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

BREAKING: Trump Exonerated

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
The Truth Network Radio
May 16, 2023 1:09 pm

BREAKING: Trump Exonerated

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 887 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

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

May 16, 2023 1:09 pm

BREAKING: Trump Exonerated.

The Charlie Kirk Show
Charlie Kirk
Sekulow Radio Show
Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
Sekulow Radio Show
Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
The Charlie Kirk Show
Charlie Kirk

Breaking news today on Sekulow Trump Exonerated. 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.

We've got a packed show for you today. Of course, we have the Durham Report has been released. It's over 300 pages.

It took four years to write. And it confirms what we all knew. In fact, a lot of what Bob Mueller said, he just said it a different way. Which was that there was no collusion. There was no even evidence of collusion. That the FBI failed to do their job when they even got this information about the Steele dossier and all of that by looking at who it came from.

The Clinton campaign. And of course, the fact that they couldn't corroborate any of it. But instead, they went into launching a full-scale investigation which is the exact opposite of what they did with Hillary Clinton and her server. And that information, which they didn't act on. And also, a tip they got from an ally foreign government. That Hillary Clinton's campaign was going to try and tie Donald Trump to Russia. Bogusly. And they never investigated that at the FBI.

So they never investigated the fact that it could have been the Clinton campaign. Is it another full vindication of Donald Trump? Absolutely. Am I excited about what Durham has done?

No. And here's why I call him dull Durham. He tried to prosecute three people. Two of them were found not guilty by a jury. So they failed to even prove that they lied to investigators. It was pretty simple charges. Did they lie to you while you were doing your investigation, which is a crime? And the jury said, no, that wasn't clear.

If you can't clearly prove that one as a federal prosecutor, which is what special counsels are, that is a huge failure. The only person who pled guilty was Kevin Clinesmith. And he never went to jail. He got suspended with his law license. He actually took an email and edited it and then used that to get a FISA application on an American.

To spy on an American by turning them into a foreign agent for a government, he deleted wording in an email so it would change the meaning of the sentence. He never went to trial. He admitted to it, never went to jail, slap on the wrist, got his law license back, and is living his life. And he got some community service hours. So I understand your frustration when you're out there and say, who gets held accountable now?

No prosecutions, nothing. Because this is the guy who could have held people accountable. When we talk about who's got the power to put people behind bars, it's not members of Congress. It's the Department of Justice. It's law enforcement. And I think that's, again, here.

You can read the good. The FBI failed to uphold their standards. They failed to go forward with their policies. But he and his team, who is the longest serving special counsel in U.S. history, could not get a single real important conviction. Andy McCabe gets his pension back. Comey is a hero. And then the FBI says they've reformed. Okay, since this report, we know the CIA was recruiting people to join a letter on the Hunter Biden laptop that was false to influence the election. They admitted to that. We're doing this to help Joe Biden get elected, and so he has a talking point in the debate. So since this, the CIA now, we know, is directly involved in interfering with U.S. elections. We also had Mar-a-Lago be raided by the same FBI. But then, was Biden's home raided?

No. Two systems of justice. That's obvious. But even our own, when we task our own prosecutors with getting to the bottom of it, they can't beat the deep state.

They can't beat their own. You know, I think that there's huge issues we need to discuss. My dad's going to be joining us next segment of the broadcast. We've got Rick Grenell joining us. Tulsi Gabbard joining us. We have a packed show, and we want to take your calls too. 1-800-684-3110. And as always, we live this.

Support the work of the ACLJ at And I would say, still living it to some extent. I mean, think about what Donald Trump is still going through. This is not the end. We'll be right back. Welcome back to Secula. We are taking your calls to 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. So the Durham report is finally released. It's over 300 pages. A lot of it gets into the weeds. So there's a summary kind of in the beginning of the report.

I'm going through it now. And the conclusion is, based on the review of Crossfire Hurricane and related intelligence activities, we conclude, surprise, surprise, the Department of Justice and the FBI failed to uphold their important mission of strict fidelity to the law in connection with certain events and activities described in this report. It goes on to talk about how FBI personnel repeatedly disregarded important requirements when they continued to seek renewals of FISA surveillance while acknowledging, both then and in hindsight, that they did not genuinely believe that there was probable cause to believe that the target was knowingly engaged in clandestine intelligence activities on behalf of foreign power. That right there, I would like to know why no one was prosecuted for that. I get that some of this is like, you know, there's not always criminal statutes that are right on point.

So you get a lot of the lying to investigators, lying to Congress, other fraud that is found during these investigations. But submitting false legal documentation, knowing it to be false, I mean, he's making a pretty big claim there and didn't prosecute. Well, I guess Kevin Klinesmith edited an email, but that's a much bigger claim than that.

