The Great America Show - October 11, 2022


FBI’S ADVICE TO TECH & BIG MEDIA TO CENSOR FREE SPEECH IN 2020 ELECTION WAS VIOLATION OF 1ST AMENDMENT AND UN-AMERICAN, SAYS JEFFREY CLARK

Hosted by
Lou Dobbs John Fawcett
Mentioned
Bill Barr William Mackis Jeff Clark Hunter Biden Trump Davis John Roberts Ozzie Myers Joe Biden Zelensky Heidi Stirrup Mark Zuckerberg Bill O'Reilly Jim Jordan Joe Rogan Russ Vogt Ray Epps Thomas Alito Dune
THE MARXIST LEFT DERIDES OUR AMERICAN EXPERIENCE, OUR HISTORY, OUR BILL OF RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTION SAYS JOHN SOLOMON THE CORPORATE MEDIA’S ALIGNMENT WITH THE MARXIST DEMS IS THE ROAD TO TOTALITARIANISM AND THAT’S WHERE WE ARE SAYS BILL O’REILLY

Episode Stats


Length

34 minutes

Words per minute

154.55

Word count

5,295

Sentence count

275

Harmful content

Misogyny

1

sentences flagged

Toxicity

5

sentences flagged

Hate speech

2

sentences flagged


Summary

Summaries generated with gmurro/bart-large-finetuned-filtered-spotify-podcast-summ .

Jeffrey Clark, a distinguished attorney, former U.S. Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division, is now a Senior Fellow and Director of Litigation at the Center for Renewing America. He has been researching the claims of former Attorney General Bill Barr, who said the DOJ had done a thorough investigation of the 2020 election and found no evidence of fraud or wrongdoing.

