This is Jay Sekulow.
President Biden's current Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken, orchestrates election interference in 2020, keeping you informed and engaged. Now, more than ever, this is Sekulow. We want to hear from you.
Share and post your comments or call 1-800-684-3110. And now your host, Jay Sekulow. Hey, everybody. Welcome to the broadcast on this Friday.
I got to tell you something. This news that's coming out about the now current Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken, and his involvement with orchestrating an intel letter that discredited the finding of the Hunter Biden laptop story. Remember, you had 51 intelligence officials say that this was Russian disinformation.
We now, of course, know that that's not true. Well, Jim Jordan's committee has done some deeper dives into this. We've done some FOIA requests on it as well. And the House Judiciary Committee Chairman, Jim Jordan, and House Intel Committee Chairman, Mike Turner, sent a letter to Blinken Thursday notifying him that the panels are conducting, quote, oversight of a federal law enforcement intelligence matters within their jurisdictions. In a transcribed interview, Mike Morrell, who was a deputy secretary at that point, testified that on or around October 17, 2020, that Antony Blinken reached out to Morrell to ask him to orchestrate a letter writing campaign with 51 intel officers regarding the Hunter Biden laptop.
What's so interesting about this, though, was for two purposes. And Mike Morrell says it and is... Go ahead, Logan. Yeah. Yeah.
He goes back and forth a little bit. I'm pulling it up right now, actually, in my notes. You got it? All right. Go ahead. We can act it out.
I'll play one part and you play the other. He asks a series of questions and he says, but prior to Blinken's call, you did not have any insight in writing the statement. So Morrell's deputy director of the CIA under Obama, he says, I did not.
Okay. So he called, the call triggered it. He said, yes, it did. And that intent and you to do it, yes, absolutely. That's the best part, coming up. Yeah. Well, you go ahead and do the best part.
Yeah. The best part is they kept having this discussion and eventually it gets to, well, what was the intent of the statement? And he goes, well, there were two intents. Our intent was to share a concern with the American people that the Russians were playing on this issue. And two, it was to help Vice President Biden.
Chairman Jordan said you wanted to help the vice President. Why? I wanted him to win the election.
You wanted him to win. That's why. Yes, sir. Well, there you have it. It's exactly what we thought. So when you talk about, you know, election interference issues and people, you know, kind of gaming the system, you're seeing it play out in reality.
Yeah. You may want to question a lot of it and that's fine. You should question a lot of things, whether you believe people's theories or not.
Don't believe people's theories. But some of these are just right here in paper and they're admitting to it. Well, they're admitting to it, you know, and they're admitting to it because, A, it's true and they're under oath. So, you know, when you're in these hearings, you got to tell the truth because failure to do so results in perjury. But it's, you wanted him to win.
That's why. Yes, sir. So they come up with this whole, this is Russian disinformation, which none of it was Russian disinformation for one purpose only. And that purpose was for Joe Biden to win.
Lo and behold, he wins the election. So they kind of got exactly what they were hoping for. Yeah. I wish we could know like what kind of yes, sir, it was. Was it yes, sir, or was it like a kid being like admonished? It's like, yes, sir. You know, having to go to their room.
Yeah. I wish we knew that, but unfortunately, this is not recorded. I'm sure he wasn't thrilled about it. Listen, none of these people like being called into these hearings. Well, who would? I mean, I don't know.
Well, believe me, I know. I've defended people that have gone into these hearings and you got, but what it points out was that in 2020, there was just a lot of stuff going on. Now, is it going to happen again in 2024? Probably. Is it going to be to this extent?
I hope not. The one thing that the Republicans have to do in 2024, though, and I know a lot of people are talking about this now. If, for instance, your state allows for early voting, early vote. If your state allows for... Use the tools that are being provided. If your state allows for bundling, so to speak, or, you know, collecting the ballots. Harvesting, yeah.
Yeah, harvesting. Do it if it's legal. And you got to get out of this idea, well, we vote on election day, and that's because too many things happen on election day. And that's why this early voting, you got to start thinking about that. We've got Mike Pompeo coming up. Yeah, this is the next segment. We're going to get into this on the situation with these Chinese police. I mean, who believes this? Police stations from the Communist Party of China operating in Manhattan and other cities as well. Yeah, arrests have been made.
This isn't some conspiracy theory. Arrests were made. We talked about that last week.
But now there are six more alleged police stations. We'll be discussing that coming up in the next segment. Give us a call with your thoughts as well at 1-800-684-3110. That's 1-800-684-3110. We'll be right back. Welcome back to Secula.
We are taking your calls also at 1-800-684-3110, but we are joined by ACLJ member, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on the line. I know we got a lot to talk about, including some of the news that's coming out of, well, all over the country it seems like. And it sounds almost ridiculous. It sounds like a movie, but it's real.
No, it is real. And, Mike, you and I have talked about it before. And this is the – that the Communist Party of China is – I mean, this does sound surreal. Operating police stations in Manhattan.
