The Great America Show - THE FBI’S RAID ON MAR-A-LAGO WAS AN ASSAULT ON THE PRESIDENCY ITSELF, SAYS JEFFREY CLARK

00:00:00.000 Hello everybody, I'm Lou Dobbs. Welcome to the Great America Show.

00:00:04.940 Desperation and disinformation pouring out of the D.C. swamp,

00:00:09.440 and the Marxist Dems and Deep Staters are slithering hither and yon,

00:00:14.120 seeking refuge as they scramble to fog over their misjudgments

00:00:17.980 and cover up their evil doing, trying to destroy Trump and this great republic.

00:00:24.340 Make no mistake, the Marxist Dems and Deep State mean to destroy our system of government,

00:00:29.760 our way of life. And Uncle Joe is a puppet, but dangerous still.

00:00:36.340 He's lied, the Mar-a-Lago search warrant and affidavit make it clear he ordered the FBI

00:00:41.760 raid on his chief political opponent, the former President of the United States

00:00:46.360 and the present leader of the Republican Party. And his attorney general lied as well,

00:00:51.840 said he wasn't involved. Up to his eyeballs he was involved and remained so.

00:00:57.200 And the warrant itself on Mar-a-Lago is a mess, permitting a full-on, without-boundary

00:01:03.680 fishing expedition that only a fool or a crooked judge would issue. Or maybe just a Clinton supporter.

00:01:10.920 And yes, Judge Bruce Reinhart fits that bill in its entirety. So what to do now that the FBI

00:01:18.560 admits they took Trump's medical records, documents that were held under executive privilege as well

00:01:24.880 as attorney-client privilege. The FBI didn't care in the least. And they took financial documents

00:01:31.360 as well while they searched 16-year-old Barron's room and Melania's closet. The FBI's outrageous and

00:01:39.920 illegal investigation of Donald Trump should never have happened. Really, going after a former president

00:01:46.240 president over a bunch of paperwork and a disagreement with some librarians but attack dog librarians

00:01:52.720 and no one's falling for the FBI and DOJ's disinformation and dirty rotten lies anymore.

00:02:00.720 Here's where things stand after six years of the Marxist Dems and Deep State's non-stop political persecution

00:02:08.720 of President Donald Trump. We know President Biden and members of his family are corrupt and they're

00:02:15.760 protected by the Secret Service, the FBI, the Department of Justice, by the corporate media, big tech,

00:02:23.040 and social media. We know that Attorney General William Barr changed history. Barr knew Biden was lying in the

00:02:31.120 second and final presidential debate of 2020, lying about his son's laptop and its contents, his lies about not

00:02:39.280 knowing about Hunter's business with foreign countries, and the lies of 51 intelligence veterans, including five

00:02:47.440 former CIA directors and the highest ranking law enforcement officer in the nation, William Barr, wouldn't say a

00:02:55.440 word to the American people, not a word of warning. While his FBI agents were out persuading executives of

00:03:03.040 newspapers and networks, big tech and social media, all the while peddling nonsense about Russian disinformation,

00:03:11.120 they knew to be false. And they continue to persecute Trump to this very moment. Trump, who's been proved

00:03:17.760 right over all of those six years, no wrongdoing, no lying, not a speeding ticket, because had

00:03:25.280 there been, you know every one of those craven corrupt institutions and agents would have torn him to

00:03:32.880 pieces. Why is it they ignore the corrupt Bidens? They know, just like we do now, Joe Biden should be in a

00:03:41.280 jail cell instead of the Oval Office. Biden is corrupt and all the world now knows as well. And so are the

00:03:48.720 agencies and departments who should have been prosecuting him instead of trying to frame President Trump.

00:03:55.520 And all the world knows as well the evil done by the FBI, the DOJ, intelligence agencies and courts,

00:04:03.280 and the Marxist Dems in Congress, and their so-called J-6 committee that's preyed on the hundreds of

00:04:10.000 Americans who have been, and many of whom remain, political prisoners of the Marxist left. I say,

00:04:18.000 free them all. Free all of them right now. Every single one of the January 6th defendants. And if

00:04:26.560 prosecute you must, then prosecute the police lieutenant who shot and killed an innocent,

00:04:32.880 unarmed woman, and prosecute the federal agents and provocateurs who instigated chaos and calamity on

00:04:40.840 Capitol Hill that day. Now is the time to drain the swamp, put corrupt government and officials on

00:04:49.000 trial, and hold the Marxist Dems and the deep state to account. Nothing less will end the evil we've

00:04:56.520 witnessed over the past six years. Nothing less will save America. Our guest today is Jeffrey Clark.

00:05:03.720 He's been subpoenaed by the January 6th committee. Jeffrey Clark is a distinguished attorney,

00:05:09.720 a former high-ranking official in the Department of Justice, a former partner of the prestigious law

00:05:15.240 firm Kirkland and Alice. And Jeffrey, delighted to have you with us here on The Great America Show.

00:05:21.560 Let's begin with what I know must be an ordeal, being in the sights of the Bolshevik J-6 committee.

00:05:28.120 When did you learn they were interested in you? Well, it's a story that begins a little bit before

00:05:36.200 that. The first thing that happened was that I got a strange outreach around Memorial Day of last year

00:05:42.920 from a staffer for Senator Durbin asking me to come in and meet, but they did not have subpoena power,

00:05:51.080 and so I declined. Then the House Oversight Committee contacted me to start talking about

00:05:57.800 events related to the election. And we were discussing things with them. When I say we, I mean me and my

00:06:04.840 attorneys. And then we got a, you know, abrupt message saying, we have been instructed basically

00:06:13.400 to turn over, you know, any possible interview with you to the January 6th committee. So that was the

00:06:20.040 first time that I heard about that. That would have been sometime probably either super late summer

00:06:27.080 or early fall of 2021. That soon, that early. Yes. And, and, and then what happened?

00:06:36.680 And then, you know, the, the committee was asking to come in and, you know, we took the position that

00:06:44.600 there were privileges that attached. And so we should not do that. And then they issued a subpoena.

00:06:50.760 And then that subpoena compelled me to show up on November 5th, 2021. So I did. And we presented a

00:07:01.240 lengthy letter explaining why three privileges in particular attached. One was executive privilege.

00:07:08.360 There's a letter from President Trump to me and to others, some others at the Justice Department

00:07:12.360 that says that the matters, the committee was interested in talking to me, us about, were

00:07:19.000 covered by executive privilege. Then I have a letter from the Justice Department that says,

00:07:24.360 well, President Biden has overruled President Trump's invocation of privilege, but we instruct

00:07:30.200 you that you cannot talk about anything that is law enforcement privileged, which is a strange

00:07:36.040 thing, right? You know, the, the executive privilege descends from the separation of powers in the

00:07:41.960 constitution, whereas the law enforcement privilege is more of a creature of common law. And so it's

00:07:47.480 backwards to maintain, you know, law enforcement privilege, but waive executive privilege. The

00:07:54.440 one that should be defended to the hilt is executive privilege. And then the third privilege was

00:08:00.040 attorney-client privilege. The committee, you know, stepped all over itself, rejected all of those

00:08:06.680 assertions of privilege in kind of record time. Indeed, you know, they were doing strange timing where

00:08:13.560 they were saying, you know, be back here at four o'clock for your deposition to continue because

00:08:18.680 your privileges have been overruled by Chair Thompson. And the message was received, you know,

00:08:23.800 at some distance after four o'clock. So as we pointed out to them, we don't have a time machine.