Transcript

Transcript generated with Whisper (turbo).
Misogyny classifications generated with MilaNLProc/bert-base-uncased-ear-misogyny .
Toxicity classifications generated with s-nlp/roberta_toxicity_classifier .
Hate speech classifications generated with facebook/roberta-hate-speech-dynabench-r4-target .
Hosts, guests, and mentioned names generated with spaCy (en_core_web_sm), reconciled against Wikidata.
00:00:00.200 Hello, everybody. I'm Lou Dobbs. Welcome to the Great America Show.
00:00:04.260 Great to have you with us as we all seek to preserve truth, justice, and, of course, the American way.
00:00:10.720 It is uphill work these days, I'll admit, for all of us who care about this great country and our fellow citizens and our future.
00:00:18.820 We're a nation in the clutches of the Marxist Dems now.
00:00:22.600 They control the Democrat Party, this puppet president, the White House, Congress, the Senate. 0.60
00:00:28.020 And those Marxists control as well the deep state, the bureaucrats throughout our federal government, the so-called administrative state, and, of course, they control our judiciary.
00:00:39.560 Yes, our courts as well, with one possible but important exception, the Supreme Court.
00:00:46.020 And that is a highly unreliable exception, and will remain so as long as John Roberts remains the chief justice of the high court.
00:00:54.680 Roberts was once mercurial, but now he's migrated even further leftward, and one or two conservative judges have wobbled a bit over the past year.
00:01:05.620 Just a bit.
00:01:06.660 But enough to be concerning.
00:01:09.060 So here we are, four weeks from Election Day.
00:01:12.580 Millions of illegals are pouring into our country.
00:01:15.980 The Mexican drug cartels own both sides of the border.
00:01:19.400 Inflation is roaring, our economy is stalling, our markets are depressed, and so are our 401Ks.
00:01:27.540 Three-fourths of Americans say that the United States is going in the wrong direction.
00:01:32.700 And the White House right now trying to take back Biden's nuclear Armageddon remarks,
00:01:37.780 and his pal Zelensky has Ukraine frantically trying to walk back Zelensky's call for preemptive strikes against Russia. 1.00
00:01:47.280 Two idiots who are now what pass for leaders. 1.00
00:01:50.840 God help us. 1.00
00:01:52.260 Oh, and Joe Biden intimidating the U.S. attorney in Delaware.
00:01:56.420 That's what President Biden was up to when he was caught, quote-unquote,
00:02:00.400 That's a pretty clear signal, don't you think, to the U.S. attorney in Delaware to go easy on his son, Hunter.
00:02:13.220 After four years of investigation, tax evasion, and corruption of all kinds,
00:02:19.560 after that warning, don't be surprised if the U.S. attorney does a plea deal of jaywalking for Hunter.
00:02:26.240 It is all corrupt. 0.98
00:02:28.600 It is all sickening. 0.74
00:02:29.820 And now, here we go, heading into the most important midterm elections in our history.
00:02:35.380 And despite Republicans gaining new voters from Hispanics and blacks and a prediction of a red wave,
00:02:42.320 President Biden says the Marxist Dems will hold the Senate, maybe pick up a seat or two.
00:02:48.640 Pelosi says the Dems will keep the House as well.
00:02:52.100 What do they know that you and I don't?
00:02:55.840 What do they know that American voters don't?
00:02:58.440 You don't suppose we're in for another rigged election, do you?
00:03:03.040 Well, I'm not sure the Republicans learned a thing from 2020.
00:03:06.660 One of the people who's learning lots is a former top Justice Department official in the Trump administration.
00:03:12.500 Our guest today is Jeffrey Clark.
00:03:15.120 Jeffrey is a distinguished attorney, former U.S. Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division.
00:03:19.900 He's now a senior fellow and director of litigation at the Center for Renewing America.
00:03:25.680 Jeffrey, great to have you with us.
00:03:27.220 You've been researching the claims of former Attorney General Bill Barr, who said the DOJ had done a thorough investigation of the 2020 election and found no evidence of fraud or wrongdoing.
00:03:38.840 Tell us, if you will, what you've found.
00:03:43.220 Sure, Lou.
00:03:43.920 Well, again, thanks for having me.
00:03:46.000 I'm very honored to be invited back.
00:03:47.720 So this story about the former AG Barr and the 2020 election I think is a good place to start is with a November 9th, 2020 memo that Barr issued.
00:04:01.240 And that memo created, you know, a firestorm, shockwaves in the media because basically what it did was it changed or purported to change pre-existing DOJ policy that elections would be investigated really only after they had occurred and been fully certified, which obviously is a recipe for nothing really to happen.