Hey, Jordan, good to be with you. It sounds crazy, but it is very real. And now they've identified another half a dozen. It wouldn't surprise me if it's already been more than that. These operations are being directed, conducted at the direction of the Chinese Communist Party from the mainland. And if you think police stations, think just calling folks in from the local community, almost all of whom are U.S. citizens.
Chinese descend. U.S. citizens calling them and saying, hey, we're watching your Aunt Sally back home. How do you think she's doing right there? They are letting them know that they are monitoring their activity here inside the United States, and they are directing their activities here inside the United States. It is crazy stuff. I'm glad the Biden administration arrested a couple of folks, but if it's just a couple of folks, they didn't need a whole floor in New York City, there have to be more.
We have to take this down in its entirety. Jay, just the same way, when we identified a massive spy operation in there, Chinese consulate in Houston, Texas, just in the same way that I directed that the FBI shut that down, they need to close these things out everywhere. We need to make clear to the Chinese Communist Party, not only that we're going to shut them down, but we need to impose real costs on them for their operations here inside the gates in the United States. And I wanted to clear up, this is not just in New York City, these are happening.
This is, there are stations that have identified in New York, Texas, Nebraska, Minnesota, California, all across the country there are these stations. It is just that New York is where sort of the larger presence is and where the crackdowns are happening. So Mike, I mean, this is where, we've been talking about this for a long time, and that is the impact of the Communist, the Chinese Communist Party on global affairs. And of course, you were Secretary of State, you were Director of the CIA, but you look at this situation and the way you just described it, and that is this idea that, hey, you know, your aunt in Beijing, we understand she's sick, how's she doing, is messaging to, these are Americans that they're talking to of Chinese origin, you know, is an intimidation factor, an intimidation technique. You directed the CIA.
That's right. This is the objective, and I have watched the Chinese operate here inside the United States. They're going to be very effective at it. They have a massive surveillance state inside their country to observe what your cousin's doing, what your friend is doing. They know what these folks are doing here in the United States. They're using these operations to follow people around here inside of our country, not some other third country, not inside of China, but here.
This is crazy stuff. And, you know, to the extent we just say, gosh, as Secretary Yellen said yesterday, we have to find ways to engage with China, but we don't impose penalties on them when they operate counterintelligence and spying operations inside of our country. If we just do nothing but say, gosh, we arrested a couple of folks, I promise you, two years, five years, 10 years from now, this problem will be even worse.
And our sovereignty, American sovereignty, the ability of America, U.S. citizens to live freely and worship here inside the United States in the way that they want, it will be greatly diminished because of the influence the Chinese will continue to impose on Chinese American citizens here inside of our country. Mike, if you were the Secretary of State now or President of the United States now or the head Attorney General of the Department of Justice, what would you do with this situation? It took the DOJ a long time to take action here. Now, they may have been taking other action we don't know about, so I want to be fair there. But what would you be doing as a leader of the country or like when you were Secretary of State to deal with this forthrightly, quickly, and to get it closed down?
What would you do? So three things come to mind. First, I hope that they've done the work to identify the full scope of what's taking place. So I hope we don't even know how much work they've done. To your point, I'm happy to credit them with operating a good intelligence gathering operation from the FBI so we know what the scale is. I would then shut it down.
I would then tell that story very publicly and very repeatedly. I want every American to know what the Chinese Communist Party is doing to their family, to their community, to the neighborhood. I want every American to know that. And then finally, we should impose real costs on everyone connected to this. So think about the leaders of the National Police Organization that appears with running this.
We know who they are. I will guarantee you some of their kids are studying here in the United States. Get them out.
I promise you that some of their wives are traveling here to buy stuff at high end stores in New York City and L.A. and Miami. Get them out. We should impose sanctions on everyone that is connected to this operation to make clear to the Chinese Communist Party that we are not afraid to impose costs on them when they do this kind of thing that violates our sovereignty. You know, we didn't do it, Jay, when they flew a spy balloon over America.
We didn't do it when they foisted this virus on the United States, killing over a million people. This is another example where China is using propaganda and intelligence and interrogation techniques inside the United States, which has an impact on every American family. You know, one of the things that I want to follow up on this, because we've been concerned about this on the university campuses, these cultural centers. If you just scratched the surface, the influence of the CCP as it relates to even things as innocuous as like cultural events in major cities or music and orchestras. It seems like that the leadership, at least the intelligence forces when the Chinese Communist Party are trying to impact colleges, high schools, kids in the arts, everything. I mean, it just seems to be a very comprehensive approach and they're very patient, a very comprehensive approach that the CCP is taking here. The scale of this is extraordinary, Jay.
Your point's well taken. I remember stories where the Chinese were showing up at middle school PTA meetings, offering $5,000 from a Chinese charitable organization for a swing set. I can assure everyone listening to your show today, they didn't do that for the kids' health.
They were making friends. They were conducting influence operations. They were talking about American decline and how we're an evil nation.
These are intentional. They are at scale and they're going to require a response that is equally intentional and equally at scale. And I haven't seen evidence that the Biden administration is prepared to do that.
