Bombshell Revelation Exposes Biden Admin’s Lies

Today on Sekulow, a new bombshell revelation reveals massive 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, Jordan Sekulow.

Welcome to Sekulow. You know, we've talked about earlier in the week Secretary Blinken, who's been caught by members of Congress, because he testified, you know, under oath to them and to their committee staff when he was in his process to be confirmed as Secretary of State. And they asked about his relationship with Hunter Biden, the Hunter Biden letter. They asked, they said, you know, Mike Morrell came in here who was a former acting director of the CIA under the Obama administration and said that you called him when you were working for the campaign, for Joe Biden's campaign, and said, can you get this letter done? And he's denied.

He said, I'm not a political actor. Now we have a bombshell email. The day the letter was released to the public, October 19th, 2020, from Mike Morrell, again, a former head of the CIA, to John Brennan, another former head of the CIA, both under the Obama-Biden administration. And in the email, Mike Morrell asked John Brennan, John, can I add your name to this list?

We're adding, and he goes through Leon Panetta and some of the others as well. Some who didn't, by the way, like Mike Rogers or Dan Coats. So they did not get any Republicans on this letter, who are at least more partisan actors. And he's going to add a lot of other intelligence community career folks as well. But here's the kicker. Why are they doing the letter on Hunter Biden? Really, because they just fear Russian disinformation? Don't see any of that in this email.

That's not even mentioned. It says, we're trying to give the campaign, particularly during the debate on Thursday, a talking point to push back on Trump on this issue. Brennan writes back, add my name to the list. Good initiative.

Thanks for asking me to sign on. Well, all Brennan was asked to do was sign on to a political letter to help Biden during his campaign. This is the intelligence community interfering in our elections, because then it was banned. We have a FOIA right now, where we get a status report June 29th from the FBI. Because we know the FBI went to social media companies and told them, do not deliver the Hunter Biden laptop story.

On Twitter, you are banned. So I'm holding in my hand the actual lawsuit that we filed in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, which is Washington DC, where we have asked for the information, the background and the emails, text messages, whatever it might be, memos that were created as to why this took place. What was the impetus for the FBI to go then to the social media companies and say, don't serve this because it's Russian disinformation, when we now know that, in fact, it was Mike Morell and John Brennan, and these are two former CIA chiefs directors, Morell was an acting director, that really were promoting this. And of course, it was Antony Blinken that was getting it all arranged in the first place. But when you talk about election interference, you don't have to talk about machine manipulations and all these allegations that most of which were never proven.

None of which were proven on the machine stuff. But as it relates to information that's in the public sphere, or not in the public sphere, which is another way to manipulate things, you got to ask yourself, and that's why we're doing that at the ACLJ in federal court, what was the FBI told to do? Who told them to do it? Who initiated this? And what actually did they say to these social media companies?

We know that Mark Zuckerberg already said the FBI came to this and said, you got to watch it. What they did was not serve it. You could post it, but they did not serve it, so people would not see it. We talk about the shadow banning, that was shadow banning certain posts. We know Twitter took the New York Post off. Remember, they banned the New York Post account?

And everyone knew it was real. I mean, it was the photos, the emails. But that's why we're in federal court. We're going to actually get an answer to this, and we're going to hold people accountable, because that's why we're doing it at the ACLJ. A cabal of the intelligence community interfering in the 2020 election, and we're talking about a couple of weeks before the election, two days before the final Presidential debate. We'll play sound from that debate, too, how Biden utilized this letter to push back on Trump in the debate.

Heads of the CIA play politics like this with facts that are important to the American people when they're making a decision on who to elect as their commander in chief. Share the broadcast. If you're watching the broadcast, we'll be right back on Sekulow.

All right, welcome back to Sekulow. So this letter, what's interesting about this email, this is brand new, folks. This email was dated, I mean, October 19th in the morning. It only took about 18 minutes for John Brennan to decide as a former CIA director, I'll join a letter, that a laptop is totally Russian disinformation without asking any questions, because he knew it would assist the Biden campaign. It would try to give the campaign. It was done for the campaign, be clear. Trying to give the campaign, this is from Mike Morrell to Brennan, particularly during the debate on Thursday, a talking point to push back on Trump on this issue.

So the letter then goes out later that day, October 19th. Now listen to what happens at the debate on October 22nd. There are 50 former national intelligence folks who said that what this he's accusing me of is a Russian plant.

They have said that this has all the care. Four, five former heads of the CIA, both parties say what he's saying is a bunch of garbage. Nobody believes it except his and his good friend, Rudy Giuliani. You mean the laptop is now another Russia, Russia, Russia hoax?

That's exactly what he's going. Here's the problem. That was a lie. Not only was it a lie, but this was during the heat of an election.