So I want to go to my dad on this. Jay Sekul is joining us now. And dad, I mean, again, the report, it does vindicate and the media has to accept that now twice. Donald Trump's been vindicated by two special counsels when it comes to this Russia collusion hoax. And we knew from the outset that there was nothing there. We used to make the argument during the representation when we were representing the former President that within two months of crossfire hurricane opening, they knew there was no Russian collusion and that all they were trying to do was build an obstruction case. And our defense, of course, was there was no obstruction of justice, which he was ultimately vindicated on, that there wasn't.

But in two months, they knew that there was no Russian collusion. Now we find out, which is not shocking to us, that they knew there should have never been an investigation in the first place, that the basis upon which this investigation was entered was not even in compliance with the normal rules and regulations of the Department of Justice. And they lay the blame squarely on Andy McCabe, who was the at one point acting FBI director, and Peter Strzok.

Peter Strzok, who famously, you know, Bob Mueller had his phone wiped clean before it was sent over to Congress, before as we asked for documents, they wiped it clean, did not exist. So as we said at the impeachment trial, we'll say it again today, the irregularities between our government and our government, the highest levels, unprecedented in US history. And I think the takeaway from this is, this was a weaponization of an agency before the phrase weaponization was the buzzword that everybody's talking about. This was the, the example, the prime example of the government trying to take down a sitting President and trying to stop his nomination before it started.

Sound familiar to what's going on now? People, as you can imagine, and our audience, I think us included in the audience, are frustrated because they see what Bob Mueller did to some people. He didn't, he didn't get a lot of prosecutions either, but he did put Paul Manafort in solitary confinement. He did convict Roger Stone all on the basis of a starting point that what they were actually investigating didn't exist. So on these sub sub issues, but even in those, in that case, Durham was not successful in court.

Correct. He brought the case against Sussman under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, and this was the individual that was working with Jim Baker, who actually started this kind of opening leads on this investigation, and he was acquitted. Farrer cases are notoriously tough. You know, I'm not a fan, and you know this too, of the special counsel statutes anyway, but I think they need to go because it's exactly with this. You spend 50 million dollars, and you end up with a 300 page report that tells us what we already knew.

There was nothing there in the beginning. The FBI violated their own rules, but no one's held accountable in that context. Yeah, I mean, when you read it, you say, based on, I mean, this is on page 8 of the report. Based on the evidence gathered in multiple exhaustive and costly federal investigations of these matters, including the instance investigation, neither U.S. law enforcement nor the intelligence community appears to have possessed any actual evidence of collusion in their holdings at the commencement of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. I mean, his point there is that they began an investigation without doing their research. I mean, that's really what he's getting at, is that they went full scale, 100 percent in, without even checking to make sure the people giving them this information, whether or not it should have gone to that point at all. I mean, but again, that probably alone is not criminal conduct.

Well, that's a problem. It's negligence, it's violating internal procedures. But you know, there are two sources, and the sub-sources, first of all, the sub-sources said they never said those words to Christopher Steele, he misconstrued what they actually said. Then the sub-source, we find out, was under a counterintelligence investigation by the FBI in 2009 and 10. They bothered, you know, no one told that to the investigating agents. So what you had is corruption at the highest level.

Like you said, they didn't follow procedures, investigation should not have opened up in the first place. Is that a crime? I mean, is there a criminal act there?

Very difficult. That in and of itself is not a crime, but the abuse of process is incredible here. And I think this is a warning shot back to the FBI. That the American people, and it's not just the FBI, now as you said, it's the CIA, the American people are fully aware of what's going on here. And if they try again, which they are now, to try to interfere with the 2024 election, everybody sees through it.

I mean, this is nonsense, and everyone sees through it. Yeah, I mean, I do think if there is something to take from this in the most positive way, it's that the American people have this healthy distrust right now of these agencies, and we don't buy that whole attack that you can't question them and you're somehow not a good American or you're somehow not patriotic if you question the CIA or question the FBI's actions. Now, in fact, I think our starting point is where it should be, like the Durham report found, that should they even be investigating what they're talking about? Like, do they even have a basis to investigate when they announce these things? They need to go back and focus on real criminals, real criminal elements and organizations, and stop what it seems like that is just their obsession with politics.

I mean, that's the part that is so upsetting to people. They are obsessed with our politics and who we elect, not the bad guys, not what we kind of understand as criminal activity. No, you're right, and I think the problem with that is that they have politicized the agency to a degree we've never seen before, but the other problem with this is the idea that the FBI is middling into politics, and the United States of America should send shockwaves and chills up everybody's spine. This is such an abusive process, and Durham was a career prosecutor.