The American people, I pray, are going to demand that they do. You look at the influence of the CCP in the United States, we're just touching on this, and now I'll add other things. The farmland acquisitions that have taken place, especially near military bases, the spy operations out of consulates.
You mentioned you closed one down in Houston, Texas. The police stations we've been talking about, the spy balloon gathering information and signal intelligence as it traversed the entire United States. How far behind is the United States and the current administration fallen under—how far behind have they fallen in dealing with this? We're way behind. I can't talk about all of it because some of it that I know remains in classified space, but there is an awful lot of work to do. None of this had been done.
This has been going on for a long time. None of this had been done prior to our administration. We began this process. We laid out inside of DOJ with Attorney General Barr an amazing program to counter this. It was good work. It was important work. The FBI was engaged in it, and these guys came in and undid a big piece of that program. I hope they're doing it someplace else quietly.
I just simply see no evidence of it. It's going to take hard work, years of effort. We can get there.
We know it. We're totally capable of responding to intelligence threats inside the United States. We did it when the Soviet Union was spying on us here.
The same kind of focus and effort is going to be required, and I hope these folks get it right. In the end, this will put every American family at some level of risk, and millions of jobs and billions of dollars of economic wealth will wander back to China in ways that we can't even imagine. Secretary Pompeo, I just want to have a quick diversion real quick before we wrap up. The administration has tried to blame the current administration, the Trump administration, for the withdrawal from Afghanistan, but the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan told Congress that the State Department isn't cooperating with his oversight role. The question for you is, what does Congress need to do in this situation, knowing all of this is happening? Well, they need to start bringing in folks who are connected to this, not only folks in the State Department, but there'll be folks from everywhere, and asking them the hard questions. I also saw that they refused to make clear that the IG made clear that he couldn't determine that money wasn't going to the Taliban.
That's bad. If we can't track that money and keep it on the hands of the Taliban, that's just really dangerous, and it's consistent with the approach in Afghanistan since we had 13 Americans killed there. Look, we know this. We know this administration botched the departure. We now still have work to do to make sure that we protect American interests there and in the region, and I hope the administration will come clean about what it is they're doing, how they're doing it, and put an approach together that is logical for the United States of America. We appreciate your insight, as always, and your help on so many of these key issues. Again, Mike Pompeo is the Senior Counsel for Global Affairs for the ACLJ, but also former Secretary of State and former Director of the CIA.
Great expertise that you're getting, and I know that we, in context, we need to point this out. I think Rick Grenell is joining us later in the broadcast, former Director of National Intelligence. We just brought on the team for the broadcast team, Tulsi Gabbard, former member of Congress, current Lieutenant Colonel of the United States Army Reserve, and, of course, someone that knows international affairs and global affairs, too.
So you got a lot of different perspectives come in, but also with the idea of everybody has the same goal, protect America, protect the land of the free and the home of the brave. And that's where you come in, and your support of the ACLJ is so critical. We're in a matching challenge campaign. We are exactly 10% behind where we need to be for the month, so we need some ground to make up.
It's about $120,000 or so. Your support of the ACLJ would be critical. I encourage you to do it. All you do is go over to ACLJ.org.
Any amount you donate, we get a matching gift for, so let me encourage you to go to ACLJ.org. We'll be back with the second half hour in just a moment. Hey, welcome back to the broadcast, everyone.
We had an exciting first half hour, I should say, and then we got a stunning half hour to come up. I want to turn our attention. We were talking about the situation with China and these police stations. We'll talk more about that when Rick Grenell joins us in just a little bit. But I also want to talk about illegal action in the American Center for Law and Justice.
I'm holding my hand, and let's put it up on the screen. This is the brief that we just filed, or are filing right now, I should say, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The case is Alvin Bragg versus Mark Pomerantz and Jim Jordan versus the – is also listed as a defendant appellee. The case is Alvin Bragg trying to stop Mark Pomerantz from testifying pursuant to a congressional subpoena that was issued by Jim Jordan's committee on why the federal government funds were being used to prosecute a former President, which is something I warned about coming out of this very studio to the Supreme Court of the United States when we did the arguments by COVID.
And at the same time, that that constitutes a bit of interference with an election, wouldn't you say? And I'm not the only one that thinks Pomerantz is going to have to testify. Of course, the district court judge did, relying primarily on three cases. And that was the Mazars case, which I was counsel in, and then the House Committee cases, which I was counsel in, the Deutsche Bank case, which I was counsel in, all before the Supreme Court of the United States.
And that case, those cases, the three of them, set up the parameters of what constitutes a valid congressional subpoena. But Alvin Bragg is fighting back on this aggressively. And you can understand why he's fighting on this aggressively because he's got little choices. In the second half hour of the broadcast, when Rick Rinnell joins us, I'm going to ask him about this and a couple of other issues. But let's go to some of the statements that were made. First, let me play my oral argument to the Supreme Court of the United States. Coming out of this very room, we had it all wired up, Logan. We had the podium set up. This was during COVID when the arguments were done remotely. Yeah, we had a very limited crew even in here to get it connected.
