The Great America Show - THE J6 COMMITTEE IS TRYING TO INFLUENCE THE OUTCOME OF THE MIDTERMS THROUGH THE DISSEMINATION OF DISINFORMATION

00:00:00.000 Hello, everybody. I'm Lou Dobbs, and welcome to The Great America Show.

00:00:05.100 Delighted you're with us today.

00:00:07.000 And just one day after President Biden assured us ever so emphatically that we're not in recession,

00:00:14.180 we find out today we're in, that's right, we're in recession.

00:00:19.460 That is two consecutive quarters in which the economy has contracted.

00:00:24.100 And that is the conventional definition of recession.

00:00:27.620 Though the White House, of course, denies that reality, as it does most realities.

00:00:34.160 For several days now, the Biden White House has been aggressively arguing that we're not in recession,

00:00:41.320 that we won't be in recession.

00:00:43.880 And not only that, presidential advisors have been trying to persuade the national media

00:00:49.000 that the conventional definition of recession just isn't adequate for the complex times in which we live.

00:00:56.920 Brian Deese is the president's go-to guy on the economy.

00:01:01.900 He's the director of the National Economic Council,

00:01:04.840 and he spends most of his time trying to convince the national media

00:01:08.760 that he knows more about the economy than the economists.

00:01:13.760 For example, last year, Deese was among those insisting that inflation was transitory.

00:01:20.200 He was also the one this year who basically dismissed the pain of American consumers

00:01:25.600 and their families caused by runaway inflation.

00:01:30.460 Deese said this about high prices for food and gas, that, quote,

00:01:35.820 this is about the future of the liberal world order, and we have to stand firm, he said, end quote.

00:01:43.880 The liberal world order must be the alternate reality in which the Biden folks live,

00:01:50.920 not a place most of us would like to even visit.

00:01:54.540 This is the Biden White House, an often confused and lost president, 0.95

00:01:59.880 surrounded by ineptitude and ignorance, 24-7. 0.85

00:02:04.600 By the way, the head of the National Economic Council is not a professional-trained economist.

00:02:10.160 It turns out Brian Deese is just what Washington, D.C., needs more of.

00:02:17.200 Deese is an attorney.

00:02:19.100 That makes about as much sense as anything else in this Biden administration,

00:02:24.060 and I've just got to say it. 0.83

00:02:26.120 This White House is filled with knuckleheads and know-nothings, 0.93

00:02:30.000 and they serve a president who knows less than they do, 0.99

00:02:34.080 a president who is cognitively impaired and is an accident of corruption, 0.80

00:02:39.020 who would never have been president if it weren't for a rigged election.

00:02:44.800 We've learned that there are many elements and people involved in the rigging of the 2020 presidential election.

00:02:51.100 There were those who harvested ballots, ballot trafficking a big part of the 2020 election.

00:02:57.140 There were big-money donors who funded plots to drive dim voters to the polls

00:03:02.020 in the guise of nonpartisan get-out-the-vote campaigns.

00:03:06.100 There were those in authority who knew that Joe Biden lied in the second presidential debate

00:03:12.120 just days before Election Day, but did nothing.

00:03:16.540 And there were those in the intelligence community who signed a public letter

00:03:20.480 claiming that Hunter Biden's laptop and its contents that implicated candidate Biden,

00:03:27.080 Hunter and his Uncle James, was nothing more than Russian disinformation.

00:03:31.700 The signers, 51 of them, handed Biden a shield against the very truth that would have doomed his campaign.

00:03:40.340 And they knew, or should have known, the truth of that laptop

00:03:43.980 because it had been in the possession of the FBI for at least 10 months

00:03:48.460 before they handed the gift of their letter to Joe Biden.

00:03:52.720 The letter was instrumental in wrongfully influencing the outcome of the 2020 election.

00:03:58.620 Those are the words of our guest today.