He had no political action to grind here. He said the report is sobering and somber because of the nature of what actually took place here. Do you think ultimately here, and Congress could take action on this, and start clarifying some violations of law so that there's even more risk of the future? Like, for instance, if you really did believe and they've got evidence that they knew that there was not probable cause and they were submitting FISA warrants, I mean, you would think that that would be more than just a slap on the wrist to one Kevin Clinesmith, that there would be more people involved in that, yet he didn't feel like he had the enough weight or maybe the right legal codes to bring a case that maybe Congress needs to review, and they have that oversight power and pass new laws. Well, that's why I think they want to bring John Durham up to Capitol Hill to say, okay, you've issued the report. What do you really think here? What is the problem that you could not get really a conviction?

You got the one on Clinesmith. That was meaningless. And, of course, this guy changed an email to a FISA court, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, and got a slap on the wrist. Yeah, no jail. I feel like if someone from the Trump administration who was a Trump official did something like that, they'd still be in jail.

Correct. But I hope what people understand the takeaway from this is, at the ACLJ, we get to the bottom of these things. I mean, we were on top of it.

Of course, we were handling a lot of this. So, I mean, we were in the middle of it for the former President. But even in the current situation, that's what we do with freedom of information litigation, is that we get to the bottom of it. Then you take that information, you go to Capitol Hill, and, Jordan, as you said, you get laws changed.

Yeah, I think that's what we need to see here. Now, to get laws changed, we're going to have to have electoral victories. I mean, Dad, the bottom line is you have to continue to drain the swamp. It's not a four-year process. It's probably an eight-year or longer process. And to do that, you have to have the White House, but you also have to have the House and the Senate.

That's right. And I think we have to be clear that elections have consequences, and you just witnessed the 300-page report of what that consequence is. And it's ongoing. I mean, with the CIA action, what we're learning there, with the way they treated, the disparaging treatment is still certainly ongoing. I mean, former President's home gets raided. He even has a claim on classified documents because he's the ultimate decider of something being classified or not. Former vice President does not at the time, and they don't raid his home. You know, it's just people are seeing it in real time, the way they treated Roger Stone, guns a-blazing into his home. And then, ultimately, Paul Manafort in solitary confinement over FARA violations and tax issues.

I mean, and you end up in solitary, which can destroy people, does destroy people. But we've got a lot more to say on this, and we want to hear from you. 1-800-684-3110, give us a call. We've also got Rick Rinnell coming up, Tulsi Gabbard coming up, but we want to hear your thoughts on where we go next. We'll be right back on Secular. Welcome back to Secular. We are taking your calls, too.

I want to get your thoughts. I totally – listen, I have your frustration. I don't just understand your frustration. And I already was there. I didn't have to wait for this report to be frustrated with Durham. It was going – it took way too long to get to this. I mean, I guess he didn't think he could get this out.

I want to remind people. He started as a U.S. attorney on this in 2019. And it's 2023, and he's just getting to the conclusion out that the FBI had nothing to base the beginning of this investigation on.

Like, their precursors were wrong. They didn't do their work, and they just went full scale into an investigation, which is, as he points out, is the opposite of how they did the Clinton Foundation investigation about the foreign ties there and what was going on at the Clinton Foundation. You may recall they put all these restrictions in place and all these safeguards protecting Hillary Clinton in place, but they didn't do that for Donald Trump.

To put safeguards in place to say, you know what, hey, this may just be bogus. We need to look at that first before we open full scale investigations and demonize a leading candidate and then ultimately who became the President. Remember, they had an insurance plan.

They didn't want Donald Trump. That was Peter Strzok's words to Lisa Page before their phones got wiped clean. I mean, all of that. When you remind yourself of all of those things, the phones getting wiped clean, the bad actors were being protected by an entity bigger than one U.S. attorney or special counsel can take down. I think that's probably what we've learned. Listen, we already knew from Mueller they had nothing. You got another full vindication for Donald Trump?

He's adding them up pretty quickly, Logan. Yeah, absolutely. I think the main factor that came from this is that silence is kind of golden here. When you look at the networks, they're not really sure how to cover this. They'll do it for a few minutes and kind of move on because, like you said, it's stuff we already knew, but now it's just official. There are a lot of people who are curious, though. We have some good calls we should take. Let's go to Bruce in Colorado on Line 1. A lot of people still want to know, can there be consequences here? Hi.

Thanks for taking my call. I agree with the frustration factor there. Again, we're hearing what they knew, that Trump was not guilty of Russian collusion. My frustration is that there were individuals like Adam Schiff who had investigative information with his position, and he kept blowing smoke and feeding the media so they could hype this up and drag this thing out.