But just to give you some sort of ambiance as you were about to do it, the Supreme Court case, not just holding a receiver. Obviously, we had the technology to make it good. We had a podium in here. I wish we had some pictures of it. I don't know if we do.
We have a lot of stuff from it. We should probably run that video. We'll talk about it. We had a fascinating thing to play, especially now that it's all in the news, we should really look at, at some point, playing that whole oral argument. I guess we can. You tell me.
I don't know. I think we can. I think at the moment there was discussion, but we weren't sure because everything was during COVID. We didn't really know it was ongoing. At least our side of it they could.
Well, we don't have the others. No, we have the audio from them. You can put pictures of the justice. I think it would be worthwhile.
I think it would be something our listeners would appreciate. Anyways, I argue that you're weaponizing these 2,300 local prosecutors. Very dangerous for a President, also very dangerous for a Presidential nominee because you've got the hand of local prosecutors affecting and impacting federal elections.
Take a listen. The Second Circuit is wrong. It should be reversed. If not reversed, the decision weaponizes 2,300 local DAs.
A overwhelming number of them are elected to office and are thereby accountable to their local constituencies. The decision would allow any DA to harass, distract, and interfere with a sitting President, subject the President to local prejudice that can influence prosecutorial decisions, and to state grand juries who can then be utilized to issue compulsory criminal process in the form of subpoenas targeting the President. This is not mere speculation. It is precisely what has taken place in this case. So in our brief, we actually cite that, and it's cited for the proposition. Let me put that brief back on the screen for everybody. This is the brief we filed in the case, or I should say I keep saying filed. We are filing in the case. And we point on footnote number two is that very argument. What we've asserted in our brief is that an additional basis for the subpoenas were necessary is patently obvious from the record. As the district court observed, Representative Jordan and the committee have gone on record stating their plans to pursue legislative reforms to insulate current and former President from state prosecution, such as by removing criminal actions filed against them from state to federal court, which, by the way, the Supreme Court in the Trump case, which I argued, again, from this very room at the Supreme Court, said federal courts are the appropriate venue for that.
So that's number one. And this particular concern resonates with the undersigned counsel, that's me, for amicus, as this encompasses my contention to the Supreme Court in the argument of Trump versus Vance, which was a companion case of Trump versus Mazars. There's also in the beginning of the, and I don't know if we have this, and I, well, it's my fault.
I forgot to mention this yesterday. In the argument that we had at the Supreme Court, I said at some point, I think it was early on, that in the, it's in the beginning of my argument, I said that in the predecessor case, the previous case, which was the arguments on the congressional subpoenas, the court was faced with a particular issue there involving, but Alvin Bragg's office copied that congressional subpoena. I think it may have been at the end of my argument during the rebuttal, actually. Maybe we can get it in the second half hour of the broadcast.
It'll be worth playing. And I make this statement. It was like, you know, they're using it saying it's for legislative purposes. That's what Congress is saying. And Bragg is saying, I'm taking the same subpoena with one word changed, and I'm using it for prosecutorial purposes.
Well, you can't do that. I mean, that's just not the way the law is supposed to be set up. So this case is now at the Second Circuit. Oral argument is Tuesday. Briefs filed today. A decision next week.
I told you this, Logan. This is headed to the Supreme Court. There's no question about it. It's going to be a wild time.
Yeah. I mean, it's exactly what I predict. I mean, I'm not trying to pat myself.
It sounds self-congratulatory here. But these would all unravel, and this is where you did that. I said this is what was going to happen. You started setting precedent, bad precedent. And the Supreme Court, frankly, kind of missed the boat on the Vance case because it was a very diverse opinion.
That's being kind. You had justices saying, well, it should be this heightened level of scrutiny. Other justices saying, well, it should be mid-level scrutiny. And the nine of them saying it should go in federal court regardless, and constitutional challenges can be raised. So here we are.
Instead of decisively dealing with it, here we are 32 months later dealing with exactly what I said was going to happen. Andrew Weissman, a prosecutor on the Trump fight. This was at the – when they were trying to – the Bob Mueller team. This was the Trump investigation on Russia. Andrew Weissman was asked about does Pomerantz, the former assistant DA, have to testify. Now, he was working for Bragg.
Bragg refused to do the case. Pomerantz quit and writes a book about it. Now, you talk about violating confidentiality.
They've waived that. Here's what Andrew Weissman said about this. In my review, I ended it by saying that if this book improperly hurts an eventual Trump prosecution, one wonders if having this account at this time will have been worth it. And we're seeing that now. When you write a book that is unauthorized without going through pre-publication review, and you do it in the middle of an investigation, you are asking for trouble.
Well, and that trouble has arrived. So now Bragg is lost at the district court. The Second Circuit should affirm the district court judge in my view. But I think ultimately this case is going to the Supreme Court of the United States very quickly. So the ACLJ team is fully engaged. We've already filed a brief on this, and we have a unique perspective as we were the lawyers representing President Trump when all of this was going on in the first round 31 months ago, 32 months ago. And again, I'm not saying I was predicting what was going to happen, but I predicted exactly what was going to happen.