00:04:02.040 He's attorney Tim Parlatore, who represents President Trump

00:04:06.340 in requesting the intelligence agencies who employed the 51 signers

00:04:11.020 to take legal action against them for violating the agency's requirement

00:04:16.060 for pre-publication review and for misrepresentation

00:04:20.540 that the agencies were in agreement with the signers' assessment.

00:04:24.760 Welcome, Tim, to The Great America Show, and we thank you for being with us.

00:04:28.620 If you will, tell us where your requests of these agencies stand right now.

00:04:34.720 Sure. So where we're focusing right now is on the letter from the 51 Intel officials

00:04:40.560 or former Intel officials where they characterized the Hunter Biden laptop

00:04:46.840 as Russian disinformation and really encouraged a lot of the media and everybody to ignore it.

00:04:52.720 And, you know, the way that we've looked at it, that letter is in and of itself illegal.

00:05:00.440 It's illegal under the federal elections laws, but it's also illegal under the contractual obligations

00:05:06.520 that each of these 51 individuals has to their respective former agencies.

00:05:11.760 When you look at this letter and you kind of distill it down, essentially what they're saying is

00:05:17.980 we've worked intelligence for all these numbers of years.

00:05:21.860 We know all this classified information about Russia.

00:05:25.040 We've looked at the Hunter Biden laptop, and therefore we believe,

00:05:29.060 based on our access to classified information, that this is Russian disinformation.

00:05:33.760 Not only is their analysis false, but it's a violation of their obligations to when you make public statements

00:05:43.760 that is purported to be based on classified information, that letter should have been sent

00:05:49.460 to the CIA first for review and to all of these other agencies for review

00:05:56.320 so that they could have the opportunity to redact or cut pieces out.

00:06:02.520 And also the CIA always adds a disclaimer on it that this has been reviewed by the CIA

00:06:08.840 but does not represent the official position of the CIA.

00:06:14.580 And in this letter, they at one point actually do say that they believe that the current intelligence community

00:06:21.100 concurs with them, so that would certainly have been knocked out.

00:06:27.300 But here's the other thing about that pre-publication review.

00:06:30.580 It takes a little bit of time.

00:06:32.620 And so to have done that, to have complied with their legal obligations,

00:06:37.520 that letter would have been delayed probably a month or two at least

00:06:41.680 and therefore wouldn't have had the opportunity to impact the outcome of the 2020 election,

00:06:46.880 which even when you set aside all of the other arguments related to fraud and the absentee ballots and everything else,

00:06:58.260 you have today surveys and polls that will show that up to 15% of people would not have voted for Biden

00:07:07.460 had they seen this information, had they known about this significant risk.

00:07:12.360 Yeah, and that information has been public for quite some time now.

00:07:19.780 The Democratic voters themselves would have withheld their vote for Biden

00:07:27.200 had they known about the truth of that laptop from hell.

00:07:33.460 And that in itself is absolutely critically important and relevant.

00:07:40.680 But it's also, I think, relevant, Tim, is it not, that the agencies that these people work for,

00:07:48.820 including five former top officials of those agencies,

00:07:53.660 they knew better or certainly should have known better.

00:07:57.660 They knew they were lying because they had been in possession of that laptop.

00:08:02.000 Each one of these agencies, if they are intelligence agencies at all worthy of the name,

00:08:08.640 had to know about the business dealings of Hunter.

00:08:12.000 They had to know that, for example, the Hillary Clinton campaign authored the Steele dossier

00:08:19.220 and the entire Russia collusion hoax.

00:08:23.280 On its face, they knew that they were engaging in further a fraud against the American voting public.

00:08:32.080 Absolutely.

00:08:33.000 And that's what gets to the next complaint that we're going to file,

00:08:36.560 which is with the Federal Elections Commission.