So I want to reiterate this. We were kept from seeing it. Well, the American people were kept from seeing it because the FBI took the unusual step of contacting social media companies, which we don't know this till after the fact, and went to these social media companies and said, don't serve this story about the Biden laptop. So what your American Center for Law and Justice did then was file a federal lawsuit. That federal lawsuit wants to know, and will get all of the information is who came up with this plan to tell these social media companies not to cover the Hunter Biden laptop? Who came up with this Russian disinformation line of argument? Who's responsible for it? And that's how you hold people accountable because we can take all of that information, march it across the street in our offices in Washington, we're next to the Supreme Court, but we're one block from the Capitol, and we march it over to the Capitol and give it to Congress.

And this is where, folks, it makes a difference. Now, you've got to ask yourself also, this is classic disinformation, so coordinated that the Morell Brennan email exchange, which talks about this as a talking point for a campaign, and this is where you got to understand what we're dealing with. It's a talking point for a campaign, but take it a step further. They knew that's what it was going to be. In other words, this wasn't, we better get ahead of this Russian disinformation. It was, this is a talking point for the campaign. And then the President of the United States now, Joe Biden, the candidate then used it in the debate. Exactly as they asked them to. And we just played it for you.

So it was set up perfectly. Not only did it shut it down from voters being able to see it, to make, so if that could have an impact on how they voted and see the corruption. Also, the emails back and forth about helping the big guy out. It wasn't just the salacious photos that kind of confirmed this was Hunter Biden's, by the way. But it was the emails about his getting money to his dad from foreign nationals.

This is, remember yesterday, Grassley comes out, and this is Senator Grassley saying, we know that the FBI has a 1023 form from a confidential informant who says that a foreign national, and spells it all out for them, paid Joe Biden to influence policy when he was Vice President of the United States. And John Solomon reported, it's absolutely Ukrainian. Now we're in a war in Ukraine. I mean, you put all this stuff together, you realize the impact it had on our election, the impact it has on our foreign policy decisions, fire the prosecutor, endless war in Ukraine. We have Blinken this week saying, Russians have failed, but we're not bringing the war to an end. We're now going on a counter offensive with our military equipment. And I want to play, I mean, what Tulsi Gabbard said yesterday on the broadcast, and she's a member of our broadcast team, a stolen democracy is what these intelligence officials are responsible for.

Take a listen. Secretary Blinken outright blatantly lying once again about his role in instigating this letter of 51 senior intelligence officials that essentially stole our democracy by claiming, Hey, this, this laptop is potentially Russian disinformation, and therefore should not be seen by anyone in weeks leading up to a very consequential Presidential election. So, I mean, there you have it. I mean, it's a stolen democracy.

So, you know, you hear these things about how there's election manipulation. You don't have to be that sophisticated. You just have to have the right contacts. Those contacts could then go from you to the federal Bureau of investigation, from the FBI, to the social media companies to tell them, don't post this information out there. Don't get this out their own service, which is where people are getting their news from now.

And that's how you stop. That's how you impact the election, the cable because they could not put it on their websites. They couldn't share clips of it. So if they talked about it, all they really did talk about it was the New York Post being banned. And the letter. The letter became the story. The letter, it became, wow, all these Intel officials, all these Democrat Intel officials said it's Russian disinformation.

There is no way. We now know Mike Morrell didn't like attach a document explaining to Brennan how they believe this is Russian disinformation. Brennan said, this is great because good initiative.

Thanks for asking me to sign on, add my name to the list. In 18 minutes, you would think CIA directors and former CIA directors before adding their name to a letter that says something is not true. Russian disinformation, more than not true. That it came from Russia to influence the election against Biden. So we're going to ban it from public view. And we want it banned from public view so that we can give Joe Biden a talking point in the debate in three days against President Trump, which they absolutely did it.

It shut the issue down. I know a lot of you would have said, I believe Trump on that, but to the American voter who is not as partisan and that has chosen their candidate. They heard that. They think that Donald Trump was lying.

Yeah, but let me, again, what I'm holding in my hand and we'll put it up on the screen. This is the copy of the lawsuit, federal lawsuit that we had filed in Washington, DC American Center for Law and Justice versus FBI. And it is exactly about this. We want to know who said that this was Russian disinformation. Now we know that information. What they said to the social media companies, why the FBI took this unusual step of communicating with the distributors of information on social media platforms to squelch this story. Now in 2016, you had the FBI do crossfire hurricane.

Jordan and I know a lot about that. We litigated that. We represented the President both in the Mueller investigation and the impeachment, which was on the Ukraine of all things.

And then in 2020, it's the laptop stories, Russian disinformation again. And people scoffed at Trump when he said this. I want to play that soundbite again from the debate. I think it's important for people to hear it.

Here it is. There are 50 former national intelligence folks who said that what this he's accusing me of is a Russian plant. They have said that this is has all the care for five former heads of the CIA. Both parties say what he's saying is a bunch of garbage. Nobody believes it except them.

