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

Air Force Denies AI Drone Killed Its Operator

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
The Truth Network Radio
June 2, 2023 1:10 pm

Air Force Denies AI Drone Killed Its Operator

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 873 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

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

June 2, 2023 1:10 pm

The U.S. Air Force denies that an AI drone went rogue and killed its operator during a combat mission simulation. The operator told the drone not to destroy the target, and the drone turned on the operator to complete the mission. Haven't we seen this movie before with scary machines from the future threatening our safety? Can we trust the Air Force to tell us the truth? The Sekulow team discusses this and more on today's show.

Sekulow Radio Show
Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
The Charlie Kirk Show
Charlie Kirk
Sekulow Radio Show
Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
Sekulow Radio Show
Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
What's Right What's Left
Pastor Ernie Sanders

Today on Sekulow and a bizarre announcement, the Air Force now denies that an AI drone killed its operator. We'll talk about that and a lot more today on Sekulow. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. Welcome to Sekulow. We are taking your calls to 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. There's a pretty wild report out. We're going to talk about a lot of issues today. Jobs report, politics, the campaign trail, Joe Biden. We'll have Rick Rinell on to talk about that. The Biden fall, the Trump town hall last night in Iowa, DeSantis, all of that.

We're going to get into everything today. But ones we want to lead with, it's a bigger news story than even some of our day-to-day politics. Just last week, there was an Air Force colonel who was at a seminar in London. And this started getting reported just over the last couple of days and even this morning kind of breaking in the U.S. media. He gave a talk that, again, I don't think it was a private talk or anything that you couldn't report from.

Probably not even that big of a deal. Colonel Tucker Hamilton, who was an experimental fighter test pilot, described an exercise in which an AI-controlled drone from the Air Force had been programmed to destroy an enemy air defense. And then when it was ordered through its mission to ignore one of the targets of the multiple targets they had assigned, the drone, instead of just following orders, attacked its operator, including targeting the control tower that sent it messages as well as the location of the human operator. So actually trying to kill the human operating it and the ability to communicate with it, to interfere because it saw it as this is someone trying to stop me from carrying out my mission. So there was some glitch there where it was like you can program it, but then if you try to tell it to change course, it thinks you are the bad guy now. And so then this comes out.

Now on today, I love this. So it took a couple days, but not immediately. Now today the Air Force is denying staging this simulation at all and saying it was just purely hypothetical. I don't believe it. I don't think they would have even put out a statement if, again, I don't think they actually put up a drone and the drone started doing it. This was all done, I'm sure, through a computer simulation.

I get why they deny it because it's a very scary and bad story and they also don't necessarily want the public knowing that they're even that far down the road with this. But that just to me underscores how dangerous it is when you think you can just program a computer to do something. When a computer becomes so much smarter than you that it starts questioning your secondary commands. Yeah, you're giving it reasoning. You're essentially giving it a brain and thoughts, and I think that is sort of the difference.

People don't want to think about it that way, but it really is that way. You are giving it some sort of reasoning when you start opening the door to AI. Now I don't think that there's a way going back.

I really don't think you can put the ship back in the bottle, if you will. However, there should probably be some regulations and some things that happen because we've even seen on the very basic consumer level how you can manipulate these systems. I'm sure that if you are someone who is much smarter than you and I on this kind of programming can really manipulate it.

That's going to be the concern too when it gets into the wrong hands, what it could look like, because all of a sudden you don't need the kind of programming skills that you maybe once did. You just need to be pretty smart and evil to take a hold of something like this and really utilize it. The negative also is this sort of situation. When you give a computer its own bit of a moral code, then the moral code can be turned on you. Right. It says, okay, you told me to do this to take out these bad guys, and now you're telling me not to take out these bad guys.

You must be the bad guy. And you can see if it's advanced but not yet to where we have the reasoning capability, so much as just a computer thinking capability, and you say, okay, why are you guys talking about this ACLJ? I think where this is going, we're all going to have to do is we're going to have to weigh in on this legislatively. So our government affairs team is watching it carefully. We're working with members of Congress on this very issue. We know it's real.

It's not just the fun of, hey, I can make some AI art or I can have some fun with chat GPT. We're talking about it at the security level. How it can be turned on and to violate our own rights under the Constitution.

These are things we need to protect as human beings, which is more important than even what it may mean to our economy is protecting humans and Americans. So we're doing this work at the ACLJ. We want to hear from you. Yep. Right.

Welcome back to SECU. We are taking your calls to this 2-1-800-684-31 tip because there's a huge public policy reasoning. I think that we have to get involved in the public policy world. We can't just – this is not just – think about how not getting involved early enough in things like Facebook, Twitter, and that tech has turned on us. That made it more difficult for conservatives to get our messages out and it affected Presidential elections, like who the leader of the free world is, the Commander in Chief of the United States of America, because we didn't really have a good handle as a lot of Americans politically. If you have an aversion to new technology or to – On the policy.

Yeah, then you can get trampled. Or we got used to it just being like, well, we can use it too however we want. And guess what? They shut us off. They banned us. And now they're unbanning us to some extent because guess what? We're good for business.