This is exactly what has happened. Yeah, absolutely. And we want to hear from you too. I want to give you a call.
It's at 1-800-684-3110. We have a second half hour of the broadcast coming up. Some of your local stations, they don't carry the phone. I don't like that.
I don't care for that either. So tell your local station. If you're not listening on a local station, stay right here.
We're coming right back in just a minute. But if you are listening and you don't get the second half hour, flip on over to social media platforms like Rumble or find us at ACLJ.org. That's probably the easiest way.
Just go to ACLJ.org. U-A-C-L-J. Make sure I clarify that.
Say it slow..org. O-R-G. Click on that. You'll see right in the middle. If we're broadcasting live right now, you can always check us out later on on the podcast feed, on YouTube, on Facebook, on Rumble, as always.
And of course on ACLJ.org where you can support our work midway through the matching challenge. Actually headed towards the end now. Appreciate your support. We'll be right back.
Keeping you informed and engaged. Now more than ever, this is Sekulow. And now your host, Jay Sekulow.
Welcome back to Sekulow. We are taking your calls. Sorry about that, Logan.
I'm having to approve a brief to be filed. That's why I... No worries. Thanks. Yeah, it's okay. I've done this before. 1-800-684-3110.
I just gave the phone number to call. We're continuing on. You threw me off. I don't even know what we're talking about. Well, we were talking about a lot of things. We had, you know, the Chinese Communist Party operating police stations throughout the United States. And found out that's now in six states. Some of that's being closed down. And six new ones they found.
They just released today that that happened. We had our Senior Counsel for Global Affairs, Mike Pompeo, wanted to talk about that. Then we just started talking about the litigation that's going on between Jim Jordan and Alvin Bragg, the DA in New York, trying to prosecute President Trump. And as I said, it was exactly and precisely what I was concerned about when I argued the cases at the Supreme Court of the United States just 31 months ago. And the end result was what? Exactly what I said.
2,300 local prosecutors now interfering with a federal election. I mean, it's hard. You can't argue that Donald Trump is not the leading candidate for the Republican Party at this point. No, at this point, no polls would indicate any other way. No momentum would either, if we're all being honest with ourselves. Whether you like it or not, whether you wanted some fresh blood.
Look, I'm the person who said that. I would have loved to have seen some fresh faces on both sides of the political spectrum for this coming round. But it just doesn't look like it. It looks like if it was happening today, we'd be heading into the inevitable Trump-Biden, you know, round two.
Yeah. So what the federal government, what the state government should not be doing, especially these county DAs, is putting their thumb on the scale of who the Republican nominee for President is. Nobody wants to say it that way. But let's be clear what this is. This is a county district attorney putting his thumb on the scale as to the Republican nominee for President, which they should not be doing. Same reason the Department of Justice has this window where they say, you know what, too close to an election, we're not doing this.
We're not going to take action. Yeah, I think so. And you'd hope that to be the way it works, but it all feels so political. It all feels so fake. It feels forced. And even like you have SNL in those places making fun of how little a case sometimes there is. The case in New York is ridiculous.
And then, of course, they had all of the counts that were all the same count, but, you know, 26 different times. It does feel like a political show. And then you have sort of the comedy coming out of the Trump camp, which I think has been a really interesting tone and a really interesting shift, which was instead of moving towards a very serious, heavy campaign, they're running funny ads against DeSantis. They're putting out really short bites.
Just the President, you know, President Trump just saying, where's Hunter? And that's the whole Instagram post. The second round of the NFTs, which, again, sold out in about an hour. 10 minutes, $4.5 million worth of NFTs, but they were done in comedy.
Like they were done in different points of view. I think that's kind of getting people back on board that maybe were on board in 2016, fell off maybe for Trump in 2020. A good question to ask. I would like to ask our listeners this. How do you view, call us at 800-684-3110, how do you view the Republican nomination right now? Trump, DeSantis, Nikki Haley, I mean, Kim Scott? The guy who announced today, Larry Elder announced today. Larry Elder announced, yep. Larry Elder announced, RFK Jr. announced for a Democrat.
Larry Elder announced, that's going to be very good for a relief factor. I don't, yeah, I'm not sure if he's still one of their people, but he was. He was. I mean, he's been one of the main four. You've seen him around. What's interesting is this is happening a lot this round in terms of even the Senate races and, you know, with Schiff leaving California, which is a lot of people, though. There's clearly a lot of money behind these guys that lose in their state and local areas.
It's just, it's become a trend. We've likely seen it with what will happen with Stacey Abrams is there's sort of this momentum behind people that it doesn't really matter if they win their home state because they get a national platform. We saw that with Larry Elder. You see it on some of the people coming out of California where you have, like, the guy from Boy Meets World who lost his, like, city council position or whatever it was now running for Adam Schiff's spot because the money's behind him because they're going, okay, he's an extreme, you know, I'd say socially liberal guy, but he's running on a very high pro-police and pro-security. That's maybe what California needs. So you're seeing this sort of, not necessarily failing to the top, I don't want to say it that way, but it kind of feels that way with a lot of these candidates.