Shouldn't that guy be held personally accountable for what he's done? Because it was deceitful. It was deceitful. The issue is, though, he may claim he was being deceived.

Think about it, Bruce. What Durham reported was that the FBI had no basis. But then they launched a full-scale investigation, like they did have a basis that there was enough evidence that they should open a full-scale criminal investigation into Russia colluding with the Trump campaign to get President Trump elected. And if they were telling that to members of Congress that would have that information, like Adam Schiff, you can certainly question the leaking out of info. I'm not protecting Adam Schiff here, saying he's great. I think, again, though, if you're Adam Schiff, you would just say, these were the guys telling me. You just point the finger. And by the way, the media's not going to do that to him.

They heroized him on the left. It could end up as a U.S. senator. Politics is unfortunately how we have to correct this. I know you like to rely on your legal system, your justice system, but when it comes down to it, we need clearer laws, we need to drain the swamp, we need to keep fighting, don't be discouraged, just don't put your faith in these guys.

The politicians we elect have got to end this. I mean, let's play Senator Lee. The media is bad here.

They play raw. I'll play some from CNN, too. They're having to admit. But remember, if they're being fed this by the FBI, they're all going to say, okay, but they fed us the information, and what, we can't trust FBI sources anymore?

No, I don't think you can, but take a listen to Senator Lee. We've known for a long time that the deep state was alive and well. What we didn't know, at least not to this degree, was that the deep state heavily plays, even in our criminal law enforcement agencies. And so at the end of the day, the founding fathers made a wise choice by not putting the power to run elections in the hands of the federal government.

They put it with the states. But whereas here you've got this massive behemoth of a federal law enforcement agency that can affect those, we see that that, too, imperils the structure of the Constitution, which is why we need a major overhaul. Yeah, I mean, I think, again, this bottom line, we've got to do major changes to the agencies.

Mike Lee is right. It's not really the election laws. Those are being changed at the state. I mean, there have been a lot of laws that have been changed to promote more election integrity at the state level. What we need at the federal level is a reform of the institutions. And I think that we could, Congress, not, I mean, this one's not going to do it, but a Congress that was unified on reform could at the one time assist a President in draining that swamp and also put more safeguards in place, like laws that make it clearly a crime to do these activities. And now you have a basis to enact those laws.

There's a reason to put those laws on the books, because we've seen it happen, so that those people know they won't just get a slap on the wrist or maybe get fired, but that they will be criminally prosecuted, and here's the statute. And they know it. I think that might be the only way, here, honestly, you get to the bottom of it. I want to take Matt's call. Yeah, Matt.

In Pennsylvania Online Forks. I think it's important, too. Hey, Matt. Hi, guys. Thanks for taking my call.

I really appreciate the work you do. And I know that being in the industry and in the judicial system, like you guys have been your whole lives, how do you deal with this when it's such they're abusing their power so bad? And I know that you guys take it seriously, and they just don't.

Yeah, I think what you do is, there's a special situation that we're involved in right now, right? The people that are really, where they're focused is on Presidential races, right? At least that's their top focus. If you are like a normal ACLJ client, not Donald Trump, a normal ACLJ client, and we're going into court, we aren't dealing with a lot of these issues unless it's somehow politically rated. The Tea Party cases certainly were the beginning of that IRS targeting of specific viewpoint in politics. But I'd say that for the most part, courts are like the place of last resort. I mean, you're going there because it's an adversarial process. But we win in those courts. It's, I think, different when you look at the criminal prosecution side. So usually we're on the defense side. We're not the prosecutors.

We're the defense side. And I don't say this often about prosecutors because I think it's almost too easy to get people indicted. That wasn't the issue here. The issue here was not getting people indicted. The problem is, when it came to this, unless you got someone for lying to them in the investigation, some process crime, there wasn't an actual statute that was really on point. I mean, I think the one that stands out to me the most that I feel like there could have been more prosecutions done, I'm glad Jim Jordan is going to bring Durham to the committee because, a Judiciary Committee in the House, because I would like to know if they really have evidence that people knew they had no probable cause, but they were getting warrants to spy on Americans through the FISA court system, that, I mean, as attorneys, you could hold them, certainly there are laws on point.

So, again, that's frustrating to me when I read that line. Overall, I think that we need new statutes in place. We need an update to the criminal code, and we need to continue the work to drain the swamp.

And that is not going to be done unless we win elections. So we have to stay out there and keep on point and not give up, realize the problems, realize the enemy, and then focus in to defeat them. Stay with us. Second half hour coming up. Rick Grenell is joining us. Tulsi Gabbard is joining us.