His and his good friend, Rudy Giuliani. You mean the laptop is now another Russia, Russia, Russia hoax? That's exactly what this exactly what this is where he's going.

But see, to the normal viewer, they would say, well, 51 intelligence officials said it's not true. So Donald Trump must have gotten it wrong and move on. So at least that wasn't going to be something you're going to decide who to vote for on. Instead of extensive questioning on that, Joe Biden didn't have to answer any questions about the big guy getting 10% and the cut to the big guy. Are you the big guy?

Questions like that. And then remember when Blinken gets asked about this, this is after he, Mike Morrell testifies to Congress and says, I wouldn't have even sent that email to Britain. Unless Tony, because Tony Blinken called me and that's what put it on my radar. He asked me to do it.

And Blinken still denies that by five. Can you explain what your role was in that and if you incentivized it? Well, first, one of the great benefits of this job is that I don't do politics and don't engage in it. But with regard to that letter, it wasn't my idea, didn't ask for it, didn't solicit it. And I think the testimony that the former deputy director of the CIA, Mike Morrell, put forward confirms that.

They always try to act like they're above everything because they're the elite. He's a political hack and I am too. And Rick Rinnell, he works on campaigns too.

He'll be joining us. And he's also been in the intelligence world, but they try to rise above. They're too good to be campaign officials, but guess who Blinken was? A Biden campaign official. His name's not on the letter because he was soliciting it as a campaign staffer.

He just doesn't want to really, as a now secretary of state, as his fancy pants, doesn't want to admit that he was just a campaign staffer hoping to get someone elected who would do anything politically to do so. And you get the question from Jim, he said Mike Morrell's statements confirmed what he said. This is what Jim Jordan asked Mike Morrell.

Prior to secretary Blinken's call, you did not have any intent to write this statement. Morrell, I did not. Okay. So his call triggered it? Yes. Morrell says, yes, it did.

That intent you. Morrell, yes, absolutely. He also said one of the two goals in releasing the letter help, which we now see in the email, help vice President Biden in the debate, assist him in winning the election. Morrell actually testified to that under oath. And Blinken is trying to say that testimony helps his case, that he had nothing to do with it.

No, it's baloney. He literally said, I wouldn't have even written the email to Britain if Tony Blinken didn't call me. But this is exactly why we are going to fight on this, but you understand this was squelched while President Trump was the commander in chief. Understand that.

Okay, folks, this was going on in the FBI and in the intelligence communities while Trump was President. So you can know what they're capable of doing, support the work of the ACLJ. That's why we're in court to get to the bottom of this and old people again.

Yeah. Donate today at ACLJ.org. We'll continue this discussion. If you want to give us a call 1-800-684-3110 and the IRS we'll be talking about coming up. All right, welcome back to Stecchio. We are taking your calls to 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. I think this all ties together because we're going to keep talking about this intelligence issue. We got Rick Renell, who's part of our team. He is one of those intelligence community officials. I mean, he's the director of national intelligence. Yeah. So very similar to who was getting a request on this on the Democrat side to sign a letter.

One of the questions I want to ask him is just, even if you got something like this and you were even interested in possibly saying maybe this was something like that, wouldn't you have asked like a follow-up email and like, do you have some evidence of this before I put my name to it? And then we found out later it's what they put their name to. It was not only untrue, it was just for politics. So we'll talk about that with Rick Renell. We'll take your calls to 1-800-684-3110. But at the same time, while the Democrats, I mean, this is happening right now as we speak. AOC is talking about it now, are trying to defund the police.

They are continuing those efforts while cities crumble, while we see mass shootings. Guess who shows up when there's an active shooter? Not the feds. They show up after the fact.

But they're not the first call. The first call is the local police, but they've said we don't want a militarized local police. But guess who they want to militarize? The IRS. Now we talked to you about how the IRS wanted to add 1200 new agents and they put up the ad again, the employment ad again, said you've got to be willing to shoot to kill, machine guns, automatic weapons.

And they show a law enforcement official with full SWAT team tactical gear on. And now we know from the IRS, a report, and this is an official government report, that the IRS has been stockpiling weapons, ammunition and combat gear, $10 million of ammunition and combat gear since 2020. Before you go further, my first job out of law school was with chief counsel's office of treasury for the IRS. IRS was our client. The idea of weaponized IRS agents at this level, I mean, there were some special agents that would carry a weapon if they were doing a particular security kind of thing too. Like at your office.

Yeah, because we had incidents occasionally. But here you're talking about, when you say $10 million, here's what they have, $2.3 million in ammunition, $1.2 million on ballistic shields, $474,000 on Smith & Wesson rifles, $463,000 on Beretta's 1301 tactical shotguns, and $240,000 on body armor vests. This is the IRS. And then they have $1.3 million of various other gear for criminal investigation agents.