They're not necessarily winning, but they're making, they're growing their platform significantly. I want you to call us and tell us where you're leaning on all this. 1-800-684-3110, 800-684-3110. So we want to hear from you. We've opened up our phone lines. So where are you leaning on these Presidential aspirations at this point?
Who do you think it's going to be and who do you want it to be? 1-800-684-3110. Also, let us know where you're listening. That's very important for us where you're listening on radio, satellite radio, or any of our social media platforms as well.
It's very important for us to know that. 800-684-3110. If you want to talk to us, we encourage you to do it.
800-684-3110. Back with more in a moment. All right. Welcome back to the broadcast. I mean, we are taking your calls on 1-800-684-3110. We're trying to get your sense on political campaigns.
Larry Elder announced yesterday as well, or last evening. So we want to hear what you're thinking on where things are leading. I think right now, and that's why I think what Alvin Bragg is doing is so repulsive, and that is he is putting his thumb on the scale to interfere with the Republican Party's choice or choices that they will have for President. You've got the leading contender, former President Trump, way ahead in all of the polling data, and Alvin Bragg filing some ridiculous misdemeanor lawsuit trying to create a felony to put his hand on the scale of who the Republican nominee is going to be. And then you've got the Anthony Blinken is now in the middle of all of the issues as it relates to what? Well, the Hunter-Bine laptop, shockingly, the 51 intel officers acknowledged they did it because they wanted to see Biden elected President, and that's in their sworn testimony. Joining us now is somebody who knows a little bit about intelligence, and that is former Director of National Intelligence, Rick Grenell. Rick, I wanted to get your reaction to what we knew was the case that these 51 intel officers made the statement about Russian disinformation about the Biden laptop because, let's just be clear, they did it because they wanted to see Joe Biden as the President.
Yeah, Jay, this is one of these stories that has really unbelievably focused me on corruption in Washington, D.C., again. Let's also be very clear that Anthony Blinken, who was working on the Biden campaign, who is now the secretary of state, he did not have a single piece of intelligence that pointed to the fact that the Hunter-Biden laptop was Russian disinformation. No one was briefed on it. No one ever had a single piece of raw intelligence suggesting it. They made it up. They did it three weeks before the election for political partisan purposes.
51 former intelligence officials never saw a single piece of intel. They said this to manipulate an election. They did it at the direction of the Biden campaign. They did it at the direction of Anthony Blinken, who is now the secretary of state.
Anthony Blinken participated in election interference with total fake information. This literally implodes his moral capabilities to go around the world and talk about democracy. We cannot have a secretary of state who has manipulated the 2020 election by getting 51 people to lie about a laptop that absolutely had information showing the Biden family with the Chinese communist leadership. We cannot have a secretary of state traveling the world for the United States of America talking about democracy and the rule of law when he just was caught with someone under oath who ran the CIA saying, Anthony Blinken asked us to sign this letter and we all did it to help the Biden campaign. This is such an outrage. This is how countries implode when we have leaders like this. This man must resign. We must have a media that is asking these questions.
Let me just say this as I finish here, Jay. CNN correspondent Dana Bash's husband signed that letter. He was one of the 51 people. You're telling me that CNN and its reporters spent two and a half years ignoring that letter and how it came about. Dana Bash knows exactly how that letter came about because her husband signed the letter.
They knew that Anthony Blinken, the secretary of state asked them to sign that letter. And CNN and Dana Bash has never asked the question or said anything publicly about this total election manipulation. This is corruption in Washington DC and people should be outraged. You know, I said the same issue on corruption as it relates to Alvin Bragg and his misdemeanor lawsuit trying to create it into a felony, which was ridiculous. But he's doing this after, you know, a candidate who is the leading candidate now, the Republican nominee for President. And it's exactly, Rick, what I argued to the Supreme Court of the United States 31 months ago during COVID in this very room where I said you are weaponizing 2,300 local prosecutors to put their thumb on the scale of elections.
And it's exactly and precisely what has happened. We've got calls coming in at 1-800-684-3110. Let's go ahead and take one. Logan? Let's go to Alan who's calling on line three in Oklahoma. You're on the air, Alan. Yes. Hello?
Hello? Yep. Go ahead, Alan. Can you hear us? You go ahead. Yes.
I was wondering if I could make a comment after my question. Let's get the question first. The question is, have you ever seen a more corrupt government in the history of this Republic of the United States? Have I ever seen a more – you know, it's hard to rank – Rick, this is a really good question. It's hard to rank levels of corruption because – It's politics. There may have been a lot of corruption going on before that we didn't get the sunshine on, the light on. But in our media world, Rick, that we live in now, we know a lot more about what's happening. Yeah, Alan, what I would say to your question is politics in Washington, D.C. every year is getting more corrupt and more insular. They ignore the American people every year a little bit more. And so this latest administration, the Biden administration, is the most corrupt because our politics and our media are acting as one.
And it's really too bad. It is a sign of what dictators do by controlling the media. And we need to have reporters who realize what is happening to our country with all of this corruption.