00:08:28.680 And on and on it went in various letter exchanges about finer points of privilege. And then, uh, finally,

00:08:35.400 uh, you know, became clear to us from external signs, uh, that they were probably going to try to do the

00:08:41.560 same thing to me that they had done to Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro and Dan Scavino and refer us for

00:08:48.440 contempt, refer me for contempt over to the justice department. So, uh, you know, I invoked my fifth

00:08:54.440 amendment, uh, privilege and, uh, they went ahead with a business meeting, even though we had sent them a

00:09:00.680 letter about that, uh, and it really should have halted the proceedings, but they had a prime time

00:09:05.880 hearing, which they call a business meeting. And, uh, Benny Thompson said, you know, we're, we're all

00:09:11.720 going to have a vote. We're all going to hold that Mr. Clark, uh, should be referred, you know, uh,

00:09:17.880 for a floor vote on whether we should send him over to the justice department for having committed

00:09:22.200 criminal, uh, contempt. Uh, but he has just invoked the fifth amendment and that's a quote unquote,

00:09:28.920 serious matter. And so we will, uh, order him to come back for a second deposition because he can't

00:09:35.080 just invoke the fifth by letter. He has to do it on a question by question basis. And, uh, you know,

00:09:41.560 we thought we would negotiate with them about the timing for that. And they said, no, it has to be

00:09:46.040 this coming Saturday. So the business meeting was on a Wednesday night on prime time. And then we were

00:09:50.520 ordered to come in that Saturday. Um, you know, as, as the good Lord may have ordained, uh, I got, uh,

00:09:57.160 COVID and then that deposition wound up being, uh, postponed until February 2nd. So I showed up

00:10:03.880 dutifully on February 2nd and invoked, uh, all of the applicable privileges as questions were asked.

00:10:12.120 Um, there was one exchange I had where, uh, representative Schiff, he'd shown up in person

00:10:18.360 for the November, uh, session, the only member of the committee to do so. Uh, but, uh, in February,

00:10:24.520 he, he was appearing by Webex and, uh, he, he tried to argue that I couldn't invoke, uh,

00:10:31.480 multiple privileges. I could only invoke, uh, the fifth because they needed a clean record.

00:10:37.080 And I, uh, uh, you know, obviously Lou, as you know, since I'd been a high ranking official,

00:10:42.040 the justice department, you know, 1400 lawyers had reported to me, I'd been a partner of a major

00:10:46.680 law firm. I explained why Adam Schiff was incorrect in his argumentation under the law. And he stopped.

00:10:52.840 Uh, and then, uh, you know, eventually after about 90 minutes of taking, uh, the privileges,

00:10:58.600 uh, I left, uh, and, um, since then I've heard nothing from the committee and no floor vote was

00:11:05.640 ever scheduled for me. There was a Politico story at one point saying that, uh, I had been referred to

00:11:12.120 the justice department for criminal contempt, but I got a retraction of that because that was untrue.

00:11:17.000 Uh, uh, extraordinary. And, uh, Adam Schiff is not a quick learner. Uh, he is now a certified and

00:11:25.800 demonstrated and proved, uh, liar, uh, as a result of the, uh, the first contempt, excuse me,

00:11:34.520 impeachment of the president. Uh, he's put himself on record and now he's a man who doesn't understand

00:11:40.440 the law, which, uh, you apparently did educate him, uh, uh, you know, and, and good for you.

00:11:47.560 We're watching unbridled arrogance here, uh, in the abuse of power by the Marxist Dems, as I call

00:11:55.400 the leaders of the Democrat Party. Uh, this is unprecedented. I don't think, I I've seen a number

00:12:03.000 of, of authors suggest and writers, journalists suggest this is, uh, you know, Mark McCarthyism from

00:12:09.800 the left, but I really think this is well beyond anything McCarthy contemplated. This is a full-on

00:12:16.840 assault, uh, on, uh, the constitutional Republic. Your thoughts. I agree with that, uh, Lou. And,

00:12:24.680 you know, as you know, because we just briefly talked about it before we started, uh, we're both,

00:12:29.960 uh, alums of Harvard. And for me as an undergrad, I was a double major in economics and Russian Soviet

00:12:37.080 history. As I sat, you know, in classes in the mid 1980s with, uh, Richard Pipes, who was,

00:12:43.400 you know, Harvard's foremost, uh, historian on those topics. Uh, and he was describing the

00:12:49.400 radicalization of the students, the short lived, uh, government that, uh, was brought down by the

00:12:55.320 Bolshevik revolution. Um, you know, I thought never here, you know, I'd never, I'd never see anything

00:13:01.160 like that. It was the optimistic eighties. Economic growth was high. People were very happy. Uh, and I

00:13:07.800 thought, you know, folks could never be duped, but I, I would later take, you know, more recently

00:13:13.080 tours of college campuses and see, you know, lots of radicalism on the dorm room doors and boat Bernie

00:13:19.480 posters. And I even caused me to offer to have a debate on campus at some point about why Marxism is

00:13:26.040 not the way. And so like you, I actually do see the strands of that, uh, being played, the strains of

00:13:32.760 that being played. And it's very alarming. It is. It's, it's on a given day. It is disconcerting.

00:13:40.600 It's, uh, one loses easily, uh, uh, balance and perspective on all of this because it seems almost

00:13:49.800 every day. There is a new outrage. There is a new effort on the part of the, of the Marxist left

00:13:58.200 in this country to try to roll back individual rights, the bill of rights, the constitution in

00:14:04.040 some fashion to attack education, uh, the very idea of education for all citizens, public schools,

00:14:11.480 what's our public schools, once the pride of the nation and the, the envy of the world. Uh, and of

00:14:17.560 course, also God, uh, the assaults are, are, are just incessant, uh, your thoughts, if you will,

00:14:27.080 where you stand right now, as we watch the federal government weaponized and almost every department

00:14:34.200 and agency, uh, turn on the American people whom they obviously have declared as the enemy.

00:14:40.200 Yes, Lou. So I agree with that. Uh, it's, it's, uh, you know, incredibly alarming. I think that what

00:14:48.680 happened in terms of the raid on Mar-a-Lago is an assault, not just on, uh, Donald Trump personally,

00:14:54.840 whom obviously they've been trying to nail to the wall, uh, since, you know, 2015 maybe, uh, but

00:15:00.760 certainly 2016 forward. Um, it's an assault on the presidency itself. And, uh, you know, there,

00:15:07.880 it's just one right being run over rough shot after another, you know, I think the January 6th

00:15:12.840 committee makes a mockery of due process, makes a mockery of Congress's historical rules that ensure,

00:15:19.800 uh, and observe party balance. Um, and the, you know, for the Mar-a-Lago raid, one of the big points

00:15:26.440 that I've been making is that, uh, the warrant that was issued is a general warrant. And our framers,

00:15:32.360 uh, thought that, that the idea of the English crown having these general warrants where

00:15:37.560 the, uh, officers could just show up and start searching your house without telling you why

00:15:41.560 was such an affront to natural liberty that, you know, they wrote the fourth amendment.

00:15:46.760 They, you know, included in that a particularity requirement, uh, and, you know, a probable cause,

00:15:53.080 obviously president Trump has still not seen the full probable cause because the affidavit is so

00:15:57.960 heavily redacted. And then in terms of the idea that this is a general warrant, it, it certainly

00:16:02.920 is. It asked for all, it authorizes search for all presidential records for the entire duration

00:16:08.600 of Trump's term in office. And it also had a kind of, uh, penumbra attached to it of,

00:16:14.600 you can grab things that are adjacent to the things you're authorized to grab. Um, and that's

00:16:19.000 the theory apparently on which they took his, uh, passports, although they've now returned those.

00:16:23.720 So it's really breathtaking taking the breadth of it, you know, and how many liberties of,

00:16:29.160 uh, the, uh, the bill of rights can be violated at once there. It's almost like there's a checklist.