Yeah. And what this gets to again is they're... Weaponization. They're not supposed to be the front line of a raid. That's the FBI. The FBI does that for them.

And then they come in after that is secured to take the data. We're not talking about having security guards at IRS offices. That's not what automatic weapons are for.

That's not what body armor is for. That's not what a tactical shotgun is not used for protecting an office or IRS employees. We also looked up, the IRS has never had an agent die in any kind of a shooting incident. They've had only four deaths in their criminal division of agents. Two were like heart attacks on the job. Two were a car accident that was not even related to a chase or anything like that.

So they don't even have like a history of saying... Let me tell you something else. They didn't have enforcement. So when they issue a subpoena or what they call request for the production of documents and information requests, they don't have enforcement power. The IRS has to go to the Department of Justice. My office would be originating the document request. And then if I wanted to get it enforced, when I was with Treasury, I had to call Andy O'Connell's office, the US Attorney's office, for the enforcement of that subpoena. And if there was a criminal matter and it was a dangerous criminal matter, they would send in the Federal Bureau investigation, who has, by the way, a criminal division on tax. So the problem here is the weaponization of a federal agency.

Is the EPA now weaponized? I'm sure. Well, I mean, that's what we figure out. But they won't add more border agents. Yeah.

I mean, we know that's gonna be a disaster next week. Title 42 is coming to a close. So we know that they're giving $10 billion over for the IRS. They wanna add their 1200 new special agents. This is what it says in their job listing. As a special agent, I mean, how many people have this skill?

Combine your accounting skill with law enforcement skills to investigate financial crimes. These are the people that are supposed to be accountants willing to shoot to kill. Yes.

That does not seem like the same person. No, it doesn't seem like it'd be a big market for that. No, but they think they can have an additional 1200 to their... That's additional 2000. They're gonna have a 3000 person machine automatic weapon army at the IRS?

Well, the problem is though... That's what they're trying to build. Yeah, but the problem is this is the federal government weaponizing another agency. And what we have to look at in all of this is the weaponization of the agency itself. What is it that causes the government to think that arming these kind of agencies, civil enforcement agencies for the most part, why would you be weaponizing them? What would be the point of it?

And it goes back to... It ties right into the disinformation campaign that we're in federal court. I wanna launch an investigation of this. I wanna launch an investigation of the IRS's criminal division as it relates to weaponization. And I mean, when I'm talking about weaponization, I'm not talking about political weaponization.

I'm talking about actual weaponization. We need to know why are they doing this? Who is authorizing this? What are the memos that are sending forth? What these policies are? I'd like to know who drafted that job description.

Your accounting skills with your ability to use a weapon. We know that IRS showed up to Matt Taibbi's door. So the next time they show up to your door, they're gonna show up with automatic weapons?

That seems like a more dangerous situation, not a... Again, it's not like they get a phone call at the IRS and say, we need you immediately. There's an active crime going on or an active shooter investigation. So the same people that wanna take these kinds of weapons away from our police departments, who do have to respond to those phone calls. Lord knows there were two in Georgia yesterday. Two going on, one in Atlanta, one in Moultrie, Georgia. Who got the call?

Not the IRS, not even the FBI. It was local police who got there first. Moultrie had an issue? Yeah, there was a person there killed two family members, their employer at McDonald's, and then themselves, four people. That's a lot for a city like that. That's a small town. It didn't get as much news at first because there was the guy running around Atlanta. Yeah, you had the Atlanta thing and then Moultrie, where your mother's family's from, that area. So I saw the news, I was like, there was another shooting there?

What I'm saying is, who's on the front lines of that? We were here in Nashville, there was a school shooting. It's the local Nashville Metro PD. They showed up and killed the shooter. By the time that ATF and FBI show up... It's been investigated for the fact.

Right. The dangerous situation has actually been calmed down. If you do need to do a raid, can't the IRS call the FBI? That's how it is done, actually, George. They coordinated with the Federal Bureau of Investigation who does the criminal enforcement. Here's what I want to tell people. When we uncover these issues, folks, and investigate them, we are actually taking legal action to do this. So as we mentioned with the Intel report, and we're going to get into that in the next half hour of the broadcasting and with Rick Rinnell, when we took him... We'll take your calls too on this. We actually went to federal court. I'm holding in my hand the federal lawsuit that we filed in federal court.

There it is on the screen as well. This is the federal lawsuit on this issue of these Intel officials going to the... I know it sounds crazy, going to the social media companies and telling them, hey, look, don't talk about this Hunter Biden thing. It's Russian disinformation. And of course, all the social media companies did exactly what the FBI said. During an election, by the way, used as a debate point by the then Democratic nominee for President Joe Biden, taking place while Donald Trump was actually President of the United States. You realize that? Is that sinking in, everybody, to show you how deep that deep state is?