00:04:24.680 And so the November 9th memo swept that policy away, it would seem, saying that such a passive and delayed enforcement approach, and I'm quoting, can result in situations in which election misconduct cannot realistically be rectified.
00:04:41.640 Okay, so that was the directive in November 9th to investigate what had gone on in the election six days prior.
00:04:50.060 It created a lot of, you know, media attention.
00:04:53.780 It led to the resignation of a career official in protest of the memo.
00:05:00.640 And so, you know, it looked like the election was going to be investigated, you know, with a lot of thoroughness.
00:05:07.060 And one of the sources I would point your listeners to is that the Carol Leonick book, along with her co-author, says that, you know, Barr pledged to the president that he would have, you know, investigators jumping on anything that came to light.
00:05:21.120 And so that's the public facing memo and the public, you know, as paralleled internally by apparently what was said to the president, although I was not in the room for that based on the book.
00:05:32.800 So what's come to light recently, I think, are three big, you know, cracks in that armor of what the public, you know, facing policy was.
00:05:45.520 And, you know, I think that's what you're referring to had been making some waves lately.
00:05:49.900 So, you know, do you want me to march through those three?
00:05:52.460 Do you want to ask anything about the November 9 memo?
00:05:56.600 Do you have any idea what the motivation was for that extraordinary departure from what had been Justice Department canon?
00:06:07.500 And and already the president, the attorney general knew that Joe Biden had lied and had chosen not to intervene.
00:06:18.720 So we have that background conflict after the debate, the second debate and final debate of the 2020 election in in late October.
00:06:29.820 We also have the conflict that obviously the FBI dispatched its agents to go to big media, social media, big tech and shut down the October 14th story reported by the New York Post, revealing the Hunter Biden laptop and much of its content.
00:06:53.120 And I just want to get some sort of sense from you of context there around those preceding events as well.
00:07:03.220 So, Lou, on that question, let me first react to the news that Mark Zuckerberg met with Joe that he revealed on Joe Rogan that basically during the election season, the FBI had come to Facebook and talked about the Hunter Biden laptop story.
00:07:20.840 And as a result of that, Facebook agreed to censor that story using its algorithms to throttle it.
00:07:29.060 I mean, that's just amazing at both ends.
00:07:31.400 You know, if you think of it as a football pass, both, you know, the pass and then the reception of the pass.
00:07:37.080 First, the FBI coming to a tech giant and saying you should censor is or should be unthinkable in America and a total violation of the First Amendment to say nothing of the election interference that it represents.
00:07:51.360 But second, that the tech giant would hear that and then acquiesce in it and say, OK, as opposed to saying, you know, look, you're from the government.
00:07:59.860 You can't tell us what to say or not say or what to use our platform for.
00:08:04.080 So it's just an amazing story.
00:08:05.980 And your larger question, Lou, had been, do I have any theories about why the memo was issued?
00:08:14.880 I mean, as compared to the older policy, I think the older policy, just to start with that, is wrong.
00:08:21.000 And the memo's right to have revoked that policy.
00:08:23.520 It's the kind of thing that the deep state puts in place, right, that there's nothing that can be done about an election until afterwards.
00:08:31.480 Then that really leaves them to work, you know, behind the scenes in a way that is not as publicly transparent to decide what election problems they're going to investigate and potentially try to penalize and which they're just going to leave off to the side.
00:08:46.260 So, yeah, the policy, you know, the policy change, I think, is a good one.
00:08:52.240 And the criticism of the policy change by the media, I think, was, you know, very wrongheaded.
00:08:57.200 But the issue, you know, based on especially on what's come to light, is was that a formal policy that sat on a shelf or was it actually something that energized real action behind the scenes at the Justice Department?
00:09:09.140 And I think the new evidence is showing that it was the latter.
00:09:13.500 It was just something kind of sitting there, but not something actually really being used.
00:09:18.840 And with that, that memo, the issue becomes what was the investigation?
00:09:27.140 Because subsequently, Bill Barr announces that they found nothing of scale or merit that could have changed the outcome of the election, I believe was at least the intention of his remarks.