00:16:36.520 It's, it's the country right now is confused. They're, they're, they're pained, they're outraged

00:16:43.160 and disgusted by their federal government and the activities go on. And there is no,

00:16:50.280 and I have to say, I would have expected the American bar association at some point say

00:16:55.720 after six years of political persecution of Donald Trump, uh, a two impeachments,

00:17:02.200 a special counsel, three years of federal investigation, uh, that, and coming up with

00:17:08.840 the only wrongdoing being that of, uh, the FBI, the department of justice, the DNC,

00:17:14.840 the Hillary Clinton campaign and, uh, the CIA, all of those are, are evildoers, wrongdoers,

00:17:22.280 and they have violated laws and regulations with impunity. And Donald Trump has been found,

00:17:29.800 not to have done any wrongdoing, whether he did or not, they didn't find it. And at some point,

00:17:35.720 you have to say, isn't there's a presumption of innocence anywhere left in this, uh, rancid,

00:17:41.880 corrupt federal government of ours? So Lou, you mentioned the ABA, uh, the American bar association,

00:17:49.000 you know, at the turn of, uh, the last century into the 20th century, the American bar association

00:17:56.280 was, uh, uh, you know, quite conservative, uh, organization, but it has been like the universities,

00:18:03.160 like many arms of the government taken over by the left. Um, I served, uh, on the governing council of,

00:18:09.960 uh, the administrative law section of the bar and, you know, that, uh, had a, you know,

00:18:16.440 kind of strong statist direction to it for the most part. But, um, I didn't really see anything

00:18:21.800 that was significantly radical there, but other parts of the ABA have for many years and long before

00:18:27.640 these, you know, fights that, that we've recently been having that relate to, uh, President Trump,

00:18:33.000 they were woke and they were weaponized, you know, the resolutions that would come out of that,

00:18:38.760 the, the largest body, you know, kind of the, the Congress as well, as it were of the ABA were

00:18:44.520 truly remarkable because the Federalist Society created ABA watch project because the things on

00:18:50.520 the social front on the culture war front were so, uh, outrageous. So, you know, I think you would wait

00:18:56.520 in vain, Lou, for some kind of protest from the, the ABA because it has been an organization that's

00:19:02.360 essentially been, uh, uh, taken over by the left for, for quite some time.

00:19:07.480 But I would have expected law professors, uh, deans of, uh, prominent law schools, uh,

00:19:15.160 like, uh, all that, uh, so many of our Supreme Court justices attended to have stood up and said,

00:19:24.440 you know, this is not right. This is a constitutional republic. The, the, the Constitution is dominant,

00:19:32.520 preeminent, preeminent, and precious. And it's about time we regarded it as such instead as a,

00:19:38.040 as a doormat. Uh, but we have heard nothing from the legal profession itself, at least in the

00:19:45.400 academics, uh, in law schools across the country. We are hearing nothing from business leaders,

00:19:50.760 for that matter, nothing from the Republican Party leadership to say enough is enough.

00:19:56.440 Where is corporate America? Where is, are the people who are achievers, uh, highly, highly successful

00:20:04.520 people saying we have to give preeminence to our constitution and our way of life, the rule of law.

00:20:13.800 So you covered a fair amount of territory there, Lou, but I think you're, you're kind of marching

00:20:18.200 through, uh, uh, you know, a list of, uh, organizations and parts of, uh, the mediating

00:20:25.800 institutions of our society that have been captured. So let me start with the law firm.

00:20:31.160 I mean, the, uh, sorry, law school one, right? There are some, right? There's Professor Dershowitz,

00:20:35.480 who I think, you know, is, uh, is on the left, but who has principles and has just released a book

00:20:41.960 about that topic. And there's Jonathan Turley, who, you know, I also think is, uh, generally speaking on

00:20:47.880 the left, but, but has principles, but there are so many law professors who've really gone off the

00:20:52.600 deep end, like, you know, uh, you know, as, as, uh, wonderful as his constitutional law treatise

00:20:58.520 was, although it's, you know, uh, uh, dated, at least in the version I have, like Lauren's tribe

00:21:03.640 really seems to just be almost like an MSNBC, uh, in a mind meld with them at this point.

00:21:10.120 So here's an example I would give you from an earlier controversy about, uh, law professors

00:21:16.120 and how result oriented they could be. I would put to you that if at the end of, uh, the, um,

00:21:24.520 uh, first Bush administration, you had pulled law professors and you had asked them if there

00:21:30.600 is a future president who commits perjury in front of a federal judge in particular, but you know,

00:21:37.080 it could just be by sworn testimony that's presented to the judge, but let's make it more

00:21:41.000 like the actual circumstance with Clinton. You know, if, if you, uh, if that, uh, you know,

00:21:46.920 hypothetical president, uh, were to, uh, testify to something that was, uh, a lie in front of the

00:21:53.480 judge, um, and ultimately get sanctioned, would that be an impeachable offense? Yes or no. And I

00:21:58.280 would submit to you that 95% of the law review law professors, I'm sorry, uh, who were responding to

00:22:04.200 that survey would have said, absolutely. But now you fast forward into the Clinton administration

00:22:09.400 and you're talking about, you know, lying about Paula Jones and you're talking about,

00:22:13.160 uh, you know, the whole, uh, set of issues about lying about Monica Lewinsky. And then magically,

00:22:19.240 uh, a majority of the law professors because they're on the left and don't want to see

00:22:23.400 president Clinton impeached say, no, that's not a high crime or misdemeanor. And it's just one of

00:22:29.080 those things, which I think is indicator of how, uh, result oriented the academy has become.

00:22:35.080 Uh, and, and, and so it is. And as we go forward at the legal profession itself,

00:22:42.760 there aren't, uh, there aren't many lawyers. And I know by the way, of, uh, a number of examples of

00:22:49.720 this from what I've been told by, uh, friends sources and others that, uh, the legal profession

00:22:56.920 right now is scared to death to have anything to do with Donald Trump and that it's one of the

00:23:01.000 impediments that he has in hiring first class, uh, legal talent. Uh, major firms will not only not

00:23:09.560 represent him, uh, and many of those containing the best talent, arguably in the country, they will

00:23:16.600 not only represent him, but they will also not tolerate any of their attorneys in any way being

00:23:23.640 connected to him, uh, and shun them and expunge them. Yes. And, and Lou, I'll, I'll give you a

00:23:30.840 little story to encapsulate that and how much things have gotten worse since this time period.

00:23:35.880 So in, in 2000, I was, uh, an associate, uh, I think of, you know, fourth going on fifth year associate,

00:23:43.480 uh, you know, big law firm. And, uh, you know, an email went out from one of the partners in Chicago,

00:23:50.040 who was closely tied to Democrat politics, especially with, uh, you know, uh, the daily

00:23:55.720 family. And he said, uh, you know, there's an election controversy brewing in Florida, uh,

00:24:01.720 and, uh, I'm going to assemble a team of lawyers who would like to take a brief leave of absence

00:24:06.200 with me to go down and, uh, you know, fight for, uh, Al Gore. And, uh, you know, then of course,

00:24:12.920 people could respond to him within minutes. There was, uh, you know, an email competing email from,

00:24:18.680 uh, one of my partners who became the head of Bush 43, uh, domestic policy council, uh, saying,

00:24:25.800 well, I'm going to assemble a team for, uh, for Republicans, and we're going to go down to Florida

00:24:30.280 on the same terms. Right. And, you know, I, I signed up for that effort. I, I, uh, worked on some

00:24:36.840 briefs in the Florida Supreme court. I'd become familiar with that, uh, entity because of a big appeal

00:24:41.960 I'd had for, uh, for DuPont, uh, that went to the Florida Supreme court. Um, and so, you know,

00:24:47.800 that that's an era that I have a lot more fondness for as I look back because it shows,

00:24:53.800 you know, the, the profession in action, right. It's ready and willing to sort of provide help

00:24:59.640 to either side. It's not, you know, as a firm sort of locked in ideologically to one side or another.

00:25:05.160 Right. And I think it's very important, uh, and, and very depressing, uh, to see how law firms have

00:25:11.480 changed the major law firms, what's called big law these days, um, that, you know, they would, uh,

00:25:16.920 not provide president Trump representation because, you know, these kinds of issues of

00:25:21.320 whether president Biden can, uh, wave the executive privilege of, of a prior president.