Trump was the President and this was going on. That's why your support of the ACLJ is so critical. We're in federal court to uncover this and to get action and hold people accountable because of you. Support the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org.

That's ACLJ.org. If you're watching on our social media, we encourage you to share it with your friends. We're going to be back in one minute with the second half hour of the broadcast.

Rick Grenell is going to join us. We'll take your calls at 800-684-3110. Keeping you informed and engaged now more than ever, this is Sekulow. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. Welcome back to Sekulow.

We are taking your calls to 1-800-684-3110. We're about to be joined by our senior advisor for foreign policy and national security, who is one of the officials that would have been similar. Of course, he didn't get asked to sign this letter, but a former acting director of national intelligence, a former ambassador to Germany and state department official, Rick Grenell. Because even the fact that these guys... What I was shocked by with the email was that it was the day the letter went out saying this was Russian disinformation.

The day it goes out is when Mike Morrell, the former CIA director, writes another former CIA director, John Brennan. And it's like a three-sentence email. There's no attachment saying, this is why we believe it's Russian disinformation. It's just, this is what we're saying.

It says, can I add your name to this list? Trying to give the campaign, particularly during the debate on Thursday, a talking point to push back on Trump on this issue. Not to protect America, not because we actually believe this is Russian disinformation. We just are trying to give Joe Biden and the campaign a talking point for the next debate. That's as political of the intelligence community. I mean, I'm talking about a politicized deep state. When you've got a bunch of former CIA directors in a cabal together saying, we're going to put it into this for Joe Biden because we need to help him in the debate.

I mean, that's why people have lost trust in so many of these government institutions. The ones that we actually had the most trust in. Even though we didn't know what the CIA was always up to, you thought that they were at least doing, as we said, work that was difficult. You might not always agree with their decisions, but they were trying to do good things. Same with the FBI.

They're humans, they're not perfect, but they would try to do the right thing. That would be the starting point, not politics, not Presidential debates. Yep. That's why we're in federal court on this, folks, as I said earlier. That's why we went to federal court to get the information. Let's go ahead and take Becky's call on line four.

Becky, welcome to Broadcaster on the Air. Hi. My kind of question, comment was that, are these 50 people that signed off on this lie letter, kind of colluded on it, is there like a public's names list? Because most of them, I'm wondering how many of them are still in office, they were biased against Trump and he's running again. So some of the lower level folks on here, not like the former CIA directors, but Gerald O'Shea who signed the letter still works at the CIA, it appears. I mean, you got to look that up. They don't always say senior operations and comms official at the Central Intelligence Agency.

So you can still find them on the website and it doesn't say former. And a lot of them also were working for private contractors in the intelligence community as well or defense contractors. So if they're not working for the government directly, they may in fact be working indirectly. Some go to Congress.

Yeah. They work on the Intel committees there. Exactly.

Because they've got the clearance. But this is why we go to look. But yeah, we know that some of these are still employed. So this is why we go to federal court on those things, because as the American people, you have the right to know what your government's doing, what information they're getting out, what disinformation in this particular case they're getting out and hold people accountable. And that's exactly why we went to federal court on this.

And we have a status conference, actually, status report we have to file with the court towards the latter part of June on this case, because we're just getting information. We're in a fight to get the information. But you, the American people, the taxpayers that are paying for all of this need to get that information. You need to have that information in your possession because it's your government.

And at the end of the day, that is the most important part of this. It's our government. We, the people. We have the right to this information. And that's why your support of the ACLJ lets us do that.

We get to go to federal court to fight for you. And we're going to continue to do that with your support of the ACLJ. Let me encourage you to go to ACLJ.org. That's ACLJ.org and support the work of the American Center for Law and Justice. When we come back from the break, we're going to be joined by Rick Rinnell.

Yeah. All this information too is up at ACLJ.org. You can see the FOIA. We know that they have to respond June 29th in a joint status report about the documents. So we're pushing there to get the documents about the banning of this on social media that we know the FBI at the time, not former FBI, the FBI officials at the time were going to those companies and saying, do not allow this to be served.

And we now realize all for politics. You can suspect that we have confirmation of it now. This email confirms it. It's not an allegation. It's a confirmation.

We'll be right back with Rick Rinnell. All right, folks. It's a great day to have our senior advisor for foreign policy, national security joined us because he was the acting director of national intelligence. And when we talk about the Hunter Biden letter, again, with those 51 former intel officials, there were a lot of people with that kind of title on there. There are former CIA directors, two of them right at the top. And we know that Secretary Blinken was leading the charge for the letter.

He's not on it because he was the campaign staffer or campaign associate, even though he says he's above politics. He was the campaign associate who was putting the letter together. And Mike Morrell said the only reason he even asked people like Brennan to sign the letter or he himself put together this signing campaign was because was because Tony Blinken asked him to. And in the letter, it says in the email to John Brennan, I just want to say it one more time, this is the same day the letter goes out.