You don't want to miss it. Support the work of the ACLJ. Donate today at

That's 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. Coming up, Rick Grenell is going to, so live reaction Rick Grenell, Tulsi Gabbard to the Durham report. And I think, again, we'll get kind of different perspectives there. Rick, who, of course, inside the intelligence community, Tulsi Gabbard, who has been through this herself as a Presidential candidate, and the same kind of Russia hoax around her. I mean, so she's lived it to an extent as well. I mean, and I think, again, so she's going to have a unique insight there.

So the Durham report, I've kind of said, you know, dull Durham. And I say that because he makes these huge statements in here that I think are very important, but no one got held accountable. I mean, the most he got was a slap on the wrist to one person who pled out and I think did some community service. And that person lied to get someone's warrant to spy on someone. Deleted emails, altered emails to get, this is an attorney, submitting it to a court so they could get a warrant to spy on someone. And this is a warrant to spy on an American through a process that's always supposed to be for foreigners.

But you can get it to spy on Americans if you can prove that American probable cause that they are acting as a foreign agent, that they are basically being paid or acting on behalf of another country so they kind of lose their constitutional protection. That whole system we need to look at too. And I say this to say, this should encourage you to get more involved in the process. We know what we need to fix.

That's a good thing. We know where the problems are, we know who the problems are, and we know how to fix it. We just have to put people in place that will execute. And that's what the executive branch is all about.

We know we should update our criminal code, we know we should reform the FBI and DOJ and CIA. We've known this and so let's take your calls. 1-800-684-3110 to Joyce. Let's go to Anthony in Virginia.

Quickly, you're on the air. Hello, thank you for taking my call. You guys are really great at what you're doing and I hope it comes to fruition, but I just have a basic question. If the FBI and the CIA, the two agencies I always thought were protecting the United States, if they're involved too much in political, who's keeping the terrorists out? Exactly right.

Exactly right. I think there's a lot of good people who work at those agencies who are still doing that to the extent they can. But the heads of these agencies are totally distracted. They are so distracted by politics. When the CIA is distracted by US politics, when the DOJ is, it's all about how they investigate the Bidens, how they investigate the Trumps, how they investigate, you know. How about like go after just the bad actors, the amount of crime we see in our country, the fentanyl crisis, that is coming through drug cartels. I mean, they're on the streets in America.

Clean it up. That's why you have the budgets that you do. That's why you have all the offices that you do. So, again, I have thought that they've dropped the ball on a lot of issues. You see the mass shootings, how many times did you hear that that person was on their radar? Almost every time. Almost every time they knew that that was someone that they should be watching, but it just seems like they are distracted.

Or the people who are trying to do the good job, they're not getting the resources they need because instead they'd like to give money for political investigations. Absolutely. Let's keep going. Let's try to get one more call in. Let's go to, oh, we don't have time. We have a minute. Yeah, time. All right. Kate, you're on the air in Colorado.

Hi. So, in other words, all my tax dollars just went to fund an entire scam, a total lie, and I want them back. Well, I mean, and your tax dollars went to a lot of places.

I mean, think about it. You're paying the FBI to do this one, right? So, Crossfire Hurricane, that's a gigantic budget. Then you had Mueller, what was that, $50 million? I'm sure Durham was about the same. Durham was the longest ever. Mueller was almost two years. This was almost four. And we paid all this to get to a point where we just know that it was, they had nothing to base the investigation on.

That was it. It was all made up. So, did it really need to cost $200, $300 million of taxpayer dollars? All this time, all this resources, all the division in our country, what they dragged us through.

I think President Trump is so true on that. What they put our country through is inexcusable. We'll be right back. Support the work of the ACLJ at Welcome back to Secular. So, we've been going through for you the Durham report. I think, again, we all share your frustrations. The amount of time this took, the lack of people that were held accountable. I think that the congressional committees and Jim Jordan has announced to you that they're going to bring Durham into the Judiciary Committee. I would like to know if he thinks that there's an issue with, like, are there not the right criminal codes in place?

Maybe as a country, we didn't think that we needed the kind of criminal codes that we likely need to make it more clear to these individuals inside these agencies that if you get caught doing this, we're not just going to say this is bad procedure or you didn't follow the proper protocols, but it's actually criminal, especially when it involves U.S. elections. I want to bring in Rick Rinnell, our Senior Advisor for Foreign Policy and National Security as a former Acting Director of National Intelligence. Rick, to me, just for everyone out there, your first reactions to the report? Well, one of my first reactions was to call President Trump. You know, we've been through so much of this, and so I spoke to President Trump yesterday, and, you know, he feels once again, and I emphasize once again, vindicated. But for me, just as delayed as justice denied, it took four years.