00:09:38.500 But you found evidence that indicates that there was no basis for that statement on the part of the attorney general.
00:09:48.720 So maybe just to cover them in chronological order.
00:09:52.060 The first the first one happened in June of last year, the U.S. attorney in Philadelphia, which is the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, William McSwain.
00:10:01.820 He wrote to President Trump, and he basically said that he had significant evidence of election fraud or irregularities, and he wanted to investigate.
00:10:12.680 He wanted to have a press conference about it.
00:10:14.740 And Barr told him not to do that.
00:10:17.400 And so that's very strange, right?
00:10:21.600 And he also told him, turn over any evidence you do have to the Democrat AG in Pennsylvania and let him investigate it, which is interesting in light of what I'll describe as the second crack in the armor.
00:10:35.980 But let me first pause there and say, look, McSwain really had proved his credentials in being an official who would energetically go after election fraud.
00:10:46.240 In fact, that was, again, in the news this week with this congressman, Davis, Ozzie, Davis got convicted of election crimes and was sent to Ozzie Myers.
00:11:02.500 I'm sorry, not Davis, who was convicted of election crimes, sentenced to 30 months in prison, $100,000 fine for, you know, violating civil rights, bribery, obstruction of justice, falsifying voting records, conspiring to illegally vote in a federal election, and then to orchestrate schemes to fraudulently stuff the ballots.
00:11:25.400 And who was it who prosecuted and, you know, got across the finish line on that case?
00:11:32.660 It was the same Bill McSwain who said, look, I got something on the 2020 election, too.
00:11:37.560 This case with Myers actually involved 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018 fraud, Lou.
00:11:46.260 So when Bill McSwain comes to Barr and says, look, I got another big one, let me go forward, and he's denied the ability to do that, that's a major contradiction of the official story and that the November 9th memo was really being followed.
00:12:03.960 That is extraordinary and would turn it over to the state attorney general.
00:12:09.740 There were lots of questions at that point, I should remind everyone, about the, let's say, the electoral integrity of the great state of Pennsylvania, and also about both the executive and legislative branches of their state government.
00:12:26.320 It was very unclear exactly what was transpiring and just how, let me say, motivated they were to correct wrongs and to prevent wrongs in the election of 2020.
00:12:43.580 Is that a fair statement, Jeffrey?
00:12:45.960 That's a fair statement, and let me quote for you what McSwain said to President Trump about that.
00:12:53.420 President Trump, you were right to be upset about the way the Democrats ran the 2020 election in Pennsylvania.
00:12:59.980 It was a partisan disgrace.
00:13:02.040 The governor, the secretary of the Gulf, and the partisan state Supreme Court made up their own rules and did not follow the law.
00:13:09.380 And the fact, Lou, that those rules were being made up on the fly and they were different from the rules that were set by the legislature, which is the way our Constitution works,
00:13:18.200 they're the ones who have the power to set those rules, you know, that's an issue that he wanted to investigate.
00:13:25.260 And again, he was denied the ability to do that by Barr, despite what the November 9th memo had said to the world openly.
00:13:32.760 And to press further with this, do we know what the evidence was that moved McSwain to send his message to the president and to seek to prosecute, which Bill Barr told him he could not?
00:13:51.640 We do not really know well what that evidence is.
00:13:57.580 Now, in the, you know, what I'll call the third crack in the armor, which, you know, I'll get to hopefully after the second crack,
00:14:06.140 but in the third crack in the armor, which involves FOIA revelations, the one FOIA that has not yet been responded to
00:14:12.820 is the one to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania where McSwain was the U.S. attorney.
00:14:18.120 So, you know, it's possible that basically that FOIA is being worked over very carefully because it should reveal the information that McSwain was looking at in response to the November 9th memo from Barr.
00:14:32.480 But, you know, it's obviously interesting that that one has been sequenced to go last.
00:14:37.740 Sequenced to go last and unresponsive to this point, correct?
00:14:42.820 Well, until it's actually responded to, right, when the sequence is finished, you won't know whether, how it responds to this point, right?