They need to start calling it out and stop acting like Democrats. Rick, I wanted to turn your attention – we spoke to Mike Pompeo earlier today about these six additional Chinese Communist Party police stations operating in the United States. I obviously don't want you disclosing anything you can't disclose, but you were the director of national intelligence.
You were also the ambassador to Germany, a G5 country. I mean, what's your sense of this with the Chinese Communist Party and these operating police stations? Well, it's been getting worse over the years. The Chinese have – I would use the word – infiltrated our local governments, our universities, the media. And they together are working to really placate the Communist Party regime's messaging. And so now when they blatantly have enforcers that open up offices here in the United States, it's a real crisis. We don't forget in the Trump administration, we shut down the Houston consulate because of bad behavior. And I believe that we should have acted against the San Francisco consulate. What's happening in San Francisco by the Chinese government, they are really being allowed to infiltrate the entirety of California from the media to our universities to local politicians. Don't forget that Eric Swalwell was a local politician when he was caught having an affair with a Chinese spy. This starts locally and they grow politicians. Let me ask you this for kind of the last thing here.
We only have two minutes left. And that is, you're very involved in our work as it comes – regarding these Freedom of Information Act requests. We just had that big discovery in that case involving – and I know you were involved in this, concerned about this when you were at the DNI – that coming up through the southern border, we had these terrorists that were on the terror watch list. And then the border patrol, thankfully, caught them and put it up a press release and we nabbed these two. And then the border patrol and Homeland Security said, take it down, we don't want people knowing we're doing that. We disclosed that because we went to court and got the information on what happened there. The problem is – and this is why these Freedom of Information Act requests are so important because you've got to – that's one of the only ways you can find out what your government's actually doing. I would say thank God for the work of the lawyers at ACLJ who are all about transparency. Because what happened in this case is that the federal government caught individuals on the terrorist watch list coming across our southern border. And when local officials wanted to be transparent and say, wow, we've really reached a point where it's a crisis because we've got terror watch suspects coming into the southern border, the federal government responded with, don't tell anyone that. Take that down. Don't be transparent. Don't let the public know. Think about that.
Your government didn't want to tell you that the terrorists were coming across the border because they were embarrassed by it. Alright, we'll be back in – thanks, Rick. We appreciate all of your insight.
Support the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org. I also want to encourage you to give us a call. We've got a couple lines open right now. We'll take as many calls as we can in this next segment. That's at 1-800-684-3110.
Dad, we are in the final days of our matching challenge. And what Rick said is so right, these Freedom of Information Act requests we get, which we've got to go to court for, is an important part of what we do. Your support of the ACLJ is critical. Support our work at ACLJ.org. We've got a lot more ahead in this last segment, but I also want to get to your calls at 1-800-684-3110.
I want to know from you, where are you leaning on this Presidential season we're about to enter into? 800-684-3110. Back to the broadcast, everyone. Harry Hutchinson is joining us.
I want to ask this to Harry. This is not related to the topic we're going to discuss, but we're going to take your calls at 800-684-3110. We've been talking about the situation with Alvin Bragg. You know, one of the things I said in the Supreme Court 31 months ago from this very studio when we were arguing these remote was that you're letting local DAs put their thumb on the scale of elections. And here you've got this misdemeanor case, maybe, I mean kind of a weak misdemeanor case at best, and turning it into a felony and making a production out of it.
And you can have 23 DAs doing this. And this is exactly the problem with this whole approach. And of course he doesn't want to have Mark Pomerantz, his former assistant district attorney, special district attorney testify, because we're going to find out what happened there.
I think you're precisely correct. So what we have are local district attorneys who are really focused on national policy issues, and they're not focused on local crime. But this is part of a pernicious long-term strategy, and many individuals, including George Soros, have invested in local district attorneys.
Why? Because they want to push a left-wing ideological agenda. And so from Pittsburgh to New York, from Baltimore to San Diego, local district attorneys have inserted themselves into national politics. And in New York, the objective, of course, is to take down the leading candidate for the 2024 election.
Yeah, Harry's right. And I mean, this is exactly what we argue with the Supreme Court. They're going to decide this case by, well, the oral argument is going to be Tuesday. We filed, we'll put it up on the screen. This is a brief we filed at the Second Circuit. Obviously, we know a lot about this, because all the law they're arguing is the law we created at the Supreme Court of the United States. Tuesday's going to be the oral argument day.
I think we get a decision a few days later, and I think ultimately, back up to the Supreme Court it goes. Let's go ahead and take some calls, Logan. Let's go to Terry, who's calling in New York. Online, too, Terry.
You're on. Hey, Terry. Hey. You know, I appreciate you guys. The first thing I want to say is I have $50 a month going right to you guys, right out of my checking. I recommend everybody listening to this support you guys. I really mean it. You're really important to this country.
Well, you said, who would you support for a President next time around? Obviously, to me, I mean, the man has made the sacrifice, has been tortured, has been sued, has been misaligned. He's done everything wrong to him. He rolled up his sleeves in 2016 and said, we got to fix this mess. And he'd been on his back ever since then trying to destroy him. Well, you got the other side of the aisle where the guy's kid is using America for their banks all over crooked.