And I don't like saying it that way, but that's the bottom line truth. Donald Trump gets lots of clicks. These companies were having to fire thousands of people. Why do you think CNN had him on a town hall? It wasn't just because he's the leading Presidential candidate. It's because they had their biggest ratings they've had in I don't even know the last time.

Yeah, years. Other than maybe like some tragic event or something like that. But I mean they had three million people tune in intentionally to watch something. Last night, again, President Trump was on Fox News with our friend Sean Hannity and these town halls. All that, DeSantis is going to get a lot of attention. I know our friend Nikki Haley is working on what we've seen in this over the week.

I mean we're going to get to see more and more of these. But I think that's great because we have the interesting candidates going on our side. There's nothing much to cover on the Democrat side because I am intrigued by RFK Jr. But I also know that he has no path within that movement. He could outside as an independent really sway things.

Yeah, it's cool he's willing to go show up on Fox News like he was this morning and make these paths. A decent amount of moderate celebrities who are Democrats coming out saying we need to at least be giving him a shot because they're concerned. But it's still not enough to really have a groundswell. But it is waking people up to what it looks like.

Do you know what he makes me yearn for? And maybe I was towards the tail end of this in my beginning of politics. But there was a time, and it was not that long ago, in the election cycles of 2000-2004 where you could go into extreme.

That's never changed. The hardness of campaigning and really taking another candidate out of course and wanting to win. You have to win. And you have to do tough things to win.

And you say tough things. But the hatred wasn't the same. It was more like a, not sporting because it's more important than that, but kind of like that. You could shake hands. It wasn't as personal. For instance, we would do rival campaigns post-campaign like a month after.

So there's a winner, there's a loser. We'd get invited to, and I don't know if these forums exist anymore because I don't think either one of us would want to sit there. But we'd get invited up to a place like Harvard. And they would have you and your counterpart from the other campaign. And you'd speak to what worked for you guys.

What were you worried about. And you'd sit next to each other. Part of me with RFK Jr. thinks like, I kind of wish that's what the Democrats were against. I don't need to agree with everything they're doing, but I feel like I could then get some stuff done good for the country. Like when we're talking about these issues like AI, this should not be partisan.

This should just be human being. And maybe you could at least agree that they believe what they're saying. I think that's even part of it too. Because it's not so extreme that there are common ground issues like clean water and clean air without having to ban all fossil fuel. I even saw Oliver Stone talking about the idea that green tech just doesn't work.

It sounds wonderful. This is a guy who's totally on board with all that. But he's like, we're going to kill the world by trying to go green. Yeah, it's not sustainable yet.

It's not ready. Not in any of our lifetimes probably. Not to the extent that you need it. Not to the carpet people in 2050. That's ridiculous. And that's the goal of the world right now. Which is just, it's absurd, but it's unworkable.

And we're the only country in Europe, of course, imposing it on ourselves. This is why I get nervous with AI though. If we don't jump on it now as an issue that we weigh in on legislatively at the ACLJ, I think it gets so out of control that we end up like the situations with social media. Having to hope for a savior like an Elon Musk who will come in and clean house a bit. And we don't need to get there. We can get ahead of this. I think the concern is also- It has to be now, right? We don't get ahead of it now. We're done.

Oh, we're already way behind. What happened was that we just saw a consumer level version of this and it blew the doors down when you realized what you were dealing with. When you realized that on the free consumer level, you were dealing with something that could eliminate a ton of jobs. And by the way, we discussed this. It's very hard to ever put this shit back in the bottle. It's very hard for me to look at our team.

I was talking to my team this week. I said, if I'm a new business owner, if I started a business today, it would be a very different thing than if I started a business a year ago because of the access to AI. Because there are a lot of things that simply can be done with the command of AI without having to hire someone in a quarter of the time, maybe instantaneously.

Jobs that would have taken 15 minutes, 20 minutes, 30 minutes now take three and four seconds to produce. And that's a concern for sure, but it also makes you go, okay, well, is this just progress? Is this also, I think we have to discuss that is when is it saying we're not going to allow cars because we have horses and we have people that can, you know, when, when, when does that point happen? When do you say, okay, here's how you can utilize it. Here's how you can't utilize it.

And here's how it's regulated or not regulated. Because even in acts of war, there may be a time where you no longer have to have soldiers on the ground. We already know that the soldiers on the ground thing doesn't happen near as much as it did even 20 years ago because of drones.

Now, when you have this situation, is it going to get to the point where you don't need them at all? And is that good or bad? You know, is it good because obviously we're saving human beings' lives. We're not having to have this kind of military force.

Is it bad because it can be corrupted so easily? That's my main concern because it's, you're saving your people's lives, but your, your, your ability to be more lethal is exponentially larger. So you can go in on a, on a, such a, you can go in basically on full-time suicide missions.

So you don't have to ever make that calculation. You say, that's my target. I want to kill them.

I don't have to worry about this drone coming back. It'll be much easier to do this because you don't have to then employ potentially more than a couple of people who really know what they're doing. And I don't have to think through as many morals of putting kids in harm's way.