00:08:39.100 Because you have these former intelligence officers that are presenting what purports to be

00:08:45.760 an intelligence analysis report that they've given to this campaign for free,

00:08:53.680 which is something that is clearly worth a lot of money since it swung so many millions of people

00:08:59.680 to vote for somebody without knowing the truth.

00:09:04.980 And that is a violation of the federal elections law, too.

00:09:08.380 So there's multiple legal violations that occurred here in their effort to use this information

00:09:17.120 to impact the outcome of an election, exactly what they keep accusing everybody else of doing.

00:09:25.180 Exactly.

00:09:26.060 And it's become a bit of a cliche now.

00:09:30.220 Democrats generally are guilty of whatever they are accusing the Republicans of.

00:09:34.640 It seems to be a modus operandi.

00:09:37.580 Let's explore that just a bit, if we may, Tim.

00:09:42.840 Whether we're talking about the five heads of intelligence agencies or the 51,

00:09:52.500 this bevy of former intelligence officers,

00:09:56.420 it was an obvious contrivance of the Biden campaign

00:10:02.740 to provide Joe Biden a shield from not only public scrutiny and public speculation, if you will,

00:10:11.260 about the Biden, the Hunter Biden laptop and the criminality of what may be a Biden family conspiracy.

00:10:22.820 We just have no real focus here on who started this, for what reason,

00:10:32.740 because it's not a coincidence that all of these officials of intelligence agencies

00:10:37.080 decided to get together and hold forth on Russian disinformation,

00:10:41.080 which even the casual reader of the news and consumer of news at that point had to know was pure poppycock.

00:10:51.640 That's correct.

00:10:52.440 That's absolutely true.

00:10:54.000 You know, it's and yet by putting their names on this document and putting all of their,

00:11:00.460 you know, credentials on it, it gave it an air of legitimacy that would allow news agencies to ignore it,

00:11:08.760 would allow, you know, members of the public to ignore it,

00:11:11.980 and also law enforcement agencies, you know, probably to some extent.

00:11:17.920 I mean, you have members of the Biden campaign and even Hunter Biden himself in his interview

00:11:23.660 saying about how these intelligence officials have determined that it was Russian disinformation.

00:11:29.700 So it was definitely something that was used by the campaign.

00:11:33.000 Right.

00:11:33.720 And we also, we also have heard, and I'm going to say it that way, this is pure hearsay,

00:11:40.220 certain members of the media have been told that elements of the intelligence apparatus,

00:11:48.400 any one of these agencies actually contacted social media, their, some of their owners and CEOs,

00:11:57.820 as well as news media to specifically knock down the story with the same claim that they were publishing

00:12:05.940 from these 51 co-signers on this letter.

00:12:13.840 I'm not totally familiar with, with all those claims.

00:12:16.680 I will tell you this, the FEC complaint that we're filing that will require a, an investigation into that type of activity by the FEC.

00:12:28.480 And if within a certain period of time, they do not take action, or if they dismiss our complaint under the statute,

00:12:35.180 that then gives President Trump the standing to file a lawsuit in the U.S. district court against all 51 and the Biden campaign directly.

00:12:46.680 So that we would be able to use the, you know, the civil process within the U.S. district court to get discovery and to get into all of these things.

00:12:56.340 And it seems to me that you've anticipated a great deal here in terms of the consequences of the, of the, of the actions you're seeking here from the court.

00:13:10.500 The court itself is suspect now.

00:13:14.500 And we, I have to tell you, I, I'm not about to say to the audience of this podcast that I have a great deal of confidence in the court system being impartial.

00:13:23.740 We have witnessed, we have witnessed, all of us in this country have witnessed our FBI reveal itself as an arm of the Democrat, the Marxist Democrat machine.

00:13:36.220 The, the deep state is precisely that.

00:13:39.100 Not only the FBI, the D.O.J., the judiciary, you know, you're very familiar with John Roberts saying there's, there are no Trump judges, there are no Bush judges, there are no Obama justices and judges.