00:25:26.440 I mean, just think what it would have happened if president Trump had come into office in 2017

00:25:31.400 and said, Oh, by the way, I'm, uh, waving all of the executive privilege, uh, over fast and furious.

00:25:38.200 And I'm going to look into exactly what documents show, what, uh, Eric Holder as attorney general told,

00:25:43.800 uh, you know, president Obama. I mean, there would have been outrage howls from here across,

00:25:49.400 you know, the entire universe, but if it happens to Trump, well, somehow, you know, it's, it's, uh,

00:25:55.480 in the category of, um, you know, it it's Trump. Anything is permissible.

00:25:59.560 Anything is permissible. And, uh, they, they have proved it day in and day out over the course of

00:26:07.080 six years from July of 2016, as, uh, the foundation of what was to become crossfire hurricane, uh,

00:26:16.600 began, uh, and the Russian hoax, the Russian collusion hoax, uh, was perpetrated, uh, direct from the DNC

00:26:25.560 and the Hillary Clinton campaign. Uh, and then, uh, with the, the, the complicity of the FBI

00:26:34.760 and the Department of Justice, uh, the hunt was on, uh, for Donald Trump, uh, his presidency, uh, and, uh,

00:26:44.440 the man himself. It has been outrageous. There's been protests, not a one from the establishment in any

00:26:51.880 form that I'm aware of. And here we are, the man still being hounded, harangued and politically

00:26:59.240 persecuted. He's been stripped of attorney client privilege. He's been stripped of executive

00:27:04.840 privilege to go to your, uh, if you will, your Trinity. Uh, and the fourth amendment doesn't apply

00:27:12.520 to him at all. We're looking at pictures that obviously, uh, originate with the FBI of classified

00:27:19.400 documents on the carpet, which were strewn there. Uh, uh, the president says quite clearly and

00:27:25.720 straightforwardly by the agents who sought to seize those documents, uh, and to search his, his offices

00:27:34.520 and beyond, uh, his wife's closet for crying out loud, uh, the idea of a general warrant. Uh,

00:27:42.360 obviously there wasn't any specificity in this one. And now we're learning that there's a very strong

00:27:48.360 signal from the justice department, by the way, that I want to ask you about. And that is apparently

00:27:54.280 he moved some, uh, some, some unnamed, uh, highly classified documents, uh, but they don't use the

00:28:02.360 word nuclear and they have no other descriptions for it, but they moved it giving this distinct

00:28:07.480 impression, at least to me by inference that they knew what they wanted. They were afraid to say it

00:28:13.640 and still are today. And they're looking for those very specific documents that they now allege.

00:28:19.720 He moved, he, the president, he, the former president, uh, Donald Trump. And he is now, uh,

00:28:28.680 being, uh, it's insinuated. Uh, he's about to be accused of obstruction of justice of a probe that

00:28:36.200 didn't exist for documents they didn't recognize or identify in a general warrant. I hate, I apologize

00:28:43.960 for the length of that construction, but there it is. No, I, I, I get it, Lou. I, I, let me make two

00:28:49.640 observations. One, I've read the filing from, uh, DOJ, uh, that just came in, um, that, uh,

00:28:57.560 apparently president Trump's lawyers are going to respond to tonight. So I'll be interested to read that

00:29:01.620 when it comes out, but, uh, they, they really stress over and over again, this, you know, term

00:29:08.020 that, uh, there are documents that were marked as classified. Um, and then they sometimes lapse

00:29:14.900 or interchangeably lapse into classified documents. And I think that's, uh, kind of a sleight of hand

00:29:20.740 because, you know, the, the, uh, position that the president has taken, um, in terms of his public

00:29:27.140 pronouncements on this is that he declassified the documents and then other people, you know, with,

00:29:32.260 uh, knowledge around his process on that before he left office, like cash Patel, uh, my colleague

00:29:38.900 here at the center for renewing America, you know, has indicated that, uh, yes, he, he declassified these

00:29:44.180 materials. So, you know, the, the, I've seen some speculation on the, on the web of, well, oh,

00:29:50.500 they laid a trap because they subpoenaed documents that were marked as classified. And then there was a

00:29:56.660 certification that, uh, you know, all of the documents called for in the subpoena had been

00:30:01.220 turned over. Uh, so that they're, you know, they're trying to, to, to say that, well, even if there

00:30:06.660 was a document that had, uh, classified markings on it, if it were declassified, it should be turned

00:30:11.700 over anticipating the weakness in that argument. They lay a lot of stress on the fact of how, uh,

00:30:19.060 the documents that were turned over to the archives after a dispute arose under the presidential

00:30:24.100 records act, how they were put together. And, and literally Lou, I'm not making this up.

00:30:28.660 They say that the documents that were turned over were placed into a single red weld folder

00:30:34.020 that was sort of, you know, like double sealed with, with tape or with some other kind of mechanism.

00:30:40.180 So they say, ah, well, that's a, a consciousness that the documents were classified because they were

00:30:45.780 handed over in that fashion. I mean, you know, Lou, I've taken things to the post office or to FedEx,

00:30:52.100 uh, or I've had things, you know, uh, that were not, uh, super confidential, just a collection,

00:30:58.180 maybe a public documents messengered over to other law firms in DC or to other cities. Right. And of

00:31:03.620 course you seal things up. It doesn't mean that you think that there's, there is national security

00:31:08.820 information or classified information in there. I, I, that point really kind of, you know, uh, made me

00:31:15.060 almost laugh out loud. Um, the, the, uh, the thing I'll say generally is this, right? You know, you,

00:31:21.540 you've heard for years, uh, that, you know, there are, uh, baseline crimes, right? And then there,

00:31:27.540 if they can't get you on a baseline crime, if you become a target, they're going to look for whether

00:31:31.940 they can get you on a process crime. So the baseline crime might be, I don't know, government

00:31:35.540 official takes a bribe. The, uh, the, the process crime would be, all right, when you were interviewed by

00:31:41.460 the FBI, did you lie about that? Right. So then it becomes a perjury issue. We're now down at the

00:31:47.380 tertiary level of a potential document offense, right? And even that appears weak based on what

00:31:54.420 I've seen so far. So now we're down into the quaternary, right? We're down into the level of,

00:32:00.420 is there a process crime about the document offense? Um, so it's just, it gets increasingly

00:32:06.740 far afield from anything that really should be, uh, even high priority in terms of enforcement

00:32:13.220 resources as to a former president of the United States. Right. And petty beyond petty and insignificant,

00:32:20.500 because at the end of the day, the president does have the recognized right to make a decision

00:32:29.140 on classification or declassification. And certainly with documents that are in his possession,

00:32:34.740 who is to have, uh, uh, constitutional authority beyond that of the president of the United States.

