Intel Committee. By the way, he didn't say that Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell can't serve on other committees, but not Intel. Because as he said, when they got on the Intel Committee is when the FBI went to members of Congress, which has never happened before, saying, hey, Swalwell is on your committee. Guess what? He's got a spy in his office.

So of course he's not going to put him on the committee. These guys are so, they do this stuff. You know, it reminds me of all these documents that seems like every President and former vice President had in their homes. You know, everybody's calling everybody out, except they all, evidently this was a problem. But I think, boy, has that been weaponized. All right, come back. We've got a lot more to talk about. We're going to take your calls or phone lines and open them up. 1-800-684-3110, 800-684-3110.

So you can give us a call on any of these topics. Again, Pro-Life Resource Centers, great victory, very good victory. FBI indicting individuals with Jane's Revenge for the activities in Florida against crisis pregnancy centers. We're thrilled about that.

We're representing 13 right now. On multiple, and I think in 10 different states, your support of the ACLJ makes all that possible. Go to ACLJ.org.

That's ACLJ.org. Back with more in a moment. All right, we're moving to topic here. We're going to take your calls also at 800-684-3110, 1-800-684-3110. I'm going to go to Mary Ellen first, because she's got a really interesting question. I'm going to tell you how it works. Mary Ellen, go ahead. You're on the air. Line 5.

Hi, Jay. Regarding selection on these committees, is there a rule that there has to be Republicans and Democrats now in this case? Yes. The House rules require that based on allocation on who has the majority. So when you have the majority, you get more members than if you don't. And that's why when the Senate went to the Democrats and it wasn't 50-50 anymore, you lost even co-membership of the co-chairmanships of the committees because of that.

So those have consequences, but that is exactly how it's done. There's a report that says the United States, Colonel Smith, is not prepared for a conflict if there was to be one with China militarily. This is very, very concerning, especially with China flexing a lot of muscle right now. A lot of us are surprised that they've not gone into Taiwan yet, because they could do that any minute. But what's your sense? You've reviewed the report.

I have, and we also have a blog up on our website that talks about this in some detail. Basically, our support of Ukraine and sending so many of our weapons there, combined with the Pentagon having a very slow and antiquated procurement system to produce new weapons and ammunition, we are actually running critically low on weapons platforms and on ammunition, so that if China were to invade Taiwan, you know, our ability to respond is somewhat limited. One of the things about Ukraine, and we have given them a lot of aid and continue to do so, is that they are a country that is close to NATO, but they border Poland, so that on a daily basis, we send supplies, weapons, ammunition by rail and by ground transportation to support the Ukrainian military. Taiwan is an island, so that if China decides to invade Taiwan, we have basically two choices. We can support them by airlift, in which case we have to face Chinese air defenses in their Air Force, or we can actually challenge the Chinese Navy in the Straits of Taiwan in order to give them ammunition and supplies. But again, one of the key critical factors right now is that we're running so short on those things.

I'll give you a few examples here, Jay. The number of Javelin anti-tank missiles that we have sent to Ukraine, based on today's production rates, and again, a very slow procurement system at the Pentagon, it will take seven years to replace them. We have sent 150 howitzers, cannons, to Ukraine based on today's production. We don't know when they will be replaced because BAE, the company that makes them, has not even started up their assembly line. BAE, British Aerospace? Is that...

I don't know who that used to be. Well, maybe their stock signal may be BAE. In a series of war games that the Center for Strategic and International Studies just did recently, they said in a war supporting Taiwan against China, we would run out of anti-ship missiles in less than a week. I mean, think about that, folks.

No missiles in a week. All right, now, Harry, there's an economic consequence to all this, too. The U.S. has also asked nine countries to hand over obsolete Russian weapons to Ukraine, and the countries they're asking are like Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba, who, by the way, have relations still with Russia. There's a lot of risk in all of this, of course, that could get into the wrong hands, but the fact that we've been asking this is pretty shocking.