It's going to be a tough thing, but look, we were talking about this situation. It's a lot easier to say I want to kill my enemy. Yeah. And, and just killing them.

Yeah. We were talking about the situation that obviously it was that there was a simulation allegedly done where the AI turned on its owner and the, essentially its owner, its controller in the air force. And Joe Biden actually addressed not this, but in a way that makes you go, did he? This was the day before they, this is yesterday. He just issued the statement this morning that this did not happen. That they're denying that they actually, they're denying that they even ran a simulation. I mean, that's how nervous they are about this story because I think this was a wake up call.

This is why all of us were saying, you know what? The military doesn't love this all the time. We need to legislate this out. We should not let them just go run free with this. We need to have real policies in place. And I think this is where we could agree with Biden.

We could agree with a lot of Democrats to say, we probably need to put some parameters on this right now and we can constantly be rethinking them. We're all not going to be computer science and experts, but sometimes the law needs to be almost more extreme than the technology and hold the technology back. It's not always the best. I know it doesn't always sound great, but almost the law needs to slow it down. That's the purpose of law. It's a reason why you can't just go build a building without getting permits.

You have to go through things so that the structure is sound. It's the same thing here, except for when it comes to tech, we kind of throw our hands up and say, just let it go. Let it go, let it run wild. Let's hear from President Biden, though, at this. We've got to set this up. Pre-fall.

Pre-fall, yeah. Emerging technologies, all AI from AI and 3D printing that could change the character of conflict itself. Not going to be easy decisions, guys. I met in the Oval Office, in my office, with 12 leading, excuse me, eight leading scientists in the area of AI. Some are very worried that AI can actually overtake human thinking and planning. So we've got a lot to deal with.

Incredible opportunity. A lot to deal with. A lot to deal with. So clearly they're having this discussion with the President of the United States. Probably similar people having this conversation. And I mean, they're going to him saying, please do something.

I don't think they're saying, Republican, Democrat. This is like going to the President of the United States and saying, this is going to get out of control, like Elon and they have all said. They benefit from it economically, and they're still saying, put some guardrails on this.

You, the government, need to put guardrails on it. We can't just say, well, because the Chinese aren't putting guardrails, that we shouldn't have, because let's, think about their whole mindset, right, their ideological mindset. And the lack of kind of the moral thinking that goes into many of their decisions in the Chinese Communist Party. They're not programming morality into these things. Because if you don't already have that in your culture.

Right, that's what you've got to imagine. The ones that we're dealing with have weirdly a built-in morality. I mean, so many people, when they go to places like China, you say, how do a billion people live under these authoritarian regimes? Why don't they just rise up? And yet, they kind of walk around programmed. Absolutely.

They're very programmed as humans. Oh, in China? Are we talking about other places?

Yes. In China, it's almost drone-like. They play a Kenny G song, and everyone packs up and goes home.

No questions asked. This song's called, Going Home. It's by Kenny G, and they play it around the speaker systems, and people pack up and go home, like a Pavlov's dog situation. That's real. That's happening. That's not like me coming up with some weird pop culture thing. That is happening. I do have to say, speaking of pop culture, there's a lot of Max Headroom talk in the chat right now.

I've got to give a shout-out to all my Max Headroom fans, you know, who are glitching along with us. So give us a call. Was he the original AI? I feel like he was an actor portraying that.

Yeah, you remember him on MTV? Yes, I know. I loved it.

I love all the Max Headroom talk. That never quite worked. No, you know, it's kind of how it is right now.

1-800-684-3110. I would love to hear your thoughts on AI, the progress of AI, and what it could mean, not just from a military point of view, but what about your job? How do you think it's going to affect your job, and what do we need to do? Do you protect jobs? Do you protect human beings and their livelihoods?

Or do you progress with technology? It's going to be a tough decision for a lot of us to make. 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. We'll be right back with more on Sekio. Welcome back to Sekio. Coming up, too, we're going to talk to Rick Grenell into politics. Obviously, it's the Biden fall, but not in a mocking way. What does that signal when it happens over and over again to our enemies around the world and our allies around the world? President Trump addressed it, actually, last night. Probably not in a way you're thinking, either.

Not as like a joke, not as just a political dig. He actually walked through it, so we'll play that as well and discuss that with Rick Grenell. Coming up in the second half hour of the broadcast. I do want to get to the jobs report. Should you want to take a call first, Logan? Yeah, let's go ahead. Let's go to Michael's calling in Indiana on Line 1.

You're on the air. Hey, I just want to talk about the hybrid threat center, the NATO-EU hybrid threat center in Helsinki, Finland. And it's AI, and not only that, we've got the FBI terrorist screening center in Vienna, Virginia.

And we've got two NATO headquarters in the United States. Do you think that this AI intelligence gathering could be rogue like the FBI is now and go against Americans with the NATO-EU hybrid threat center in Helsinki, Finland? Well, I think this is the whole issue.

This is my concern. If it can turn on the actual operator itself. I mean, the story out of the Air Force, you don't have to go that far down the line. This was the Air Force controlled simulation. So it wasn't like we were partnering with NATO and then a NATO AI turned on the United States.