I declassified a whole bunch of information at the request of Durham. I am frustrated that it took so long and that at the end of the day, the FBI reads the report and issues a statement saying, oh, mistakes were made, but we cleaned it up. I'm sorry, but they didn't clean it up. They didn't even admit that they were making mistakes until recently. This is like, you know, somebody who gets caught being a drunk and then immediately says to the judge in a DUI case, oh, I've already gone through treatment, everything is fine. No, you've got to prove to us that there were wholesale changes at the FBI. This is, you know, I want to see prosecutions. I want to see firings.

Andrew McCabe got his pension back. These were not an admitted mistakes and the fixers. This is a disaster. This is still a problem, and I don't see any evidence that we've cleaned it up. No, I mean, we saw the raid on Mar-a-Lago, this disparagement treatment. The Durham report talks about this kind of two systems of justice that we talk about that a lot because we see it happening in real time, but we're still seeing it happen in real time.

The way that Mar-a-Lago is raided and, I mean, the President himself has a much different claim than the vice President who was taking this, you know, had this info that doesn't even have a claim on the classification of the documents and there was no raid there. And so we know that's a problem. Now we know the CIA and the letter there.

So it's ongoing, like you said. Rick, I think it's clear to everyone out there, to our audience, to get the changes so that this doesn't happen again. It would take, I think, a bold executive willing to go up to battle against this group like President Trump did. You pay the price, unfortunately, for cleaning up these agencies.

You shouldn't have to pay a price for it, but we know you do. And then you've got to have Congress that steps in and probably, I don't like usually saying we need more laws, but in this matter, it might be that we don't have the right kind of criminal statutes because we didn't think we needed them when it came to these agencies. We thought that Americans and our citizens who would take these jobs were better than that, but obviously politics has infected these agencies.

Well, you are so correct on cleaning this up. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice.

Shame on me for not making the changes necessary so that I'm not fooled again. And the reality is that we haven't made these changes. People are not being prosecuted. You know, look, you've got to give it to the Democrats. They know how to prosecute really fast and effectively. And I would argue from a partisan standpoint, they've created this two tiered system of justice and the media just goes along with them. But, you know, when a Republican is trying to go through this process, it's way too long. We know this with FOIA requests, how it immediately goes fast for a Democrat and for a Republican.

It takes forever. And so this two tiered justice system has got to stop. Our Congress representatives need to get more active. We need, as you say, to clean this up so it doesn't happen again. I am not convinced that it's not going to happen again. I mean, it feels like it is kind of maybe we haven't seen the extent yet of like another Russia hoax. But I mean, I always remind people that by the time we got to the first impeachment, it was not about Russia anymore. They already knew they didn't have anything on Russia. They turned it around to a phone call on Ukraine. I mean, there was nothing there about Russia.

So we all lived that. That was years ago now. And we realized that if they thought that they had something to prosecute criminally, that you could certainly bring an impeachment on. Why would you not impeach on that? They didn't. Adam Schiff didn't bring an impeachment on that. They brought it on Ukraine. I also want to talk about the media side of this. I want to play this from Jake Tapper on CNN. It's like they finally had to admit what they never wanted to admit on TV, but they did it, you know, in 10 seconds.

They move on. But take a listen. Regardless, the report is now here. It has dropped and it might not have produced everything of what some Republicans hoped for. It is regardless devastating to the FBI and to a degree it does exonerate Donald Trump.

I mean, to a degree. It's a full exoneration of Donald Trump. And, Rick, you put it, I mean, the media, instead of questioning all of this, which I thought was their role, right, on both allegations from DOJs, whether it's Republican or Democrat, that they're supposed to question these agencies. They just, it's like they just take every leak out of those agencies and report it as fact. Let's not forget the three weeks before the election, the Intel community leadership from the Democratic side and the Uniparty side telling us that the Russians planted Hunter Biden's laptop and that we shouldn't look at the information and we shouldn't conclude that the Biden family was somehow involved with Chinese communist officials, even though the evidence showed.

And so this is always going to happen. But, look, CNN and Jake Tapper, they have a problem. There's a reporter named Natasha Bertrand, who was at Politico, and she is one of the queen bees of creating this Russian collusion hoax. She reported breathlessly, immediately, salaciously on every angle, pretending that the Russians somehow had Donald Trump as their tool. All of that was wrong, and Natasha now works at CNN.