I think that is correct. So, essentially, the U.S. government has taken an affirmative decision to strengthen dictators in Latin America, in part because the Biden administration has been so short-sighted with respect to military procurement and weapons production. And I can state affirmatively that Wesley Smith's analysis is spot on with respect to dealing with the Defense Department. I have limited experience dealing with the Defense Department, but I have some.

I've done some consulting work from the Defense Department, and they prefer consultants to actually doing the hard work of production and producing weaponry. And the decision-making within the military is extremely slow, so this puts the United States at risk, and the Biden administration continues to support Ukraine over our own global interest, if you will. And so I think it's important, yes, to help Ukraine, but we should not do so at the cost of putting ourselves at risk.

And I think this particular decision by the Biden administration of helping dictators does not help the United States in the long run, but the Biden administration continues to go down this train that I think in the long run will put us at risk. You know, I think the failure, and we look at this in legal cases, you've got to look at a situation holistically, and I think that one of the failures of the administration on the defense side has been the failure to look at this holistically. The impact of, you know, Ukraine has got a real interesting dynamic going on right now, and I think what the Russians did to Ukraine is outrageous and wrong and violates international law, and they have to defend themselves. Having said that, we've got to analyze what does that mean for the United States holistically, overall. And then, and this is the other thing, the Ukrainian leadership just fired five top ministers, deputies of departments, for corruption, which I could tell you as someone that litigated, well, it's not really litigation, but it was on the floor of the United States Senate handling a trial about Ukraine involving a former President, that it was rampant with this kind of conflicts that were going on with these various government agencies, and there was concern, of course, about what that conflict meant financially, what it meant to development of who gets what and where does that money go, where do the weapons go, and now we're finding out, hey, we may be depleting our own, well, not maybe, we have depleted our own resources, and we're saying, oh, corruption is still there. And of course, corruption is still there. This is the problem when you don't look at something holistically.

That's true if it's in a legal case, it's true if it's in a policy. Yeah, and I think even on the military side, we should always be looking to protect America's interests first. Yes. Yes, we can help other countries. I'm not saying we cannot do that, but we have to make sure that while we're doing that, we're not harming America, and that doesn't mean just for today, but that means next week, next month, next year.

And like Wes and Harry have said, if we're depleting our resources, that is not putting America first. Now, Wes, I want to know what a conflict with China looks like if Taiwan's involved, because this could happen, folks, at any moment. We don't know.

What does it look like? It is not good. First of all, we have a very confusing policy about that and the strategic ambiguity. We don't even know for sure what our reaction would be. We're not under an international law obligation to come to them. They're not part of NATO. No, under a treaty in 1979, we're obligated to arm them and support them, but that does not mean troops on the ground. So the likely conflict, if there was one, if China went into Taiwan, what do you think the United States does?

I think that we will yell and scream a lot. We will try to get them weapons, which will be difficult again because they're an island, and the first thing China will do is blockade the island. And so in the end, I think our options are few unless we want to go to war with China, which is really almost, I mean, it's completely unthinkable. So we have limited options. The best thing we can do… I mean, militarily, we're not going to put troops on the ground in China. That's not going to happen.

No. Naval, we're going to start launching rockets from ships? We're not going to confront the Chinese navy or their air force, in my opinion. How strong is their navy? Their navy is larger than ours.

It's not as sophisticated, not as effective, but much larger because they're spending billions and billions on their Department of Defense. Harry, on the economic side of this, there's consequences. Well, all this spending is catching up with us. I mean, it's a lot of money, not clear where that money's going, and now you've got the whole Ukraine corruption issue coming to the forefront again with all these developments. I think you're precisely correct.

And so a professor of philosophy at Georgetown has written an interesting book called Elite Capture. And I believe that the U.S. defense industry has captured much of the policymaking decisions in the United States government, and they're also profiting from what's going on in terms of international conflict. So, again, I would continue to support efforts to allow Ukraine to defend itself, but the United States has to look at the long-term economic consequences as well as military consequences. And so we are digging ourselves a very deep hole in terms of deficit spending, and that is also accelerating because the Biden administration is pushing a green agenda and a number of other wishlist items. So I think at the end of the day, though, the American people are going to pay the costs. The consequences are going to be borne by us in terms of higher interest rates, a greater national debt to refinance long term.