Right. It's interesting you bring up the FBI, too, because Jim Jordan has put out a request to, I don't think it's actually his subpoena yet, so it starts with an ask to the DOJ. Because they want to know how many FBI officials who were working on Crossfire Hurricane are working on the Jack Smith special counsel investigation of Trump. It's like how many Peter Strachs are held over from FBI that we now have this Durham report saying how corrupt it is at the FBI. And he's saying, you know, the rot from within.

It's still there. So you have to worry. And so I think that's what everybody gets concerned about is whoever controls this controls.

You have to have so much faith in those people that they're going to make good decisions always. And that the- Because these are the capabilities to kill. And that the programming is advanced enough to understand these situations.

You know, I give you a really brief version of this on the consumer level. I was playing around with it, reworking some text and reworking. Actually, I was like took a Bible chapter. I was like, what would happen if you plugged in?

It's a lot of times I'm just playing with it. See, what am I asking them to kind of rewrite this? And it did in sort of a way that was interesting. It had some it was written like more modern English. I was like, that's interesting. And then I pushed it a little further and it actually came back and said, hey, this is sacred text.

It's important to approach sacred text with respect and reverence. But if you have any other requests, I'll do it. And then I pushed it said, but you already did this for me. And the response from again, this is the consumer level is you're right. I did provide this. I apologize for my inconsistency.

Let's give it a shot and provide this for you. So you worked around it. I mean, it was like, again, it's like a conversation and I had to remind it.

And then when I did, it changed its mind. Like that's and this is the basic consumer level here. So it didn't say it wasn't programmed to say when it comes to religious text, like if you were if you were talking about, like, let's say the Koran, that could get you get you killed in many countries, like sentenced to death, officially by a government. So you would think the A.I. is told, like, don't touch that. Yeah.

And it kind of was. But then you could just say you can you can always you can manipulate it. You can manipulate the thought process of these of these computer systems. And again, this is me on a consumer level.

This is not the military military version of this. OK, well, I think it goes to all we're talking jobs. We're talking about like how how does this replace us? There is a new jobs for us to say this one is these are kind of head scratchers. And we're going to Harry Hutchinson, our director of policy on this, because, Harry, we see these reports and they get a lot of attention.

But then you kind of look at your reality and you're like, this doesn't feel like it's matching my reality. And so it's the May jobs report, which is very strong in the concern of what it was estimated, that we had three hundred thousand new jobs created last month. The unemployment rate did rise to three point seven percent.

But three hundred thirty nine thousand new jobs. That is the 14th straight month that there's been a job creation above what everybody was predicting. So any of the predictors on Wall Street, what does it actually mean? I mean, is it is a good sign?

Is it is are we do it? What do we need to read into it? Well, putting aside the possibility that the jobs report numbers are simply reports from artificial intelligence, it's very important to drill down and look at those numbers. Yes, job growth is up, at least pursuant to government reports. But it's important to note that the number of jobs created in the United States since the covid crash, virtually each and every job has gone to foreign born workers.

That's number one. And number two, there's some evidence that many of these jobs reported as growth are part time employment. So I think once you dig deep enough, you find that job growth is less than robust, or at least it's not as robust as reported by the United States government. And so, again, if you look at the numbers, you find that there are actually fewer Americans employed today than before the covid crash. All these months of it saying it's quite, you know, it's three hundred thousand. And the politically they use this and say, listen, I mean, and it's easy for Joe Biden to point at the Biden administration.

This is how they're hoping they get by again, is they don't have to really campaign so hard. They just say, look at these numbers. And then if you don't dig past the numbers, they do look impressive.

They look impressive at a time. But then you look at inflation and you look at your interest rates. You look at the fact that you can't borrowing has become very difficult. I mean, or nearly impossible for many Americans.

Just not something. If you've got a decent mortgage locked in, you don't want to mess with that right now. And if you are in the situation where you've got to be dealing with out of your business, that taking out loans, you're having to double what you were paying in interest at this point. Now, if you can get the loan and afford the the interest that you need to pay back on the loan. So I mean, that's why I think that's why these numbers is so it makes more sense to people when they realize it's not really benefiting Americans as directly as it makes it may look.

I think that's correct. So what we are missing in this equation, economic equation is healthy economic growth. So as you correctly point out, mortgage rates are up almost to seven percent on a 30 year mortgage. That means monthly payments on a new mortgage are more than double or close to double what they were last year at this particular point in time. Also, now oil prices have begun to edge up at least slightly. Nonetheless, the stock market has gone up at least today by almost two percent. But if we truly experience robust economic growth, we should worry then about a future increase in federal funds rate. In other words, the Fed may raise interest rates still more. So all in all, I guess we should say this is good news, but we should be wary about whether or not it can be verified.

I mean, look, I think about this. So I have an investment property that a rental kind of vacation rental property. I've got a floating loan on interest rate loan on.

So I first went in on it. It was pretty easy to make back the interest, the monthly payment and the bills that came with it and maybe put a little in the bank. Right now, in just the last year, I'm only covering if I get fully rented out, just the payment, probably still at a loss when it comes to start adding HOA fees.