Nothing's happening to him. So I take it you're supporting former President Trump? It's not hard to get to, is it? Well, I get it. Believe me.
I mean, I understand, and listen, I understand the frustration, too, on a lot of people. Terry, how are you, where are you listening to our broadcast, by the way? I'm just curious. I'm a hour and a half south of Buffalo, New York. Are you listening on radio station or on another device?
WDCX out of Buffalo. Great. Okay. Well, we appreciate that. Well, look, I mean, Terry, here's the thing.
We do think, I mean, they are putting their hand on the scale. I mean, you could say whatever you want to say on this, but at the end of the day, it's what you said, Harry. A local DA trying to impact a national political race. Absolutely. And what we really need is for the Supreme Court, I think, to begin to intervene to block many of these activities to the extent that there is a plausible legal and constitutional basis for doing so. I'm going to play, and this is from the Supreme Court of the United States. This was during the oral argument in the Trump versus Mann case involving the local district attorney.
Take a listen. And I think the case here is the perfect example here. The district attorney copied verbatim. The House Oversight Committee and Ways and Means Committee subpoena verbatim. So we were just discussing in the previous case the nature of that burden for counsel. The President hiring counsel for each time he could be subpoenaed as a witness or in this particular case as a target would raise a serious impact on the President's article to functions. So we think a categorical approach, and it's very specific here, state process adds to targeting the President's documents in a criminal proceeding. Okay, so, Harry, that is exactly what is happening here. The only differential is there it was the sitting President, here it is the leading candidate for President.
But it is exactly the same problem. And the House Oversight Committee subpoena in that case was copied by Vance word for word, except with one additional thing. We need the tax returns, which was a separate subpoena from the House.
And, you know, again, this is exactly what we predicted is exactly what happened. I think the American people and Republicans in particular should be well aware of one fact, that the Democrats specialize in election interference. It's not Russia, it's not China, it's Democrats. They are fundamentally committed to interfering with free and fair elections. Meanwhile, they contend that anyone who opposes their policy objectives is what? A threat to democracy. This is nonsense on steroids. So the Democrats are committed to what I call performative democracy.
Basically a surface commitment to democracy when actually they are committed to tyranny. All right, well, I thought we had another call. We don't have it right now. I do want to say, hey, we can't say what, but on Monday we're rolling out a pretty cool campaign. So you're going to make sure you want to come in Monday. Why don't you talk about that for a minute, Logan? I think it's important for people to understand.
I know you don't want to give all the details, but it's had a lot to do with you. You heard some Rick sort of mention some of the terror watch lists, some of the people at the border, what's going on? Well, we've got a pretty interesting campaign that's coming out Monday. So you're going to make sure you tune in to this broadcast as well as just look across all our social media platforms. You will be able to see it and that's going to be coming again very soon. So I just wanted to kind of tease that as you do just to set up what's coming next week. So make sure you stay tuned for what's happening with a cool project from our team.
That's going to be great. I want to go quickly to what's being called by some periodicals as the new world order. And that is the continued devaluation of U.S. currency as not talking about the value of the dollar, but the impact of the dollar with what are called the BRIC nations, which is Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, and others. What's your sense of this? Explain everybody.
We only got two minutes here. What we're talking about, what the concern is. Well, essentially the BRICS countries, Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa have formed a new development bank. They actually formed this in 2014, but they are beginning to roll it out and expand it. And they're seeking to incorporate in this bank and in this effort, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Bangladesh, Argentina, and Algeria, and of course Saudi Arabia.
So what China is seeking to do is to head an effort to offer an independent currency, a currency that is independent of the United States dollar, which is the leading reserve currency in the world. So this is part of the challenge to the United States. And it's part of the challenge that the Biden administration is continuing to ignore.
Why? Because the Biden administration is so focused on Ukraine and pouring additional resources in that war really with Russia. And so I think at the end of the day, the Biden administration and its policy objectives are weakening the foundations of the United States economy. So whether it's global affairs, political affairs, global economic affairs, which you just heard from Professor Hutchinson, whether it is international intelligence gathering issues that impact Americans, which you heard from Rick Rinnell.
Whether it is the Chinese Communist Party and their infiltration in the United States, which you heard from former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. All part of the ACLJ team, and we just added yesterday Tulsi Gabbard, former Congresswoman, to that team as well. That's why your support is so critical, Logan. We're in a matching challenge campaign. We're exactly 10% behind where we need to be. That's why you can come and stand alongside us and really make a difference.
Yes, that's right. Go to ACLJ.org. Make that donation today and all donations are effectively doubled. Again, that is just at ACLJ.org.
It's really easy. You'll be able to see it right when you go there. And again, Monday, got some cool stuff rolling out. So make sure you stay tuned for that really important thing that we've been working on with a lot of great legal work. So go to ACLJ.org. Talk to you later.
Whisper: medium.en / 2023-04-21 17:43:54 / 2023-04-21 18:05:00 / 21