She is still there. If Chris Legg, who is the leader, the new CEO of CNN, who says that he wants to clean it up, if he really wants to clean it up, he should start by saying the evidence in the Durham report shows that Natasha was a tool of the left, the partisan left, and made up stories, and she is not welcome at CNN. That should happen. Yeah, I feel like, you know, that's what we want from journalism, is they should be the most skeptical. And then the reader gets to make decisions, and they get to decide on the voting and who to vote for, but they don't just, they never are supposed to just point out. I mean, they don't do it for us on our side, of course. We put out anything, we try to give them the evidence, show it to them, in fact, and they're still, it's still, well, it's a somewhat, it's a partial vindication. It's this vindication. I mean, how many times does President Trump have to be vindicated on this?

But ultimately, Rick, we don't rely on these institutions. The American voters are going to have another chance here, too, to decide, like you said, how many times are we going to have this pulled on us before we say, we got to fix this? And what we have in this next election, I'm convinced that it's going to be Donald Trump as the Republican nominee and Joe Biden as the Democratic nominee.

I'm convinced that's going to happen. And so we won't have any politician promises of what they might do in the future. We will be able to compare actual policies, what was accomplished under Trump versus Biden. We will be able to see the evidence, not the promises.

That's interesting. Rick, as always, we appreciate, think about it that way. I mean, it's historic in that sense that if we get there, you're going to say, OK, well, how would you deal with the crisis at the border? Well, here's what I did with the crisis at the border. How would you deal with the situation in Ukraine?

Well, here's how we would handle it. Here's how I handled your work with these leaders. Rick, we always appreciate your insight.

And folks, again, I think where Rick is, too, is where all of us are. There is that initial, on the one hand, like he said, he spoke to President Trump. He was vindicated again.

And, you know, I'm grateful for that, that this report goes that far. You know, it makes it clear there was nothing here because having that over your head ever is just a horrible accusation to any American. We're going to talk to another American from our political system, Tulsi Gabbard, who's part of our team on the secular broadcast, who's also had these kind of allegations lobbied against her. And again, because it's not just all Republican-Democrat, as we talked about with Rick, a lot of this is if you are there to shake things up. When we talk about the deep state, we talk about the issues with Washington, a lot of these institutions, I mean, you think about the commies of this world, they might have come from the Republican side of the nominating process initially. It's the problem inside Washington with anybody who's got a different approach, even if people like it, and the voters want to elect those kind of people, they try to demonize, they try to ruin them, they try to destroy them. Just for questioning them.

I mean, these are our leaders that are actually held accountable. So we'll take, again, we want you to share the broadcast with your friends and family, support the work of the ACLJ, donate today at, that's If you're there on Rumble, if you're watching the broadcast, wherever you watch, make sure you subscribe. We'll be right back on Sekulow. All right, welcome back to Sekulow. So we've been taking your reaction on the Durham Report, you've heard our reaction as well, and I want to bring in Tulsi Gabbard, who's a senior advisor to us, a senior analyst on the broadcast. And Tulsi, right off the bat, and I want to just give you the opportunity to talk about it, because you've dealt with this yourself in the sense of these allegations that get made, especially, I mean, people love the Russia allegation. And you dealt with it yourself. You were a disruptor in Congress, you were inside the Democrat party when you ran for President, and then everybody piles on, because if you're not right in line with them, it seems like, on both sides of the aisle, and this is not a Democrat or Republican problem, it's a Washington problem, and a power structure problem. But you've dealt with that too, where you get these accusations made against you, and then they're like, prove a false negative, prove us wrong.

But tell people what that was like, because I think that that's what we're all going through with this. People feel like this allegation was made against them, if they were a Trump supporter, if they were someone who did vote for Donald Trump, because you were somehow supporting a Russian agent. Yeah, you know, Jordan, the danger of what we're seeing here that's being revealed here in the Durham report is something, unfortunately, that isn't new. As you've just pointed out, people like myself and others who have dared to challenge the permanent Washington establishment have often been met with these smears and attacks and accusations of being a Putin puppet or a Russian asset or a traitor or committing treasonous crimes. Or committing treasonous actions by people who are not interested in the truth. They're not interested in presenting any evidence to the American people as they're making these really, really horrendous and very serious accusations.

You know, Senator Mitt Romney put out a tweet saying, accusing me of committing a treasonous act, an accusation that is actually punishable by death under the US law. These are very serious accusations. And what we're seeing here that's been revealed in the Durham report is that those officials within the FBI similarly were not interested in following the facts and being unbiased in their pursuit of of, frankly, following the law. They they were pursuing their own political interests and their political interests in this case was to try to demonize and undermine President Trump, undermine the city.