And if anything got need to be replaced. So when I was actually making so quickly, I am now losing. I think a lot of people are having that same issue for sure.

I mean, you can unload it, but it gets tougher to unload because it's tougher for people to get a mortgage to buy it. All right. Hey, we've been taking your calls because we have another half hour coming up. If you don't get us on your local station, find us broadcasting right now on Rumble, on YouTube, on Facebook. All your favorite social media platforms were there. Rumble is our primary source.

You can find that directly embedded on Again, another half hour coming up live. We've got great guests coming up in the second half as well. So stay tuned, Sekulow.

We'll be back in just a minute. The back and forth that's beginning, the war has certainly started. I mean, it is a war. It's a war, again, of staff, influence. There's a lot of new worlds into it that keep adding up too because people online now, and I think that there's people exposing each other saying, oh, well, this person is really paid for by this.

Or we even saw it come up with some of the websites that are like Babylon Bee. Oh, they got paid once by DeSantis, but you realize it was like for a list. So some of it is kind of, I'd say there's some truth telling that needs to be told in just the world of politics. But the actual war has begun where people are taking sides very openly, especially between Trump and DeSantis.

Not so many else with any other candidates yet. But we also still fight the fundamental issues at the ACLJ with all that going on. One of those has been the attack on the life movement. You know, 70% of violent attacks post-dops, which is just the end of this month, June 24th, but really leaked May 2nd. 70% of the attacks surrounding the abortion issue have been against pro-life activists and pro-life pregnancy centers.

70%. So we represent two clients who were physically and violently attacked in Baltimore on Friday outside of an abortion clinic doing constitutional protected work, sidewalk counseling, and praying, which a lot of activists have done. I was on Fox News last night with our client, Mark Crosby.

I want you to display a clip from it if you didn't see it last night. 73-year-old Mark Crosby and 80-year-old Dick Schafer were praying outside of a Planned Parenthood in Baltimore on Friday when they say out of nowhere, a man aggressively approached them arguing over abortion. Police say surveillance footage shows the suspect tackling Schafer into a large flower pot. And when Crosby tried to help, the suspect turned on him, shoving Crosby to the ground and then punching and kicking him in the head with what police describe as extreme force.

Look at these injuries. He is 73 years old, brutally beaten by some thug who didn't agree with his beliefs. He kicked me in the face. He hit me. I went to the ground.

He kicked me. I was unconscious. It turns out that I'm still blind in this one eye. This eyeball is bleeding. The orbital shelf area is all cracked and fractured.

I need a surgery there. Jordan, we asked Planned Parenthood about that attack and they told us it was, quote, an unfortunate incident between a pedestrian and anti-choice protesters. We condemn all violence when abortion care is under attack across the country. We cannot tolerate violent acts from anywhere, especially when it gets in the way of patients receiving proper health care. They call abortion health care.

What a euphemism. Jordan, what's your response? That first response, I mean, they actually had to walk that back and almost issue us. They issued a second statement saying all violence is bad.

And the reason why is because you really read that response. It's, you know, it was bad what happened because less women got access to abortion. That wasn't because of Mark that day. He was peacefully preying on the sidewalk. That was because not of a pedestrian who attacked him, but a pro-abortion extremist who attacked him on the street.

All right. So, again, the visual there alone, I mean, it tells the story. Just for him to be able to go on air live, I think, you know, why these guys do it, they're not doing it for themselves. They're doing it for the life issue. They want to bring attention to life. They want to bring attention to the unborn.

And so if they can use that opportunity where they're, I mean, he's still in and out of the hospital most days with specialists, as he talked about, still blind in one eye, is not to bring attention to themselves. That's our job. We're protecting them and making sure they receive justice.

The assailant is still on the run. We're working with the police department there. We have to stay on. You have to actually stay on those police departments to make sure they don't lose this as a priority. So we do that. And then also there'll be a civil side of this. These individuals, again, oftentimes these activists, it's not like you can't let them just can't let this be a norm that you just accept.

You can't let police departments accept it. And so we're working there to see that justice is done. We come back, we get some breaking news on that FBI 1023. Guess who doesn't want to be held in contempt? Christopher Wray. So he's bringing it to Congress.

We're going to talk about that with Rick Riddell. So in breaking news, remember the back and forth between the oversight committee on Capitol Hill, which is led by Chairman Comer of Kentucky. There was a, again, they knew it because of whistleblowers, and Chuck Grassley's talked about this, Senator Grassley from Iowa. So serious members of Congress have had a whistleblower came forward and said there's a confidential informant came forward to the FBI alleging that Vice President Biden and that the FBI did take this down in one of their investigative sheets at these 1023 forms that they use when someone comes with information.

And this informant said that in a detailed way, is what was told to them, a very detailed way, explained how then Vice President Biden took, it was an exact $5 million, what would be a bribe to enact specific policy, and the bribe came from a person, a foreign national. So they have this information on Capitol Hill. They said the big question to the FBI was not even necessarily, they can't claim that it's all correct, no one can say that yet, but it's hey, what did you do with this information? Because there's also been reports that derogatory information, not just the laptop, but other derogatory verified information about Hunter Biden has been moved around FBI computer systems so that current investigators can't get access to it who are investigating Hunter Biden.