So it's not like these guys did any research or work before they put their names on it. He just says, we're trying to give the campaign, particularly during the debate on Thursday, a talking point to push back on Trump on this issue. And then John Brennan, 18 minutes later, no questions. Okay, Mike, add my name to the list. Good initiative.

Thanks for asking me to sign on. I mean, Rick, when we talk about election interference, this is about as real as election interference gets. When you have former CIA directors putting together a letter, they don't even know if it's true or not. They don't even ask if it's true or not. They might even know it's false to impact a Presidential debate. I thought I was pretty shameful that not a single one came forward and said, hey, can we see some of the intelligence that you have on this? No one asked for a briefing.

No one asked for any information. These people just immediately became political. And when you combine the Russian collusion and the Steele dossier, I got to say, we have to have a total revamping of the CIA and intelligence agencies' leadership. These people are way too political. They politicized intelligence. Then they blame the other side. They have been leaking to Congress, to partisans in Congress, who then manipulate. And let's just remember, they leaked this innuendo campaign to The Washington Post, who first ran an article suggesting the agencies are now looking at the laptop to see if it's Russian disinformation. They leak that to The Post. The Post dutifully prints it. And then they use that to say, look at this. There's a whole bunch of smoke here.

There must be fire. Sign this letter. The last point I think that I'd like to raise when you look at this email is that they say they're working on Dan Coats. Why are they thinking that Dan Coats is going to sign a letter that is completely political, Dan Coats being a Republican? I think that we need to go and figure out who was working against President Trump, because this is honestly, you know, you have to ask yourself, why is it that every single day they're coming at Donald Trump, every single day reporters and political people? Rick, I said this in the last segment of the broadcast.

I don't know if you were going to catch any of it, but this is what I said. I said, people need to understand, our listeners, our members, the ACLJ members, people listening to these broadcasts or watching on social media, you understand this took place, this letter and this disinformation and this going to the FBI, going to these social media companies under Donald Trump's watch. In other words, they did this while Trump was President.

That's what's got me so concerned. It's so outrageous, but it just goes to show that the intelligence agencies are filled with partisans. And by the way, this is not a controversial statement. I know a lot of intelligence officials, career intelligence officials who are not partisan, who work every day to to make America safe. And they're not interested in playing a partisan game because they're interested in keeping America safe.

There are a lot of people, the majority of people are working hard for our country, but they know who the partisans are. Everybody knows who's leaking. Everybody knows who's leaking. Everybody knows who is trying to, you know, push an agenda. I mean, on that list, too, was Sue Gordon. Remember, Sue Gordon is the one who was complaining that she wasn't getting a big job in the Trump administration. And here we see, she's part of the group that is working against Donald Trump politically. So it's the same people who promote these career intelligence officials or career officials in the media because they, you know, they say, oh, these people are above reproach and they're just working for the country. Meanwhile, we're catching them working against the Republicans. Yeah, I mean, as we pointed out, I mean, this is happening while President Trump is President.

They're even talking about going to Republicans. But I want to play the sound from Blinken again, because I just want to keep because it's just unbelievable that he sits down with Fox News and says it just lies to him. And this is after he's gone through all this confirmation process saying he had nothing to do with any of this. And then he gets asked directly on Fox. He does it again.

Take a listen. Can you explain what your role was in that and if you incentivized it? Well, first, one of the great benefits of this job is that I don't do politics and don't engage in it. But with regard to that letter, I didn't, it wasn't my idea, didn't ask for it, didn't solicit it. And I think the testimony that the former deputy director of the CIA, Mike Morell, put forward confirms that. What we know, Rick, is that he didn't send the email to Brennan. He had Mike Morell solicit it. But he did go to Mike Morell, the former CIA director, and ask him to do it. And that was what Mike Morell has testified under oath to Congress, that he wouldn't have even asked. He wouldn't have even written this letter. He wouldn't have come up with this idea unless Tony Blinken called him.

Look, I see it very clearly. Tony Blinken called him from the campaign and said, we saw this Washington Post story and he clutched his pearls and was saying, my gosh, I can't believe this could be Russian disinformation. Maybe he didn't say get together 51 people and write a letter, but he certainly presented the political opportunity to Mike Morell, who immediately clear-eyed got the message from Anthony Blinken and went out and did politics. Let me just also add, for the secretary of state to say that he doesn't do politics is a farce. He has embassies around the world where every single embassy has a division within the embassy called the political division. The political officers are how they're named. Of course they do politics. What Anthony Blinken should have said is I'm not doing partisan politics.

He didn't say that. He immediately just said, oh, I don't do politics. Maybe that's the problem with Anthony Blinken. The world is working on politics, the politics of war, the politics of water, the politics of a whole bunch of issues.