00:14:50.060 It's a black box at this point.
00:14:53.120 But 11 other districts did respond.
00:14:57.320 Makes you curious about what the only district that we've, the public knows there was an issue, is the one not responding.
00:15:06.220 How much weight should we give that?
00:15:07.920 So, okay, we, then I'll take, I'll call that the second crack in the armor then, even though it's more recent, which is that there is a individual who does a lot of FOIA work.
00:15:23.360 He has a Twitter account calling himself FOIA fan.
00:15:25.740 I find evidence that he has been issuing FOIAs since 2010 at the earliest, potentially, but he's been around for a long time.
00:15:38.260 And he filed the FOIA to 12 DOJ components spread across seven states.
00:15:45.340 And I think the theory was to focus it on the battleground states in the 2020 election.
00:15:49.440 And he basically asked, okay, what did you do with the November 9th memo in practice?
00:15:54.920 And he has gotten responses from 11 of the 12 components.
00:16:00.260 And 11 of the components basically returned with the goose egg, you know, zero, nothing.
00:16:05.500 And the only one that has not yet responded, as we've been talking about, is the Eastern District of Pennsylvania that was headed up at the time by Bill McSwain, who wrote to Barr about how he was told basically to shut down his investigation, or at the very least, turn it over to the state AG in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
00:16:22.800 And all of this points to no evidence whatsoever of any investigation in those districts.
00:16:31.800 That is the takeaway from the responses from those districts.
00:16:38.040 But what else are we to take away from the fact that the one instance where publicly we know that there was a U.S. attorney who wanted to investigate but was told no, how does that square up with Bill Barr saying that there was no evidence of any wrongdoing and his pledge to the president to go after any issue whatsoever and investigate it thoroughly?
00:17:08.040 It seems to be highly contradictory, Lou, and so I see why you asked that question.
00:17:14.620 It looks like this stands in stark contrast, right?
00:17:17.280 There's a stark contrast between the memo directive and the plea that, you know, everything was investigated thoroughly versus the idea that these FOIA requests are coming up empty.
00:17:29.860 One thing that the attorney general could do and one thing, you know, a good media could do would be to hold his feet to the fire to ask him, why is there that discrepancy and kind of force an answer?
00:17:40.560 Another thing is that the current leadership of DOJ, they could release the investigative files from each of those areas if for some reason, you know, they withheld them or, you know, for some reason they thought there was material that, you know, did bear on investigating the election, but they somehow thought that the FOIA didn't call for it.
00:17:59.360 It's a possibility, but I would think you'd want to see that dispelled, maybe the new Congress when they come in and especially the House, if that goes as is being predicted, you know, they could focus the light of oversight on those questions and get the Justice Department to really open up the files and show what was investigated, Lou.
00:18:18.580 Jeffrey, I want to go to that issue of oversight and what we are hearing from members of the House Judiciary, in particular, the ranking member, Jim Jordan, about what they will do.
00:18:31.820 But I also want to focus, if we may for a moment here, wouldn't there be a natural aversion to on the part of the current administration and in control of the Justice Department to withholding any evidence that would contradict Bill Barr?
00:18:54.920 The last thing they want to do is to answer honestly the question, was the election of 2020 rigged?
00:19:02.940 It seems to me that Bill Barr, either by accident or purpose or intent, has aligned himself with this administration.
00:19:10.780 They are perfectly aligned in wanting to keep from the American public any evidence of wrongdoing, any evidence of any impropriety that will be embarrassing to the establishment, if you will, in the way in which the 2020 election was carried out.
00:19:32.140 So, Lou, I think that would be their institutional incentive, but that's where, you know, you have to watch for the oversight to see whether it really has teeth to it or not.
00:19:44.560 I mean, clearly, we've seen, you know, crocodile sharp teeth from the Democrats on the January 6th committee in terms of, you know, their purported exercise of oversight.
00:19:55.380 I really think it's a witch hunt and it's an attempt to penalize opponents of their party, and surely they're going to say that in reverse if the Republicans take over the House.