So there's a lot of real issues tied to this. Well, they said if Christopher Wray didn't provide this, they were going to hold him in contempt, which you can then be, is actually actionable in court. I don't believe this Department of Justice would do anything with it, kind of like when Eric Holder was held in contempt for failing to provide the documents on Fast and Furious, a similar kind of situation there. Congress has oversight. So then they said fine, you can come over to the FBI, you can look at the redacted version of the SCIF. Just breaking now, as when Congress said no, that's not good enough, now the FBI is bringing the document to Congress.

I don't think we've had yet a statement from Comer on whether or not they believe that's going to satisfy, but I want to go to Rick Renaud on this, because Rick, I think what this shows, and you come out of the national security world, is that by pushing the FBI here, and using the ability, because we do have chairmanships and we do have controls of committee in the House, and they weren't willing to say okay, fine, we'll go look at a fully redacted version over at the FBI headquarters. They've at least now gotten to the point, by using their congressional oversight authority, say no, you bring it to us, and it might be a version they say hey, this was overly redacted, but they have moved the ball forward so far from just two weeks ago when the FBI even denied that it existed. Two weeks ago, they would not even admit that this document existed. Then they admitted it existed, and now they're bringing it to Congress.

Well, they better let oversight members see it in an unredacted form. They cannot hide this information. One thing that I know personally is that the FBI has over-redacted documents in the past, not because they're trying to protect a source or method, but because they're trying to cover up bad processes.

The FBI has some PR issues, some credibility issues, and so they redact information to protect themselves. I confronted this directly, and it's clear that the leadership is more interested in protecting the FBI's reputation than they are of seeking the truth. This is just a fact, and FBI agents, rank-and-file agents who are wonderful patriots are really frustrated. I hear from them regularly to say that our leadership is the problem, and I agree. We have to separate. We have to bifurcate the rank-and-file at the FBI from the FBI leadership because I don't believe that FBI agents who are doing good work to protect America are being served well by their leaders, and they don't believe they're being served well by their leaders.

So we've got a real problem. When we see Christopher Wray, and I hope that he personally comes on Monday and doesn't send somebody else, but that he confronts the issue and answers the question from our oversight members of Congress as to why has this document been in his hands for almost three years and none of this came out? Now, we do know that the Hunter Biden laptop story became immediately politicized when it came out from 51 officials who said, don't look at the laptop because it's Russian disinformation. At the same time that they knew that this laptop was real, they had this document from a whistleblower also saying that Joe Biden is compromised.

Look, we need to get to the bottom of this. You cannot hide information from the oversight committee in this way, and why hasn't the FBI been fast-tracking investigations? Look, you look at what they've done to George Santos. Immediately, his lies were exposed, and he's now being prosecuted. How fast was that compared to Chris Wray having a document for three years and not acting on it? This is outrageous. He's in Congress a couple months, and he votes with the majority of Republicans and suddenly becomes number one enemy of the state. Again, it just shows how quickly the FBI can act if they do want to act, including against in the more politicized world where they have to be more careful. Again, I don't think they're getting heavily criticized there.

It just shows the speed. I want to stick with the FBI for a second here because we also have Jim Jordan. This is an interesting move because we've got a special counsel, Jack Smith, who's investigating President Trump. It's not a subpoena yet. Right now, it's a question. It goes to the attorney general who oversees, so Merrick Garland.

It asks just three things, Rick. Basically, it's who at the FBI is on? How many FBI Washington, D.C. field office agents are on this case?

How many Washington, D.C. headquarters agents are working with Jack Smith? And then most importantly, how many of these agents worked on previous Trump investigations? Because we know those investigations were filled with Peter Strzok kind of infiltrated by politics instead of facts. Look, what we do know is that many of these investigations clearly had information showing that the investigations mandate was phony. It showed that people lied, and yet those individuals continued to pursue an investigation. I think that they've got terrible pattern recognition skills. I think that they don't really display an expertise in finding out fake documents.

They shouldn't be on future cases. I actually think that every single person that participated in the Russian collusion investigation and never raised their hand to say, wait a minute, this is phony. They had the information. They saw the information. They saw it unredacted.

They had it all. Someone should have said this is phony and we're not going to participate in this if they held their nose, if they saluted their leadership and they continued to serve on a phony investigation after seeing evidence that it was phony. They should be fired, actually, because they don't know what they're doing and we shouldn't have trust in their skills and their investigation skills, let alone to put them on a new investigation that involves Donald Trump. What a disaster.

It involves their same political target that they have this hatred for because of their personal politics and the ideas of policy, which is not their job in the FBI. One more political issue, and I thought it was interesting to have President Trump handle this last night in a town hall on Fox News with Sean Hannity because he was kind of learning it full time as it kind of broke that we saw another fall by President Biden, this time at the Air Force Academy graduation. A pretty extensive, very public fall. And I think what President Trump said, we're not making fun of people, but let's also remember that people made fun of him for not running down a slick ramp, which any of us could fall down. So he didn't make those falls because he had the idea in place that this is not good imagery for the world, so I need to be extra careful when I'm walking up the stairs.