00:32:41.620 I can't, I think it says the Supreme Court recognized in this case involving the Department

00:32:46.580 of Navy, uh, uh, versus Egan. Um, the president has commander in chief power, which is the source

00:32:54.900 really of an independent font of authority to declassify documents. Um, and you know, there,

00:33:01.860 there's also right that the statute that's most applicable, uh, and on all fours that's on the

00:33:08.020 field is the presidential records act, which is a civil enactment. So then you have to start asking

00:33:13.620 yourself, well, why are other statutes like the espionage act and obstruction of justice,

00:33:19.700 et cetera, being brought in? They're really trying to create a statute that does not exist

00:33:24.340 in the annals of the United States code. Lou, they're trying to create a, uh, uh, you know,

00:33:31.460 an evil, uh, amalgam, uh, or Frankenstein monster out of multiple statutes that they're kind of wiring

00:33:37.460 in artificially to the presidential records act. And that's just not the way it works. Um, you know,

00:33:43.540 as, as some, uh, good legal observers in the Wall Street Journal, uh, have noted, you know,

00:33:48.900 the, there's a longstanding legal principle of the specific controls, the general, and the specific

00:33:54.100 statute here is the presidential records act. And if the archives wants to fight with the president

00:33:59.380 about what are his personal records, what records have been declassified or not declassified and

00:34:04.820 turning them over, you know, that can be pursued, uh, civilly. And, and usually if you're talking about

00:34:10.980 dealing with a former president United States via a process of negotiation, and indeed, as you know,

00:34:16.260 they visited Mar-a-Lago for that purpose in the past, um, you know, it's not the kind of thing that,

00:34:21.620 that it seems like Congress has remotely authorized, uh, for this, you know, kind of

00:34:27.140 a jury rigged multi-statute criminal approach that they've settled on. And, and again, the FBI and DOJ

00:34:35.700 are so desperate in this that there must be something here at bedrock that really is scaring

00:34:43.540 the hell out of Merrick Garland, the attorney general. Otherwise, this would not be playing

00:34:51.060 out as it is. And to that degree, I want to ask you, we received word today that Merrick Garland

00:34:57.540 has decided that, in point of fact, the Department of Justice and FBI may not talk to Congress without

00:35:07.460 his specific authority. Uh, in other words, all of those whistleblowers, we believe to be 20

00:35:14.340 something of them that have talked to Congressman Jim Jordan, uh, Senator Ron Johnson, Senator Chuck

00:35:21.860 Grassley. Uh, and as it resulted at least in the short term in the dismissal of at least one FBI agent

00:35:28.980 who sat on the, the, uh, Hunter Biden laptop and, uh, and dissuaded others from, uh, uh, uh, investigating,

00:35:36.660 uh, and worse, as far as I'm concerned, uh, this is beyond both belief and contempt, uh, as far as I'm

00:35:46.020 concerned, your thoughts. So, you know, there is a historic, uh, policy about, you know, uh, trying to,

00:35:53.540 to have kind of, uh, uh, contacts discipline as it were with, with Congress. But what I found, uh,

00:36:00.180 strange about it was the timing, right? That after all these whistleblowers emerge and Senator Grassley

00:36:06.660 is sending letters to the inspector general, uh, about, uh, you know, folks like this Timothy, uh,

00:36:12.260 Tebow, um, you know, uh, this FBI, uh, uh, you know, high management official oddly has the same name

00:36:19.420 in terms of the pronunciation, not in terms of the spelling as the, uh, football player. Uh, but,

00:36:25.180 um, you know, the, the, uh, that it, that this memo comes out right on the heels of that. It seems,

00:36:30.700 uh, intended to send a certain signal, but it does at the end of it, Lou have provisos about

00:36:35.980 the whistleblowing statutes and, and say that those should be, uh, you know, those still apply.

00:36:42.360 And of course, you know, no guidance document issued by the attorney general, which isn't even a

00:36:47.040 regulation. Um, you know, it's just advisory essentially can, uh, it can be, you know,

00:36:52.480 for internal management purposes, but you can't override a statute. So the, the memo has to,

00:36:58.360 and does recognize that the whistleblower statutes apply. I think it's designed to send a message

00:37:03.860 at a kind of, uh, uh, below the waterline level as it were. I think below the waterline might be also

00:37:11.460 described as, uh, there will be an effort to, uh, torpedo anyone's career who dares, uh, to be a

00:37:18.580 whistleblower, irrespective of recognizing, uh, those safeguards for, uh, for agents, employees,

00:37:25.300 staff of the department of justice and FBI who have something to say about, as they have been doing,

00:37:31.100 obviously about the integrity of, uh, the department of the, and the agency. Do you not agree?

00:37:38.220 Well, I think certainly if you were someone who had, uh, whistleblower level information, you,

00:37:44.740 you would, uh, rightly worry about that because while the statutes are supposed to protect you

00:37:49.480 against adverse employment, uh, decisions, right. Uh, there's still, you know, so much discretion in

00:37:56.200 the process of how people get promoted, how they get bonuses and the like, their reputations in dealing

00:38:01.440 with their coworkers. And so, yeah, I mean, it's a, it's a, uh, it's a hard thing for someone who has

00:38:07.840 evidence that either the FBI or the department are being politicized in an improper way to come

00:38:13.620 forward. Um, you know, in, in that kind of climate, because, you know, they realize that even though

00:38:19.020 they have, uh, some legal protections and even though they have, you know, the whistleblower, uh,

00:38:24.200 defender of whistleblower, whistleblower defenders and Senator Grassley, you know, still on net,

00:38:29.400 it may not turn out well for them. So there, you have to be courageous if you're going to do

00:38:33.100 something like that. Absolutely. And there is no, at least as far as I can see, without

00:38:39.940 a Republican and significant Republican victory in November, there is no significant political

00:38:48.840 force that would be countervailing to the awesome abuse of power that's been already demonstrated

00:38:54.820 that a matter of history on the part of this administration. Uh, the FBI is a tool, uh, is

00:39:02.260 nothing more than a tool in my judgment, uh, of the, of the Democrat, the Marxist Democrat

00:39:08.180 party. Uh, it's going to be a very tough go here. Uh, as far as I'm concerned, because

00:39:16.520 there has to be some refuge for these whistleblowers and it won't be found in this, uh, corrupt,

00:39:23.400 outright corrupt, uh, FBI and department of justice. May I turn to something here in that

00:39:29.220 regard? I'd like to get a sense. I'd like you to share your sense with this audience of what the

00:39:34.260 DOJ has become the FBI. And then I want to talk about attorney general bar, uh, after you, uh,

00:39:42.400 after your considerations of, of that question. So, uh, Lou, you know, I spent a total of, uh,

00:39:49.780 maybe close to seven years, uh, of my career at the justice department. Um, you know, I'd either spent it

00:39:56.260 at, uh, the law firm of Kirkland and Alice in Washington, DC, uh, or at, uh, the justice department

00:40:03.420 really until the end of the Trump administration. Um, just moving back and forth from, you know,

00:40:08.640 the Bush 43 administration when I started, uh, to, uh, you know, two plus years in the, in the Trump

00:40:15.740 administration. And there are a lot, you know, I know this has become, uh, you know, trite sometimes

00:40:22.320 to say there are a lot of very good, uh, people who work there. I mean, overwhelmingly, I want there

00:40:27.700 to be. Yes. And it overwhelmingly, you can certainly sense, uh, on the other side of the equation that,

00:40:35.620 you know, the vast majority of career officials are, uh, you know, Democrats, they vote Democrat,

00:40:42.160 they think Democrat, you present, uh, legal theories to them that are essentially drawn from,

00:40:47.340 you know, the jurisprudence of justice Scalia or justice Thomas, justice Alito, et cetera.