00:20:08.200 But, you know, there does need to be muscular oversight, and I think that the Republicans will conduct it with due process, right?
00:20:16.140 They're not going to jury rig up committees that don't have Democrats on it, you know, deny to the minority the ability to pick, you know, the minority, you know, the ranking member, etc.
00:20:28.700 They're not going to deny the ability of minority counsel to question witnesses and the like.
00:20:34.800 They just, you know, I think they're going to want to get to the truth.
00:20:36.920 But I think if they're stonewalled and the Justice Department says, we're not going to give that to you because it's investigative, and we've seen a lot, you know, oversight like that being conducted by, you know, minority questioning about, you know, people like Ray Epps and the like, where they just stonewall and say, like, you know, we can't talk about that, or we don't know what you're talking about, or sometimes now they've defaulted to, you know, there's no problem there.
00:21:01.920 Why don't you leave the guy alone, you know, I think the Republicans are going to have to roll up their sleeves and be tough and push back to actually penetrate into the files.
00:21:11.180 It, you know, seems similar to me, Lou, to the idea that there's kind of a constructive narrative.
00:21:16.640 The constructive narrative is that the Justice Department in the 2020 election investigated incredibly thoroughly and found nothing, and then Barr threw up his hands, right?
00:21:26.020 And then in terms of election lawsuits that were filed by President Trump's campaign, the official narrative is 60 lawsuits plus failed, ergo, there was nothing there.
00:21:36.900 But the real stories are obviously more complicated.
00:21:39.500 As we're exploring here about the Justice Department, there was a memo that said to the world things were being investigated thoroughly, but there's more evidence that it was not.
00:21:48.000 And I do want to say something to you about the testimony of Heidi Sturrup, the White House liaison to the Justice Department.
00:21:55.600 And then on the issue of the 60 lawsuits, most of those lawsuits, as you know, Lou, were dismissed, you know, for what lawyers call justiciability reasons, that there was no standing of the like.
00:22:05.560 They weren't resolutions on the merits where the judges confronted all the evidence and said, no, this didn't happen, or no, the evidence is all bunkum.
00:22:13.400 Basically, the lawsuits were thrown out at a threshold stage, and the merits were not plumbed into.
00:22:20.100 So the official narrative, whether it's about the lawsuits or whether it's about the Justice Department's investigations, is really all wet at this point.
00:22:27.820 Yeah, let's go into that a bit, because, as you say, those 60 lawsuits, in nearly every case, it was about standing, which is an alien concept to most of us who were laymen,
00:22:42.220 who were not lawyers, and that may sound fine and satisfactory to lawyers, but to the rest of us, it sounds like pure nonsense.
00:22:53.580 You have a conflict, whether it's the state of Texas versus Pennsylvania, which the U.S. Supreme Court wouldn't take up,
00:23:03.000 but it looks on its face to be an important case that should have been resolved in a conflict that could only be resolved by the Supreme Court.
00:23:11.060 And most of us know that the Supreme Court is where states go to resolve their conflicts,
00:23:15.280 and we're all left scratching our heads, as we are about so much of what transpired in 2020.
00:23:21.960 So let's go to that issue of standing, if you will, and give all of us who are not in the Spice Guild, who are not lawyers,
00:23:32.800 some understanding of how you could, every one of these courts could just say, well, you don't have standing,
00:23:38.220 and therefore we're not going to pay attention to the evidence, we're not going to deal with a conflict,
00:23:42.220 and we're certainly going to be no part of resolution, if you don't mind.
00:23:46.680 Sure, Lou. Well, first of all, I really applaud the Dune reference. That's one of my favorites.
00:23:53.900 But let me meet that level of erudition, Lou, with a little bit on, you know, defending lawyers about standing,
00:24:02.800 but then say, you know, why I think that really brings the spotlight back on the Justice Department.
00:24:08.400 So, you know, standing is really an ancient concept,
00:24:11.200 and the concept is, because our court system goes back to our English forebears, you know,
00:24:18.340 that if something was not cognizable at the courts of Westminster, then it's not really something courts should be dealing with, right?
00:24:25.180 Courts are not like many legislators, legislatures, or many presidents.
00:24:29.980 They really only deal with individual cases or controversies that are brought to them.