I need to be extra careful when I'm walking down a thing, so I don't have imagery around the world. And now we've, I think this is the 10th time, and Biden the third time this year, of a fall that we've had captured that it just looks pretty chaotic and unfortunately looks, I think that the politics of it are interesting, not to make fun of someone, Rick, but just the fact that it just doesn't seem like a good image to put off from the leader of the United States. Well, a couple of points. One, I thought that President Trump's comments were fantastic. When he found out about it, he immediately said, oh, gosh, I hope he's not hurt. That's the President Trump that I know personally. He's a very caring person, but he's also a fighter.

And when you try to push back at him, he's going to fight even harder to make his points. And so I thought his initial reaction was really good. And he also said something was really interesting. He said, look, this happens to people.

It might happen to me in the future, but it's not a good look. You've got to be very careful. And clearly, Joe Biden is not being that careful. He's not a normal person, Joe Biden. He's the President of the United States. That's why we have 24 hours security surrounding him.

Everything is tested. We recognize that it's the position, not the man. And so the position of the President of the United States, the leader of the free world, whoever is in that job needs to be highly protected. I found it really troubling that after he fell and at his age to have that heart of a fall, I know people broken their hips and never come back from a fall like that. But the reality is, is that he couldn't get up.

You look at the video. We tried to push himself up and he couldn't. He was on the ground and unable to stand up and had to have assistance. Now, once he got up, he was able to walk to his to his chair. But I found that the after the fall, trying to get up, the struggle to get up was the worst picture that he could have sent around. Packed in real politics.

That's right. We'll discuss coming up in the next segment, some interesting responses from people you would not expect who are ready for a different move in the Democratic Party. Usually honest, honestly, I wouldn't bring up issues, especially spending with Rick Grenell's time or on those national security of former cabinet members talking about a President having a slip and fall.

But but it's having an impact. Not so this is again, this is not so much in our world, the Republican world, but in the Democrat world, where we've already seen a call from a lot of folks who are just put off by the Biden politics, who wants something a little different. And though it is unusual, I think a lot of them are in the political world. It's very it would be very unusual to have a Democrat Party open up a primary against a sitting President from their party or debate. When you become the President, you take over the political party for your time as President. So you're effectively are running it and your people are running it. So they're not going to open up to a debate.

And basically, unless they had to, they did under Carter because Kennedy, interestingly enough, had enough votes where it got serious. Now, Carter still was able to use the machine to actually pretty much it was a tighter it looked tighter on paper than it was in reality. Right.

And what you're happening is, I think you said damage. I mean, he lost. What's happening is what I think you're right. Is there a lot of people who are not aware of this situation?

I actually had a conversation this morning. Oh, is Biden the only person running? Well, there's other people running, but it's not really how it works.

I had this discussion with one of my friends because they're not necessarily aware of how this situation rolls. Like you said, that they run the party. Therefore, there's typically not debates. Typically, there's not primaries. But people see what's happening with Biden. People sign up on the ballot. We had that work for Bush's reelect.

Yes. People turn out like even turn out for what we had to do, for instance, when President Bush was up for reelection. And again, judge the time.

Don't judge it now. I'm not saying about now, but just say when President Bush was up for reelection, we had to go out to Iowa about two weeks before because there's still going to be caucuses. We had to just make sure we had enough people there not to be embarrassed by somebody. Right.

So you didn't have some random campaign who is on the ballot there, get 100 people to show up at some small town caucus and end up winning a few caucuses. Right. So we had to make sure we still went through the process and got our people to show up. But it's very different. So we were out there with the whole other camp, the Democrat side, but they were having to spend millions of dollars.

We did about a week of work. Yeah. So the conversation ended up coming out. The first thing we saw a couple days ago was actually actor James Van Der Beek. You may have seen that going around. Dawson Leary, yeah.

Mox from Fox News. Yeah, he moved to Texas. That's why. And he put out a video saying, you know, why are we not having this?

This is not American that we don't have Democratic primaries. And that sort of starts spinning. I get a little queasy with it because I'm like, I wish someone could talk to him.

I think I like the bigger, I get their bigger picture idea. And actually, you know what the truth is? If people who are major Democrats decide they want to change like this, their party, it's a party.

So you can change the rules. Well, this even came out after the fall yesterday as you had a tweet come out from Jack Dorsey, the founder of Twitter. Explain to people. He's a huge deal. Oh, well, it may be bigger than people understand, but yeah, obviously he found a Twitter. You saw him a lot doing congressional hearings and things during all of the suppression. He was very rememberable.

Yeah. You know, he's got nose ring. He's just sort of this, you know, but also a guy who is really for character. He kind of, yeah, beard. He's sort of supposed to be like an open source guy.

One of these big tech guys that also know very liberal. He put out a tweet yesterday after the fall and it just said, open the Democratic primary debates. This isn't fair to anyone. So that is going to be the conversation over the next few months. I think they do see someone like an RFK and go, well, this is interesting.

This at least is interesting. And maybe he appeals to the less, you know, the less socialist side maybe of. Yeah, it's not socialist. He's a capitalist.