00:40:53.120 I won't list them all out, but you know, they, they just don't see those kinds of points

00:40:57.620 as legally intuitive and, you know, they resist them. Um, but you know, the, most of them will do

00:41:04.180 that in good faith. And when you've made a decision, if you're their superior to go in a

00:41:08.160 different direction, um, you know, they will, uh, carry that out. Um, I wish there was, you know,

00:41:13.700 more, uh, uh, alacrity and, uh, enthusiasm sometimes about how they carried it out. But,

00:41:19.600 um, you know, generally speaking, they will carry it out. That being said, you know, I've,

00:41:24.260 I've experienced, uh, you know, the seven litigating divisions inside the justice department,

00:41:29.040 um, in, in different cases, and they each have their own kind of culture. The two that are most

00:41:35.080 problematic, one I headed, uh, and, and was a very senior official in, in the Bush 43 administration

00:41:41.160 as well, which is the environment division. The other, uh, I think especially problematic

00:41:45.860 part of the justice department, uh, is, uh, the civil rights division, because basically

00:41:51.500 they hire for, and they attract people who want to pursue what those missions are perceived

00:41:57.280 as. So if you want to make arguments about the logical stopping points of environmental

00:42:01.760 law, because Congress is always balancing, well, what kind of economic damage is this going

00:42:05.900 to do to the national economy? Um, you know, the folks who've been hired really are just,

00:42:11.160 you know, their, their initial inclination is pedal to the metal. I want to enforce the

00:42:15.620 environmental laws to the maximum extent possible and kind of potentially get past those stopping

00:42:20.360 points if I can, even more so in the civil rights division. So, you know, you have people

00:42:25.180 who are essentially woke, uh, you know, and in many cases, social justice warriors who were

00:42:30.460 embedded in that division and they're, uh, they're very zealous. And, um, you know, sometimes

00:42:37.320 they even will, uh, you know, uh, uh, do things that are improper. And, and, uh, there's one

00:42:42.880 case I'm thinking of a guy who's running an election outfit at this point on the left who

00:42:47.120 used to be in the civil rights division of the justice department in, in Bush 43. And he

00:42:52.300 didn't, uh, agree with a particular enforcement case that was brought up. And so he started calling

00:42:56.840 up the other side, uh, to help them with how they could proceed. So he's, he's wearing a

00:43:02.140 government hat, but he's actually proceeding as if he's working for the private sector.

00:43:06.580 So that my impression of the justice department is lots of professionalism overall, but, you

00:43:13.160 know, if you could pull every, uh, lawyer there and, and other significant policymaker, you'd

00:43:18.800 find they're mostly Democrats. Um, which is one reason why president Trump proposed this,

00:43:23.980 uh, civil service reform of schedule F, uh, that if there are officials who are wielding

00:43:29.400 significant policymaking power, they could be removed. Whereas at the moment they have

00:43:33.960 all of these elaborate civil service protections. It could take years, uh, to, uh, to get people

00:43:39.180 in who will actually, uh, follow, uh, you know, lawful orders and, and direction and legal policy

00:43:45.400 change direction. Um, you know, but there are some people who are particularly difficult to

00:43:50.420 work with and they view sort of the result that they want to get to as what they're going

00:43:56.380 to try to get to or defend with their teeth, even if there's different political leadership

00:44:01.500 at the department. Yeah. I, I have to say I have, I have not always discriminated, distinguished,

00:44:09.720 uh, between the top leadership of the department of justice and FBI and the rank and file, because

00:44:19.160 until Chuck Grassley made it known that these whistleblowers had stepped forward, there had not

00:44:25.020 been a single person, single employee of DOJ or the FBI stepped forward to say, my God, these people

00:44:31.900 are trampling the rights of hundreds, if not thousands of people every day. And finally, we've had a,

00:44:41.740 a couple of dozen show up to say it's wrong. It's, there is an absolute political corruption in our

00:44:50.660 leadership and it has to be stopped. But only after six years of political persecution of a president,

00:44:59.940 baseless charges, baseless investigations, baseless, false, fake news, if you will, uh, the Russian hoax,

00:45:09.720 uh, the impeachments, the list goes on. And no wonder so many people in this country, uh, despair of,

00:45:17.460 of justice. Uh, they know that if they're Republican or independent, uh, if they're conservative,

00:45:24.120 you know, they might as well, uh, just put a, uh, a badge on themselves as a second or third class

00:45:31.500 citizen, because this justice department won't recognize their rights and will indeed be intent

00:45:36.980 on trampling them. Uh, do you, am I too far afield, do you think? You know, where are the honorable,

00:45:44.800 uh, agents who would resign rather than, you know, carry out these kinds of, uh, searches and

00:45:51.180 intimidation tactics? Right. And I actually think you don't want them to, uh, resign because, you

00:45:57.660 know, that just feeds the problem, right? Then they could be replaced. Yeah. By the way, let me be very

00:46:02.320 clear. I'm not talking about resigning. I'm not one of those guys that, uh, believes in fall on your

00:46:07.360 sort. Uh, I believe on taking down the wrongdoers and to make certain that justice is, is in point

00:46:16.020 of fact, uh, upheld rather than trampled. Agreed. And that's what I was going to say is the punchline,

00:46:21.820 which is, no, we want them, uh, if they have the sufficient courage to be whistleblowers and,

00:46:27.300 and it's encouraging that that's, you know, been happening with, uh, Senator Grassley and then,

00:46:32.340 uh, some in the house as well. Um, and, uh, you know, if, if there are folks who, you know,

00:46:39.320 make the personal calculus of they, they don't think they can do that to themselves and their

00:46:44.180 family, then I think, you know, we want them to, to hunker down and wait hopefully until,

00:46:49.860 you know, the Democrat process, democratic process works. I mean, the Democrat party

00:46:54.140 talks constantly about efforts and apparently we're going to hear something about this, uh,

00:46:58.900 tomorrow from president Biden in my hometown of Philadelphia, uh, no less, um, you know,

00:47:04.360 that, that there's a war on democracy, et cetera. But to my mind, the war on democracy runs in the

00:47:09.700 opposite direction. It's, it's, you know, their party that wants to resist the wave. It looks like

00:47:15.380 it's coming in November. It's, it's their party that did not want to, uh, to, to work for president

00:47:22.180 Trump the way, you know, members of a, of a good, a political civil service bureaucracy should.

00:47:27.340 But I'll, I'll tell you a quick story about a colleague in another, uh, agency, um, you know,

00:47:32.580 that, that, uh, she was, uh, called out to a social event by someone who was a career official

00:47:38.180 working for them. Person showed up, uh, took them to a very inappropriate, uh, the Trump appointee to

00:47:44.080 a very inappropriate place, especially as a mother of young children, uh, and then wore a shirt that

00:47:50.000 proudly said, uh, resistance. So the message was being sent in multiple ways of, you know,

00:47:56.480 we don't want you here. And basically, you know, I'm going to do everything possible to

00:48:00.420 kind of undermine, uh, your management because we think that president Trump is evil. And of

00:48:06.980 course, as you know, Lou, because of the Russia hoax, many of them thought that president Trump,

00:48:11.420 you know, wrongfully thought it, you know, was, uh, you know, some kind of Russian asset,

00:48:15.660 uh, you know, based on this totally cooked up, uh, uh, steel dossier that is really just,

00:48:22.100 you know, was a complete piece of trash from the start.

00:48:25.520 Hey, let me ask you this because that's an interesting, that's a, it's a fascinating story.

00:48:30.840 And it, and it makes your blood boil. Uh, and you would kind of like to meet the fellow who,

00:48:36.980 uh, did that, uh, to discuss things, but is, is there an absence of understanding about

00:48:45.660 the American way in the justice department? The simple thing? I think people are innocent

00:48:51.600 until proved guilty. How could they believe nonsense on its face? This is the most, uh,

00:49:00.480 the most outrageous and I think unbelievable story in the world. When you started talking,

00:49:05.760 you know, when we started talking about alpha bank and all of the nonsense, I don't think anyone

00:49:09.800 with any common sense whatsoever, or would have said, Oh my God, we've got a Russian asset in the

00:49:16.560 white house. I mean, this is, it's, this is delirium. Right. And you're saying that the justice

00:49:23.220 department attorneys and investigators and the people who are working there for the, for the good of the

00:49:28.940 country, presumably to begin with, at least fall for that kind of nonsense. Well, Lou, I think,

00:49:36.020 you know, you have to go back earlier upstream, right. And how, uh, folks are formed. So at this

00:49:41.380 point in the mainstream media, right. Or, and, and in so-called elite opinion, like the, uh, New York

00:49:47.520 times and the Washington post, uh, et cetera, right. There's, there's really a, a monopoly, uh, monopoly

00:49:53.520 and they push these, uh, narratives. I mean, they started a whole narrative against me that, you know,

00:49:58.700 was portraying me as kind of, uh, you know, some kind of empire builder, you know, maneuver or something