00:24:34.300 So if amorphous fights are brought to them, that's really something that the courts should stay out of.
00:24:39.460 And having done a lot of environmental law, there's a lot of environmental law about this,
00:24:44.020 because basically a lot of environmentalists are really just kind of officious intermeddlers who, you know,
00:24:49.560 don't really have skin in the game.
00:24:51.880 They argue that they do, but they're trying to just basically make political points that they lost in the legislature
00:24:57.760 or that they lost in the rulemaking process.
00:25:00.000 So standing is very important to kind of guard the line and not have the courts really become the dictators of the United States.
00:25:06.500 Now, that being said, I think, as you were pointing out, that the Texas case that was filed,
00:25:12.640 I don't think it makes any sense that seven justices said, you know, was the problem in that case,
00:25:23.080 because you're basically talking about, you know, red states like Texas saying,
00:25:27.060 look, Pennsylvania is unlawfully changing their rules in violation of the federal constitution.
00:25:31.980 And the federal constitution is essentially a pact among the states about how we're going to run the game of the election.
00:25:39.860 And so we followed the rules.
00:25:41.240 They didn't follow the rules.
00:25:42.540 And now, you know, the president that one party in those states favored has been elected.
00:25:47.800 I really don't see how that is something that there's no standing for.
00:25:51.300 And clearly there were two justices, Thomas and Alito, who dissented from that.
00:25:55.360 So while I'm generally a defender of the standing doctrine, I think that it was misapplied in that situation.
00:26:02.520 But this is a very good way to actually bring it back to the Justice Department, Lou,
00:26:06.260 because the Justice Department can investigate and pursue.
00:26:10.240 It doesn't have to show itself that it has standing.
00:26:14.000 Right. It has the power to investigate election irregularities.
00:26:17.760 And the November 9th memo, you know, amplified that authority.
00:26:21.800 So there was no standing barrier at all for the Justice Department.
00:26:25.140 So if the Justice Department doesn't have that barrier, you know,
00:26:28.540 what's its excuse for not having really thoroughly looked into all the problems of the election?
00:26:33.260 Why is it telling U.S. Attorney McSwain not to investigate?
00:26:38.100 And the other thing, this was the second chink in the armor. 1.00
00:26:42.320 The White House liaison, Heidi Stirrup, testified in litigation in federal court in D.C. 0.96
00:26:47.300 that she got a meeting with Attorney General Barr, and she asked him what he was doing about the election.
00:26:54.720 And he basically said, here's the, I'll read you this key paragraph from her affidavit.
00:27:01.100 It's number 17, paragraph 17.
00:27:03.740 I testified that I asked Attorney General Barr what was being done about the highly irregular election activities.
00:27:09.340 When I specifically asked if the department had done anything, Mr. Barr told me no.
00:27:13.940 He then told me, quote, there's no federal role in elections.
00:27:17.420 They are run by the states.
00:27:19.080 If fraud is brought to a U.S. attorney, they have the authority to investigate.
00:27:22.860 He assured me that no matter how much alleged fraud was brought forward,
00:27:27.020 no investigation would take less than two years, and the election would not be overturned.
00:27:32.060 So I think that's pretty remarkable, too.
00:27:35.860 And note as well that it professes that the U.S. attorneys can investigate.
00:27:39.720 But the prior year, we learned in 2021 that Bill McSwain was told not to investigate.
00:27:44.660 So there are kind of contradictions within contradictions in terms of what's going on inside the halls of the building.
00:27:52.080 At this juncture, I have to ask, and I have to say, we appreciate you taking us through all of this.
00:27:58.620 It's complex.
00:28:00.000 It is difficult.
00:28:01.540 I know it's easy for you and other attorneys, but it's difficult for most of us to understand even the architecture of our court system,
00:28:11.400 sometimes let alone its process and conclusions, whether they be resolutions or not.
00:28:20.560 So I do appreciate that, Jeffrey.
00:28:22.440 I want to ask you as well, as we look at the Supreme Court, the U.S. Supreme Court twice turned down what I see as an obligation.
00:28:33.380 I think most Americans see it as an obligation to resolve these conflicts and to take up evidence.
00:28:39.600 Where are we now?
00:28:41.320 What is the way forward?
00:28:43.360 I know you working at the Center for Renewing America are doing a great deal.