And we may see both inflation, which continues, and we also may see a reduction in employment. Your support of the American Center for Law and Justice allows us to give you this kind of analysis, which you are not going to get anyplace else. And we encourage you to support our work, to keep this broadcast on the air. You know, it's January, so we start looking at where can we expand our media outreaches, and that's where you come in. I encourage you to go to ACLJ.org if you enjoy this broadcast.

We've got another segment coming up. Go to ACLJ.org and support our work. ACLJ.org.

That's ACLJ.org. Next segment of the broadcast. Here's what we're going to do.

We're going to talk about what all these document issues really mean and what does it make us look like globally, because I've got very serious concerns. Also, ACLJ lawyers at the U.S. Court of Appeals heard the 11th Circuit tomorrow on a religious liberty case. So when you're supporting the work of the ACLJ, it's this broadcast. It's that case tomorrow. ACLJ.org. That's ACLJ.org. Back with your calls at 800-684-3110 in a moment.

Hey, welcome back. We're taking your calls at 800-684-3110, 1-800-684-3110. Oh, I was right on the military thing.

The BAE is the British Aerospace. Yeah. There you go. The problem is, and Wes just said this, he said something during the break I want him to talk about, we're going to talk about what to do with all these documents that are floating around everybody, your former President or vice President's home that are more classified.

We'll talk about that in a minute. But, you know, you were mentioning about that we're reverse engineering of weapons and we're not on a wartime footing as far as production. No, we are so short on weapons platforms on simple things like ammunition. And even though we're not at war, the Pentagon needs to go to a wartime footing as far as production and procurement goes if we're going to continue to support Ukraine and if we're going to continue to help Taiwan defend itself.

And this idea of sending weapons to Central and South America when we're facing this critical shortage anyway makes absolutely no sense in exchange for them, you know, sending their Russian-made weapons to Ukraine. Alright, so Eric Swalwell off the Intelligence Committee. Adam Schiff off the Intelligence Committee. You should be celebrating that. You should be celebrating that there's been an indictment against Jane's Revenge, individuals associated with Jane's Revenge in Florida because of their damage and violating conspiracy civil rights laws against pro-life resource centers and multiple count indictments have been handed down there.

The Florida Supreme Court let in place, stay in place, the 15-week heartbeat bill in Florida on abortion. So some really good news on this front. We're taking your calls. Phone lines are open. 800-684-3110. Ronald's calling from South Carolina. Yes, thank you for taking my call.

Enjoyed your show. This is concerning what McCarthy did in Putin's shift in Swalwell and I think it was a very good thing because I think Harry Hutchinson talked about this during the impeachment thing where he's talking about Star Chamber and people literally are so hemmed in because of longevity that they think they can do anything they want and literally get away with it. It's like Shakespeare said, power corrupts absolute power corrupts absolute. Let's play McCarthy, Speaker McCarthy's own words.

Take a listen. But I will not be like Democrats and play politics with these where they removed Republicans from committees and all committees. So yes, he can serve on a committee, but he will not serve on Intel because it goes to the national security of America and I will always put them first.

Alright? I think, listen, Cece, I think this is precisely why Kevin McCarthy was the right person for Speaker. Now he had to go through that whole mumbo jumbo of a week of this and negotiate it, fine, it's done, it's over with. But this is bold leadership and it's bold leadership and you don't have a supermajority here and he's doing very bold.

Listen, not having Swalwell and Schiff on those committees is really the right thing for America. Yeah, he's not apologizing. He's not backing down. He's doubling down, which is what he should do. And again, I've said it multiple times, I'm very proud of him. He is not letting the media attack him.

He is saying they are off and I will tell you why. Here are the facts and I am always going to put national security and Americans first and he has and good for him. Alright, I want to say this also because, you know, the elephant in the room that we're not talking about today is everybody's got to document it. If you're a President, a former President or a former vice President, it appears you have national security information at your house.