00:50:04.040 like that, which is not me. I think to anyone who, who's practiced law with me over the last 25 years

00:50:09.440 knows that that's not me, but you know, they can paint these narratives. So you get the media,

00:50:14.580 right. And there's a steady stream of that pouring into people's minds. Then you have, you know, the

00:50:19.300 fact that the educational establishment, even going, uh, now down to the elementary school level has been

00:50:26.060 taken over. Um, and you know, that the academy from, uh, college up to law school, they've also

00:50:33.720 been co-opted. Uh, I had a law professor actually, interestingly enough, Lou, he, uh, had enough of

00:50:40.640 a good opinion of my mind that he recommended me to a very conservative judge who I clerked for on the

00:50:46.580 sixth circuit, uh, chief judge Boggs. But, you know, he was one of the founders of Marxism come to the

00:50:53.420 law, this area of law called critical legal studies, which is closely related, uh, and, and to which

00:50:59.160 critical, uh, race studies is an outgrowth. And he was asked at one point, you know, you can't

00:51:05.100 seriously be teaching your students, uh, you know, these Marxist legal perspectives and expect them to

00:51:10.520 become Marxists. And the, and the answer that he gave was, no, I'm more realistic than that. I just

00:51:16.720 expect to create more Democrat voters. Wow. That is, that's quite something. Uh, it,

00:51:23.420 the indoctrination across all aspects of our society, whether it's public education, whether

00:51:29.820 it's law schools, whether it's universities, uh, K through 12, the indoctrination, CRT, IED,

00:51:37.180 uh, the, the list ESG, all of this nonsense rolls out. And what is fascinating to me, and it must

00:51:45.100 have been a shocking to you in law, but shocking to me is to watch the number of CEOs and companies,

00:51:51.460 uh, and their, uh, and their, uh, their human resources departments, their HR departments,

00:51:56.680 that they have become, uh, you know, versions, uh, within the HR departments have become sort

00:52:03.180 of an SS, uh, to the fascists who were running, uh, these, uh, uh, these companies, left wing

00:52:09.380 fascists, if you will, uh, Marxists, if you will. Uh, and we've watched a complete flip here

00:52:17.400 in the last 20 years in corporate America. They are siding with the Marxist Dems and supporting

00:52:25.200 them, driving them, indoctrinating their employees and insisting on an outcome, uh, that is anti-American,

00:52:34.460 anti-constitution, uh, and globalists in every way more aligned throughout the Trump administration.

00:52:44.680 And I talked about this every, almost every day in those days, that corporate American

00:52:49.280 Wall Street are more aligned with the CCP than they are with the Trump administration for four

00:52:53.680 years. Yes. And it's really true. Yes. Uh, so Lou, you're, you're right. There, there may be,

00:53:01.680 uh, there's an excellent essay by Richard Hananiya that it's possible you have seen about how the

00:53:08.280 civil rights laws and the civil rights part of the justice department, which I identified for you as

00:53:13.640 particularly problematic, um, essentially kind of, they molded, um, you know, in their own image,

00:53:21.580 the HR departments. And that was kind of, you know, a major change for corporate America. They're

00:53:27.120 really deeply embedded in the culture at this point. Um, and, you know, it's very difficult to,

00:53:33.300 to root that out, even when there are big scale changes in the Supreme court, you know, uh, trending

00:53:38.920 against things like affirmative action and quotas and the like, um, and, you know, these diversity

00:53:44.860 policies, um, and that, you know, a restoration of the idea that people should be treated in a colorblind

00:53:50.580 way because, you know, so many folks who've been trained in a totally different approach have been

00:53:55.840 embedded inside corporate America and that's the culture of their HR departments. And then in terms

00:54:01.140 of the, of the corporations, right, there are people who grow up inside, uh, in that, and then

00:54:06.740 they get kind of cross promoted into other areas. So you see how that kind of carries the, uh, you know,

00:54:13.460 to my mind, fake equity, uh, uh, bacillus or, or infection. But, um, you know, I also think it's

00:54:22.120 coming externally. It's coming from the financial markets, right? So these things like the great

00:54:27.360 reset that are coming to us from the world economic forum, they are, you know, tied into

00:54:32.960 the large investment banks. And then the large investment banks have a lot of influence over

00:54:38.260 law firms in America because they have, uh, you know, lots of very high paying transactional work

00:54:44.100 that they can dole out or keep to themselves or send to other law firms that are willing to play

00:54:48.640 ball with all the ESG stuff. And same thing with, uh, with the corporations themselves. And, you know,

00:54:55.540 at a macro level, what's happening to the corporations in terms of their interactions

00:54:59.800 and competition for capital, uh, you know, with entities like, uh, you know, involving entities

00:55:05.440 like BlackRock is the same thing we're seeing with, uh, you know, Australia where it's like, well,

00:55:11.620 or New Zealand, I forget which of, you won't be able to get financing for any cars other than

00:55:17.300 electric cars. Right. So, you know, that, that, that one financial tweak will start, you know,

00:55:23.560 getting all kinds of people, uh, jumping to the tune that they're calling.

00:55:28.000 But I, I want to turn to your case and wrap up with the, uh, one of your opinions, if I may, but

00:55:35.180 your case, tell us that things are going well, uh, that their resolution is at hand or not.

00:55:42.740 Well, I wish Lou, that I could, uh, give you a, uh, happy story there, but no, the struggle

00:55:49.080 continues. Uh, the January 6th committee is, uh, still in session as it were. I think, wasn't there

00:55:54.480 a Will Rogers quotation about every man's Liberty is in jeopardy when the legislature's in session.

00:56:00.460 Um, so, you know, and for that committee, it's certainly true. Uh, I think they're going to return

00:56:05.320 to hearings in September or so they've said or signaled. Um, and I wouldn't count them out until,

00:56:11.400 you know, the day before the new Congress is sworn in, even if the midterms, uh, turn out well.

00:56:17.660 So that's one front, right? They've raided my house and, and still have my electronic devices. So,

00:56:23.560 uh, you know, who knows how that process will, will wind up. Um, and then, uh, you know,

00:56:29.160 there were bar charges filed against me and, you know, I think very deliberate efforts to, uh,

00:56:35.180 get that out in the, in the press right before, uh, there was a prime time, uh, the last prime time

00:56:43.040 hearing, uh, that was held in, uh, uh, July of the, um, January 6th committee. So it all seems like

00:56:50.600 it's wired in together. It's, uh, very costly both in terms of time and stress and, uh, and money.

00:56:58.560 Um, and I'll contrast that for, you know, uh, with you, uh, for something, right? This, this Tim

00:57:04.000 Tebow guy at the FBI, who's just, uh, left slash retired magically, uh, he was referred by the IG for,

00:57:12.240 uh, Hatch Act violations investigation, um, to the, uh, office of the special counsel, which is a

00:57:18.440 different separate agency. Um, and he just immediately had pro bono representation by one of

00:57:24.440 America's, uh, you know, significant law firms, Morrison and Forster, uh, you know, Lou, I'll tell

00:57:30.100 you, no major law firms knocked on my door to represent me against these scurrilous charges,

00:57:35.000 uh, after they were, uh, launched, you know, starting really back in with New York times,

00:57:40.700 anonymous leaks in January of, of 2021. So I'm shouldering, uh, you know, this burden, uh, much

00:57:47.720 more personally.