Obviously, this started during the campaign itself, but it continued through his presidency with people within the national security state trying to undermine a sitting President of the United States. Now, we look back through the history of the FBI. We again see that this kind of weaponization and politicization of of law enforcement agencies is not new. We have the FBI still, you know, the letters prominently shown on their building. This is the J. Edgar Hoover building.

We'll look at the guy who is historically famous for weaponizing the FBI to go after political opponents, politicizing that agency. And so when we look at the lack of accountability, we can see why there has not been change within that agency and and others within the federal government over decades. How can there be any change if there is no accountability?

They have not sought to rename the J. Edgar Hoover building. They have not sought to bring about a true culture change within that agency that ensures that it is unbiased and focused on fulfilling its mission. So there is deep change that's required within the FBI, rooting out these these corrupt elements that have existed there for a very long time that's allowed this to go on. Yeah, I would point out, I mean, these people are making it, whether it's Mitt Romney, whether it's Democrats, Republicans or the FBI. I mean, the accusations were made against you and you were serving in the U.S. military.

You are still serving in the U.S. military as a lieutenant colonel, which has its own whole system of justice. You would think that if they thought someone was up to anything, it wouldn't take political accusations like that. But we see again, it's about the disruptors.

That's why I think most people are that are probably listening or watching this broadcast right now is that's who they're backing. That's who they want in Washington, D.C., because Tulsa, you brought up the accountability. I think Congress and if they had a President to work with, there is actually I don't always love more laws. But I think what we see here is that through this report, there is one problem with this issue, and that is that there aren't the right statutes necessarily on the books. And maybe that's because we didn't think we needed them as a country that are right on point to prosecute these bad actors inside these agencies. So instead, they have to go after process crimes, trying to get people like for lying under oath or obstruction of the investigation, but not for the bigger issue, which is like starting the investigation, knowing that it's not true. And then, you know, engaging in a U.S. election interference as an agent instead of using that right now, they use it as a cover of protection. So I think there's a really important role that Congress can act on.

There absolutely is. What there is lacking is, frankly, a political will to take action and to hold these people accountable in any respect. You know, you see people like Peter Strzok, who was very clearly identified through his text messages to be coming from a place of clear bias, of trying to get rid of or defeat Donald Trump.

What's happened to him now? He's a paid commentator on MSNBC immediately dismissing the results of this Durham report is saying, well, this is just a biased report coming from this guy. It's you know, it shows, again, the lack of accountability and a lack of political will coming from Congress as a whole, Democrats and Republicans. And I think this is kind of the bigger issue that we're pointing to here is that, you know, when it benefits the party that's in power, these actions basically are swept under the rug. But once the tables are turned, then it's, you know, raising hell and how do we bring these people to account?

And these are criminal activities. And this is where we need Democrats and Republicans to step up and actually be real leaders in Congress and recognize the threat to our democracy. When they allow these things to go on unchecked, because as we see, if you allow this precedent to be set, the politicizing and weaponization of our federal institutions on one side, then very quickly the tables can turn and it will be used against those who are abusing their power today. So if they don't recognize the threat to this democracy, the reality of the American people losing faith and trust in those who are leading these institutions, then we will only continue to see this problem get worse. Always appreciate your insight.

And we appreciate you joining us on the secular team as an analyst on these issues. And folks, people who are living it, again, the disruptors who were in Washington who said, you know, we have to make changes on this. We can't just be mad about it when it happens to us.

It shouldn't happen to anyone. And I think, again, it's bold in those statements to just say, you know, that's why you have to, you don't want to just create criminal laws to go after the people you don't like. We might need new legislation because the prosecutors don't have the tools they need. They certainly have the money and the resources to do their 300-page reports, but I don't think any of us want any more of these. It's great for the vindication purposes, but the issue that if no one's held accountable, why wouldn't they do this again?

In fact, I think they are. I think Rick, like Rick said, they are doing it again. We caught the CIA. They were doing it again in the 2020 election. So they did it in 2016. They did it in 2020.

What do they have planned for 2024? And they're made to be heroes. Think about that. Jim Comey's a hero to Andy McCain. Peter Strzok was fired by Bob Mueller. Remember, these are the same people. When Mueller issued his report that found no collusion, they said, oh, well, he wasn't, you know, even his own team turned on him.

Don't forget that. And Mueller fired Strzok from his team because he was so biased. The guy who started all this. But why was he on that team in the first place?

And why did they wipe their phones? You know, we can't get that info back, but we can change the system if we fight hard enough. That's what we do at the ACLJ. Support our work. Donate today at We'll talk to you tomorrow.
Whisper: medium.en / 2023-05-16 14:23:02 / 2023-05-16 14:42:54 / 20

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