Okay, so obviously there's a problem. But is that problem worth having three special counsels, which is what you've got going right now? Now you don't have one on Pence, although the FBI has now said they're reviewing it, they're interviewing witnesses, they're looking at all this. So obviously there's an issue with how classified documents are handled during transitions. And Merrick Gartland decides to weaponize or give the FBI all this authority and guess what happened?

Now they've weaponized on all these formers. And I think we're looking like a third world country, Professor Hutchinson, Director of Policy for the ACLJ. We look like a third world country when you have the former President under a special counsel investigation, which is criminal, the current President under a special counsel, which is criminal, and the former vice President having to deal with the FBI at his house for or possibly his house for documents that were also classified. So you would say to yourself, maybe there's something wrong with the way that is handled in this transition, but it makes us look very weak globally.

I think that is precisely correct. And we're precisely in this particular position because Merrick Gartland, in my judgment, is a particularly weak attorney general. So there was insufficient evidence, I will argue, to appoint a special prosecutor with respect to former President Trump. But once you go down that road, then it leads directly to the misconduct or alleged misconduct involving President Biden as vice President.

And more likely than not, we will see a third special counsel with respect to former Vice President Pence. And so one of the things that you've said earlier, Jay, which I think is precisely correct, this is really a documents dispute. This is not really a national security matter. And so what Merrick Gartland has done is he has phonied up, if you will, the Department of Justice and converted a documents dispute into a national security slash criminal matter.

He takes a document dispute between the National Archives and former Presidents and current Presidents and former vice Presidents and converted it literally into a federal case and not a civil federal case, a criminal federal case. I don't like special counsels. I don't like the special counsel regulations. I think it's ridiculous. I think none of these cases should be brought by special counsels. I think they should have gotten these documents back and stopped the nonsense rather than, and that goes, by the way, with your former President Trump or a current President Biden who is former Vice President or Vice President, former Vice President Pence.

None of these should be handled this way as criminal matters. Representative Mike Waltz, a good friend of this broadcast, a congressman from Florida, here's what he had to say. Clearly the process is broken and we've got to take a hard look at GSA and how they and the intelligence community pack these documents, get them to wherever the President, Vice President's going.

He's right. But instead we've got special counsels and all the news is going to this. Now I saved it till the end today because I didn't want to talk about it today.

Until the end. Because it's making us look weak as a country. Okay, so here's, you know, when you saw that you had the stuff going on with Trump and the NSA, excuse me, the National Archives, and that going back and forth, and then it gets elevated up to where Merrick Garland authorizes a search warrant.

Then you have the President of the United States, current President of the United States, in his garage has classified documents next to his Corvette, then in his home office, then in his Biden University of Pennsylvania office who's also getting funding from China. But you know what, in all those cases, and then you got Mike Pence, Mike said, hey, you should handle documents that way, and then lo and behold, I like these people, they'll get me wrong. But you know what, Merrick Garland should take responsibility, should get up in front of that podium at the Department of Justice and say, you know what, this is not good for the United States of America. This just makes us look really weak. So you know what we're going to do? I'm going to haul off the dogs here, and I'm going to get these documents back, and we're going back to, you know, start over again, because this is not working out. Because I think, Wes, it's making us look really weak. It is a document dispute, and I think Merrick Garland backed himself into a corner when for, I think, partisan reasons, he authorized the raid on former President Trump's home, and then when all this other happens, he has to appoint a special counsel. He's backed himself into a corner.

But you know, these moves of his have consequences, and they're not thinking, again, holistically or down the road. That's the problem. It's gotten out of control, and absolutely the process is broken. This should be handled administratively, it's documents. They need to shut it down and go to administrative handling. Yeah, I think whether you're a Republican, Democrat, whatever, at this point, okay, it shouldn't be a special counsel for Biden, it shouldn't be one for Trump, and it should not appoint one for Mike Pence.

I think that would be ridiculous. Having said that, we can analyze all this because of your support of the ACLJ. I encourage you to do that at ACLJ.org. Also, follow us on Rumble, Facebook, Twitter, at Jay Sekulow, at Jordan Sekulow, at Logan Sekulow, at ACLJ.org. Great way for you at ACLJ. Stay engaged with us. We'll talk to you tomorrow.