00:57:48.320 Well, I, I, I, I'm sorry to hear that. And I am, I think most of America is gut sick at

00:57:57.420 what we're witnessing. Uh, this, this is, uh, as we suggested at the outset, far more than

00:58:04.600 McCarthyism at work, uh, across the, across, uh, our society. Uh, this is a, an, uh, an attack

00:58:12.200 on the, on the constitutional Republic. Uh, the January 6th committee is in, is itself

00:58:19.420 McCarthyism, uh, and, uh, outrageous. Uh, and I want to turn to a man who said it's the, the

00:58:27.080 right pandering to outrage, which is sort of an interesting statement since outrage is the

00:58:32.140 natural, uh, reaction to, uh, affronts against, uh, decency and civility and our constitution,

00:58:40.080 which is what this party has been doing. I, I'd like to conclude here with your thoughts

00:58:45.880 about Bill Barr. Uh, I believe that he may in fact be the man leading the cover up of all

00:58:53.800 of the iniquity at the Department of Justice and FBI, not merely complicit. Uh, he's had

00:58:59.980 too large a role in too many parts, whether it be bringing down a curtain of silence on the

00:59:05.120 reporting of the New York Post, uh, in, uh, October of 2020, that he has, uh, refused to

00:59:13.600 intervene in an election when he knew that vice, former vice president Joe Biden was lying through

00:59:19.760 his teeth in the second and final presidential debate of 2020, when he said that it was Russian

00:59:25.160 disinformation, his son's laptop, and he knew full well that that laptop contained, uh, damaging and,

00:59:33.360 uh, incriminating evidence against him, uh, his son, and indeed his family. Uh, your thoughts about

00:59:40.800 uh, William Barr. Well, first I'll, I'll start with a comment recently that I think is generating

00:59:48.480 your question about, uh, you know, the, it, it being, uh, you know, pandering to be criticizing,

00:59:55.360 uh, you know, the DOJ and FBI over some recent events like the Mar-a-Lago raid. Uh, you know,

01:00:02.220 I, I think that given the, that the whistleblowers have come forward to Senator Grassley and, and

01:00:08.340 seeing what he has written as a result of that and the press releases he's issued, you know,

01:00:13.160 I think if you're talking especially about the topic of whistleblowing, but I think even broader

01:00:17.400 than that, you know, he is a, uh, salt of the earth, uh, you know, Senator from, uh, you know,

01:00:24.020 the heartland of America who is incredibly trustworthy. And, uh, I don't think that the, uh, agents and

01:00:31.220 others who might've come forward to be whistleblowers to him are telling tall tales. Um,

01:00:36.060 we're gonna have to wait and see obviously, but I, but I trust what he says about that, uh,

01:00:41.300 implicitly at this point, barring being, uh, disproven. And I, I kind of suspect it's not

01:00:46.740 going to be disproven on your larger question about former attorney general bar, you know,

01:00:52.020 I'll, I'll just answer in this way by noting, uh, two particular anecdotes for you that you might've

01:00:57.440 reported on. Um, but if not, you know, I'll, I'll, I'll give them to you, uh, for your future

01:01:02.900 ruminations, which is, you know, one that, uh, last year, the U S attorney in Philadelphia,

01:01:09.320 former Trump U S attorney in Philadelphia, William McSwain came forward and said, look,

01:01:14.080 he had a significant election, uh, fraud, irregularity case. He went to bar and, uh, asked

01:01:20.500 to, to look at it and also to have a press conference about it. Um, and if you're from Philadelphia,

01:01:25.660 like I am, you, you know, what president Trump said, I think in the first presidential debate

01:01:30.020 that in the election sphere, nothing good comes out of, uh, Philadelphia. I have personal experiences

01:01:36.360 that my mom would tell me about. I also know about the so-called, uh, La Nueva, uh, forma

01:01:42.540 Devotar scandal in Philadelphia that, um, happened in the nineties. So there's just, there's a long

01:01:49.220 history of election problems in Philadelphia. Let's put it that way. And what, uh, McSwain

01:01:55.220 said was that he was told by attorney general bar not to investigate, um, not to have a press

01:02:01.200 conference and to turn over any information to the Democrat AG in Pennsylvania, who had already

01:02:06.720 pre-announced that president Trump was going to lose the presidential election. The second

01:02:12.520 vignette in that regard is that recently the, uh, white house liaison at the end of the Trump

01:02:18.540 administration, Heidi, a woman named Heidi stirrup, uh, testified in a sworn testimony that she got

01:02:25.080 a meeting with, uh, former attorney general bar and his chief of staff, and that she was told

01:02:30.360 basically that, you know, there were not going to be significant efforts to investigate the election

01:02:35.980 because, uh, you know, a criminal investigations take a long time and be, uh, you know, it's for the

01:02:44.320 states to do, or perhaps, you know, since it's of a piece, uh, another point that might've been

01:02:49.180 relayed, although I don't remember this point from her declaration, uh, you know, is that it's for the

01:02:54.420 Trump campaign to, to carry that forward. And, you know, I think in, in both instances,

01:02:59.280 you know, if, if those stories happened as, you know, the tellers, uh, told them or in one instance

01:03:05.520 swore to them, Lou, you know, I, I just, I, I don't understand to my mind, if you have, you're having

01:03:11.660 an election for the highest office under the constitution of the United States, it is an uber

01:03:16.460 federal responsibility to make sure that any election, uh, to that office is as squeaky clean

01:03:22.420 and is in compliance with the constitution and the laws of the United States and of the governing

01:03:27.000 states set by the state legislatures pursuant to the constitution as possible.

01:03:33.620 And to that end, I believe that there is an entire, uh, uh, organization within the justice

01:03:39.560 department devoted to the integrity of elections and the right to vote. Uh, but apparently not

01:03:45.900 in 2020, uh, I, we always give our guests, uh, Jeffrey, the, the concluding, uh, concluding

01:03:54.060 thoughts, the last word on the, on the podcast. Uh, and if you will, your concluding thoughts

01:03:59.440 as we wrap up here and our, and our great thanks for giving us your time and your perspective

01:04:04.780 and, and illuminating thoughts.

01:04:08.000 Thank you very much, Lou. I just close with this. And from what I've seen about, uh, uh,

01:04:13.900 agent Tebow or manager at the FBI Tebow, he, uh, was also involved in working closely with Richard,

01:04:21.980 uh, you know, Pilger or Pilger at the justice department who resigned in protest, uh, over

01:04:28.860 the 2020 election because he didn't want to look at it until after it was over. So it's interesting

01:04:33.900 that that, uh, official, um, you know, in the public integrity section at the justice department

01:04:39.560 and Tebow were tied together. I think we're going to learn more about that in time. So I'll

01:04:44.320 leave your audience with that teaser. And then lastly, Lou, let me say it's been an honor. You are

01:04:49.640 a broadcasting legend and I grew up in big chunks of my life watching you. And so I'm honored to have

01:04:55.860 been on your program. Well, thank you for those kind words. And, uh, Jeffrey, we appreciate you,

01:05:01.880 everything you're doing for this nation. Uh, we wish you Godspeed and God, uh, God protect, uh, as you

01:05:08.940 proceed with, uh, January 6th. Uh, and it's a shame that you have to go through this, uh, a great public

01:05:17.540 servant, uh, and the nation has to, uh, abide it. Uh, we don't have to abide it and it's time to fix

01:05:24.760 it. Uh, it is much, in my opinion, past time. Thank you so much. Thank you. We appreciate it.

01:05:31.880 Thanks everybody for joining us today. We're fortunate to have public servants like Jeffrey

01:05:37.080 Clark working for the nation and standing up for law and order in the face of the Marxist left

01:05:43.440 who are trying to tear up our constitution and all our government once stood for. Here tomorrow,

01:05:50.140 our guest will be one of the country's foremost investigative journalists, Paul Sperry. He's

01:05:55.560 also a reporter for Real Clear Investigations and media fellow at Stanford University's Hoover

01:06:01.300 Institution. Please join us here tomorrow. Till then, God bless you and may God bless America.

The Great America Show - September 07, 2022

THE FBI’S RAID ON MAR-A-LAGO WAS AN ASSAULT ON THE PRESIDENCY ITSELF, SAYS JEFFREY CLARK

Episode Stats

Length

Words per Minute

Word Count

Sentence Count

Misogynist Sentences

Hate Speech Sentences

Summary

Transcript