00:28:49.880 Give us a sense of what the next steps are and how do we get to the truth of the matter if we can.
00:28:58.060 Sure.
00:28:58.880 Well, I think one ingredient obviously is healthy, vigorous house oversight coming in 2023, as we talked about.
00:29:07.660 I think that's vital.
00:29:08.760 I think the continued expansion of the alternative press is very important because it's what breaks down these narratives, right?
00:29:18.940 You know, sadly, it sometimes breaks them down too slowly, you know, before they take hold with a lot of folks who are busy, right?
00:29:26.460 And they're raising their families.
00:29:27.900 They're going to work.
00:29:28.980 They're especially in an inflation-ridden economy.
00:29:31.560 They're trying to make ends meet, right?
00:29:33.860 They don't have time to probe into things like, you know, the courts at Westminster or how Article 3 standing works under federal law, right?
00:29:42.800 They just are essentially given kind of quick talking points on TV.
00:29:46.980 But more and more people are realizing they can't trust that alternative media and, I'm sorry, can't trust the mainstream media, and they're turning to alternative media in order to combat that.
00:29:58.200 So I think those are two of the ingredients.
00:30:00.040 And then, you know, I would say, you know, we're seeing the weaponization of investigative powers against political opponents of one party, and that really needs to be pushed back on.
00:30:12.600 And one of the things that the Center for Renewing America has really been calling for and trying to spearhead is a new church committee for the 2020s that would investigate all the facets of the deep state, you know, intelligence apparatus,
00:30:28.860 whether that's the FBI or the CIA or other aspects of the intelligence community, and try to put it back on a better track so we don't see things like Mar-a-Lago being raided.
00:30:40.480 We don't see, you know, pro-life activists having, you know, more than a dozen agents show up when, you know, a knock at the door from one or two agents would have been enough.
00:30:50.560 And, you know, so that, you know, we're not seeing parents, you know, being exposed to the national security apparatus simply for complaining about, you know, what the curriculum is in their schools or, you know, how they're opposed to transgender bathrooms,
00:31:07.460 or they're worried that, you know, their sons or daughters are going to be attacked or somehow assaulted inside schools or, you know, any of the other manifestations of wokeism that we see, you know, that would be, you know,
00:31:22.860 I think a select committee is what we've advocated so that it could declassify documents, it could expose what's going on inside these agencies and bring it to light because light, the sunlight's the best disinfectant loop.
00:31:36.180 And I think it's a terrific direction in which to go.
00:31:44.260 I think it's the way forward.
00:31:46.480 It's the righteous way forward.
00:31:48.460 What I fear is that the Republicans have neglected to assure electoral integrity in November.
00:31:55.640 We're now just over a month away.
00:31:59.140 We're looking at some, you know, at this prospect.
00:32:03.340 I'm not saying it's going to happen, but a prospect that is just as likely to be as evil as 2020.
00:32:11.320 And that troubles all of us deeply.
00:32:14.620 I want to say, Jeffrey, as always, it's great to have you with us.
00:32:18.180 I hope you will come back soon.
00:32:19.600 And let's continue this conversation on both our courts, the election, the importance of electoral integrity,
00:32:27.680 and obviously oversight of these weaponized agencies, in particular the FBI, the CIA, and the Department of Justice itself.
00:32:39.100 We really appreciate everything.
00:32:44.040 I want to give you the last word here today and just say, Jeffrey Clark, Center for Renewing America,
00:32:51.820 thanks for all you're doing for this great country.
00:32:54.540 Well, thank you, Lou, and, you know, I would refer you to the Center for Renewing America's website.
00:33:02.480 We're led by the great Russ Vogt, who was head of OMB in the Trump administration.
00:33:09.080 We're engaged in a lot of key projects, including fighting the invasion at the border.
00:33:15.680 You can learn more about us there, and, Lou, I would love to come back.
00:33:20.440 I've enjoyed being with you both of these times, so thank you very much.
00:33:24.260 Great to have you with us, Jeffrey.
00:33:25.660 Thank you.
00:33:26.140 God bless you.
00:33:27.720 Thanks, Lou.
00:33:28.840 God bless you, too.
00:33:31.040 Thanks, everybody, for being with us here tomorrow.
00:33:33.360 Our guest will be Mr. Bill O'Reilly, and we'll be talking politics, of course.
00:33:38.260 Please join us.
00:33:39.800 Till then, God bless you, and may God bless America.
00:33:45.680 We'll be right back.