He's talked about border security. He's talked about, he's also an environmentalist. Environmentalist, which most of, if you're a Democrat, you mainstream Democrat, you would consider yourself environmentalist. A lot of conservatives do as well.

I think a lot of conservatives, they don't, the terms have been so politicized you can't use it. But there are things you want. So we have to say conservation on our side. But the truth is I do not want my air like China or India's.

I've been to both countries extensively. Or LA. Yeah, but I mean like you don't want it to be where you cannot go anywhere and breathe. There are, there are good limits. There's good rules. I mean, you don't want to live in a society with no, anarchy doesn't work.

And also just unrestricted capitalism. There have to be rules of the road. It's interesting to me though, these folks usually would mock us if we even talked about this fall. That's what I think is interesting. They're now opening up the door for us to talk about it. Not in the sense that we're not making fun of people. Just this looks absurd.

Why are we, it looks a little bit like weekend at Bernie's. Well I think there is that. You've got to have a President who does, it doesn't matter about age so much as how, as control, power and like you realize that that person, whether you like them or not, knows what's going on and is the old, the buck does stop with it. Yeah, I think the problem is like you said, it's not necessarily people that disagree with this point of view. I think they look at it and go, this can't be the President of the United States and we feel bad for him.

And also. I felt bad. I felt bad.

My first thought was empathy. Actually President Trump, we should play President Trump's clip. He was asked about it and I think the initial thought people were going to say is, they're going to, he's going to make fun of it.

He's going to throw it back. Now remember, he does kind of reference this. My wife actually, I played her this clip and she talked about how the fact that, oh yeah, I remember when Trump was on the ramp and they kind of went after him for just being careful. Scoot down.

Yeah, just being careful on a slick ramp. He actually brings that up. Let's listen to this clip.

He's at the Air Force Academy. He actually fell down. Well, I hope he wasn't hurt.

I hope he wasn't hurt, but it's the whole thing is look, the whole thing is crazy. You gotta be careful about that. You gotta be careful about that because you don't, you don't want that. Even if you have to tiptoe down a ramp, he got it. And see, that's what I was talking about with Rick though. He understands the visuals. We could all fall if we go too far up, too fast down.

So no matter how old you are. Everyone's fallen. A lot of us, and I'm not telling you a lot of you, people can't just go on stage. They would freak out if they went on stage just like these guys do and look at these crowds. You'd be shaken, fallen. I mean, you set all these emotions.

So they're already past that, but you still have to be very cognizant because of the imagery that it means to the world. But let's look at the opposite. Let's look at what Joe Biden said in 2020 while he was running. Oh, he's a jerk. Look at how he steps and look how I step.

Watch how I run up ramps and he stumbles down ramps. Okay. I mean, it's kind of... Bring it on yourself. Yeah, exactly. But I think Joe Biden is a pretty nasty dude. I mean, if you really go after... Dasty dude.

He is. I mean, look what you did to Clarence Thomas. This is the lynching.

I mean, that's Clarence Thomas's words. A modern day lynching. Yeah, exactly. I think there's a lot... Joe Biden was the head lyncher. There's a lot less... And his friend was an actual lyncher. Yeah.

So he was doing this with. Yeah, I think a lot of people have that visual and they would assume... It's weird that you can even make that statement as a fact, but it is.

Yeah. It's weird that you have a situation where Trump is somewhat... You assume he would not be the person taking the high road, but does. Because, like you said, notice that this is a problem that we're having on a global scale, that you're looking at it. And it's the reason why these celebrities, it's the reason why Jack Dorsey are coming out and going, we have to have some kind of change here.

We at least have to have the option to change because it's an 80 plus year old man. And whatever you want to say, however you want to say it... These are major investors of the Democrat Party. Let's just be honest.

Yeah. These are people that have put probably hundreds of millions of dollars into the Democrat side of politics. And I think what they're...

They're also probably... This is how you can get a debate. And again, I'm not going to give Democrats total advice because I'm not an expert in their party politics. Is that if enough of your big money people say, we're not going to provide you the money unless you have an open debate, you might get one. Now, again, RFK will have to start appealing to a whole next level.

So he's got... People are going to have to put their money where their mouth is. He doesn't directly reference him. I am guessing that is who they... That's what they're... Yes, I think so.

A hundred percent. And listen, he's popular in the Rogan world. He's popular in a lot of worlds where people... Because a lot of people are kind of sick of being I'm an R and I'm a D. And I have to constantly...

I have to give up everything for the party. And instead they're more about the people. Like Trump is more about Trump. It's not so much about the Republican side.

That's just kind of the apparatus that moves it forward. And I think there's a lot of Democrats that have moved that way too is that they like liberal policies. They also want negotiations. They also want some reality. And they also want to know that who they're putting in charge is the person actually running the show. And no one really believes at this point anymore, including their own supporters, that Joe Biden is running the show. It's like, is the AI running the show? And would you really trust Joe Biden to handle that issue? I would. Support the work of the ACLJ. We're diving into all these issues at
Whisper: medium.en / 2023-06-02 15:09:41 / 2023-06-02 15:32:43 / 23

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