And Anthony Blinken doesn't realize he's supposed to be doing politics. Rick, I'm holding in my hand our federal lawsuit that we filed, our FOIA case, that we did the demand. They didn't of course respond. We went to federal court.

Got to file a status report by the way, in the middle of June. American Center for Law and Justice versus the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. I think it'd be good for people to hear from you because you were inside government. You were the member of the cabinet, director of national intelligence.

You also have been an ambassador to a G7 country, Germany. But from the intelligence standpoint, how important is it? Because what I'm telling people is the way we're going to find out who's behind all this, and then you work with Congress to hold these people accountable, is to get the data.

Without the information, you could talk about it, but you've got to take action here, which is precisely what we're doing. Look, I think it's clear that what we have to be able to do is get the intelligence agencies to say that not a single one of these 51 people had any piece of intelligence or had a briefing. None of them ever had a briefing suggesting that Hunter Biden's laptop was Russian disinformation.

They made it up. They did it for politics, partisan politics reasons. We need Avril Haines, who is the director of national intelligence, to come out and protect the intelligence agencies from this partisan manipulation. Right now, the intelligence agencies are taking a huge hit because the leaders of the intelligence agencies are caught red-handed making partisan politics during an election season, three weeks before an election. They're making it a part of the intelligence agencies.

If Avril Haines doesn't come out and distance herself and make clear that these 51 people acted without any raw intelligence or intelligence briefings, then she is damaging the intelligence agencies. All right, Rick, we appreciate it. As always, appreciate your insights. Glad you're part of our team. Folks, we get people like Rick Grenell, former director of national intelligence, ambassador to Germany, a decade's worth of experience with the United Nations because of your support of the ACLJ. We're able to go to federal court to get to the bottom of this because of your support of the ACLJ. Let me encourage you to support our work.

You go to ACLJ.org and become a member of the ACLJ. Just make a donation and you become a member, and I encourage you to do it. Now, when we come back from the break, we're going to take your phone calls at 1-800-684-3110. We have one, count it one, phone line open. So, if you want to give us a call, do so, 1-800-684-3110. If you're on the line, and there's five of you that are, stay on the line. We're going to get to your calls in this next segment of the broadcast. But again, if you want to talk to us on air, 1-800-684-3110. And don't forget, support the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org. Follow us on all the social media. Make sure you hit like and share on whatever application you're working. Our preferred, of course, is Rumble. But if you're on YouTube, Rumble, Facebook, whatever it might be, we encourage you to do that as well. And you can, at Jordan Sekulow, at Jay Sekulow, at Logan Sekulow, and at ACLJ. We'll be back with more in just a moment.

All right, welcome back to Sekulow. We're taking your calls to 1-800-684-3110. We're talking about the IRS issue with their funding of the $10 million weapons spending spree they've been on the last couple of years. That just got reported. That's from a government report, by the way.

That's not an allegation. That's a report. We were talking about the Intelligence Community Letter. We now know, we see the email from Mike Morrell to John Brennan. People have asked, you know, how many people are still in the Intelligence Community. Remember at the end of that letter, it also said, we know there's one named, but there's also nine people who they say they can't name because they're currently in the Intelligence Community. There's no indication those nine people are no longer there. So, I mean, there's at least 10 that we can count to right now that are likely still working on the taxpayer dollar who signed a letter that was false to impact an American election. And the others may be working for companies that work with the Intel agencies.

That happens a lot. Let's go ahead and take phone calls. We're going to take them in order with your call if you want to talk to us.

800-684-3110. Let's go take a phone call. Yeah, Twyla in California online too. Hey, Twyla. Hi, Jay.

How are you guys? By the way, we love your work. And I had two statements of the 51 people that signed that paper confirming that it was true. How many of those people still have the clearance? And my other statement is of the gun.

All this time, the IRS was stockpiling their gun, but then trying to strip up. We'll answer her question. Okay, Twyla, let me answer your first question. How many still have security clearances? I'd venture to say all 51 because there's been no adverse action taken on their misinformation campaign. That's why I didn't want to cut you off to be rude.

I wanted to answer your question. The 51 of them, 10 of them about are with the government still. The others, there's no indication that the security clearances have been modified or revoked.

In fact, there's no indication that there's been any adverse action. That's why we're going to federal court to find out who was behind all this and what got the FBI to then go to the social media companies based on this Russian disinformation that ended up being totally not Russian disinformation. It was Antony Blinken disinformation, Mike Morrell disinformation, John Brennan disinformation.

I could read the other 47 people on that list. So go ahead with your second question, Twyla. And my other question is why are we paying for this? The IRS is building up a military against us Americans. This is the weaponization of the federal agencies. And I'm not talking about just they're going after the political enemies.

I'm talking about literal weaponization of these agencies. And I worked for treasury. I worked for the IRS. I was their lawyer.

I worked for chief counsel's office of the IRS. And as Jordan said earlier, the IRS agents normally don't go into the front line of something with badges and machine guns. That's the FBI tactical groups that do that. So, I mean, there may be incidents where they do when a particularly dangerous thing, make a drug bust, maybe they're trying to, what they call a jeopardy assessment, but they normally would not go in like that. But it's the, we're going to get to the bottom of this.

It's the weaponization of the agencies, not just political weaponization, but the actual weaponization of those agencies that we're going to get to. We said we'd take calls. Let's keep taking them.

Yeah. Right back to the phones. We go, let's go to Martha in New Jersey on line three. Hey, Martha. Hey, how are you? Thank you for taking my call.

You're on the air. Okay. So the question that I have is, I'm certainly appalled about the weaponization of the IRS. What, um, I'm a CPA by trade. Um, and the first thing that comes to mind is, uh, you know, part of the profession, what can the profession do to join you and fight this? Because, uh, when I think of a CPA, I think of integrity and I think of utmost, uh, honesty, and I just can't see a whole bunch of accountants lining up to get jobs at the IRS with literally machine guns to enforce.

Yeah. But that's what they're hiring. This is what's so fascinating, Martha. It's great that you're a CPA because here's what the, you know, if you wanted somebody in the criminal investigation division of the IRS, they would, you'd want them to be a CPA, or at least close to a CPA. CPA is a very highly ranked, you know, tax professional, but a CPA or someone in that realm that has training in the tax code.

I get that. They work with the justice department, but as Martha said, you don't send them into that, you know, into a situation where they're in a battle, but you know, they're weaponizing these agencies and I'm saying, I'd like to know what the, they are weaponizing the American Institute of certified public AICPA has to say. It's the American Institute of certified public accountants, what they're thinking.

Yeah, because it is bizarre. They're weaponized. They're not just saying we need security people that have that background. To get this job, you must have accounting skills. So you're going to be an accountant with an automatic weapon. It's two skill sets.

Like Martha said, they don't really go together. That's not the same kind of personality. It's not the person that you would want to have the automatic weapon to secure you in that situation. Even if this was something legitimate, this job doesn't sound legitimate. Let me tell you how it would work.

Who is this person? No, let me tell you how it worked when I was with the treasury. It was a long time ago, but this is basically the same thing. You have a treasury manual that governs us. So let's say you had a case and I'm the lawyer in my old office and I got a file and I say, and it was produced by CID, criminal investigation division. They're saying, Hey, this may be a, what we call a referral, Jordan, a CID referral. And I would do what's called a CID referral letter from the department of the treasury to the department of justice, which is the enforcement mechanism and the department of justice would then determine whether they're going to send in agents. They would not be generally FBI agents, not IRS agents.

The IRS criminal division investigates cases that may be criminal tax, but it's always referred to the department of justice. So this need for weaponization is preposterous, frankly. Yeah. Oh, we could go back to the phone. Take more calls. Let's go to Warren and Utah online.

One. Hey, Warren. Hey guys. Great to hear you guys. You guys are awesome.

You're on the air. Hey, I got a question for you about immigration. I was just wondering, I'm really concerned about all these people coming across the Southern border of next week. Is there something that us Americans could do to stop this? I've been trying to call my congressmen and my senators, but all I get is the same answer that they're trying to work on it.

But I'm not getting no response from nobody. And it's the duty of the federal government to protect all the Americans influx of huge numbers. My orcas was down there yesterday. Now they didn't make much of a statement on it, but the truth is we're about to the cities. And by the way, mayors of democratic mayors of cities that are more liberal, political leaders saying we're about to get in like an invasion here, flooded with people and they have no capability of handling it.

They can't expel them anymore. And listen, through our work on this in federal court, we were able to get information that showed that at two, and now we know 70 individuals on the Terra watch list. Do we have that video loaded? That one minute video?

If we do, I'm going to play it after the program. Just let people see that are watching on social media. We were able to uncover in federal court that FBI department of Homeland security knew that individuals on the Terra watch list got in to the United States through their Southern border.

That's how dangerous the situation is, and it's about to get unfortunately much, much worse. Yes. Folks, we want you to support the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org. Donate today. That's how we do this work. That's how we have the broadcast team that we have as well, but also the work that we talk about here gets done, not just by a handful of us, but by an entire team of attorneys, government affairs specialists here in the United States and around the world.

So support the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org. Donate today. We also remind you as well, you can share this broadcast in just a few minutes. If you're watching this broadcast anywhere like Rumble, YouTube, and Facebook, in a few minutes, if you thought this news was important that we discussed today, you can share that with your friends and family. So I encourage you to do that as well. If you subscribe on these pages, hit that button as well, and we will talk to you next week on Second. If you're on our social media, stay there. We're going to play for you a very special report. You're going to want to stay tuned for this. Share it with your friends. Here we go.