00:13:56.220 You know, it's, that's pure nonsense.

00:13:58.480 That's exactly what we're contending with is part, partisanship, even in a judiciary system.

00:14:04.120 Are we not?

00:14:06.240 Well, I'm, I'm not going to speak bad about the judiciary.

00:14:09.240 I mean, I think that, you know, it is a situation where when you file a case, you, you have the judge that you're, you're dealt.

00:14:17.160 And so as lawyers, you try to put together, you know, the best case that you can.

00:14:22.320 I mean, certainly I've had personally plenty of success in front of judges who very much disagreed with the position.

00:14:30.000 But if you're able to present it in, in the right way, you know, you, you can, you can often get success.

00:14:37.780 And if not, there are appellate levels to go to.

00:14:41.260 So, you know, as far as the FBI is concerned, obviously that's a different, that's a different story.

00:14:48.520 You know, we had the recent report about the letter from Chuck Grassley about, you know, this supervisory intel analyst, Brian Auten, who had suppressed Hunter Biden information on the claim that it was Russian disinformation.

00:15:06.760 And when, when those reports came out, when I saw the letter, you know, it set off some alarm bells to me because, you know, the name Brian Auten is familiar to me because he's actually one of the defendants in the lawsuit that we filed against DOJ on behalf of Carter Page.

00:15:27.080 Yeah, he was one of the architects of the, of the illegal FISA surveillance of Carter Page back in 2016.

00:15:35.220 So you had the same, the same characters, you know, four years later, still, you know, trying to put their thumb on the scale at DOJ and at the FBI to pursue partisan goals as opposed to pursuing justice.

00:15:51.060 I believe it was an effort to overthrow the president of the United States without any reservation, equivocation on my part.

00:15:59.660 The evidence to me is overwhelming.

00:16:02.460 It may not be the evidence that would be determinate in a court of law, but common sense and just reasoning leads you to only one conclusion.

00:16:13.880 In what was a conspiracy across various agencies and departments of government and the Democrat Party and the Hillary Clinton campaign.

00:16:25.480 It's just sitting there staring at us all in the face.

00:16:30.560 And now we have the January 6th committee doing precisely what that Marxist DIM machine has been doing for six years almost.

00:16:39.080 They're trying to, as you put it, put their finger on this, on the scales, but they're also trying desperately to hang on to their control of both the House and the Senate in the upcoming election.

00:16:53.680 But this is a difficult and, you know, to me, just disgusting time in this country's history that we have to contend with this level of political corruption in our government and one of our political parties.

00:17:11.520 Well, I mean, it's I've been dealing with the January 6th committee quite a bit for a few of my clients.

00:17:16.860 And, you know, it is it's an interesting body, shall we say it, you know, they don't they try to pretend that they're doing an election, an investigation.

00:17:28.160 And yet all of my dealings with them have indicated that it's it is purely about appearances.

00:17:35.180 It is purely about, you know, controlling the narrative and trying to, again, influence the outcome of the election through the dissemination of this information.

00:17:45.640 And think of it this way.

00:17:49.380 They subpoenaed Bernie Carrick when they subpoenaed him.

00:17:52.860 They put out a letter saying the reason we're subpoenaing him is because, you know, we have received credible information that he was at this meeting on January 5th.

00:18:02.920 And that that's what we want to talk to him about.

00:18:06.280 Problem is, he wasn't at that meeting and the credible information they relied upon actually footnoted it.

00:18:12.520 They said it was in Bob Wilber's book.

00:18:14.040 When Bob Wilber was contacted about this, he said, I don't know where he got that from.

00:18:21.740 Look at my book.

00:18:23.320 Bernie Carrick's name isn't anywhere in it.

00:18:25.720 So they completely made it up.

00:18:27.520 But they wanted to talk to him anyway.

00:18:29.920 We got, you know, President Trump granted Bernie Carrick a conditional privilege waiver that he would allow Bernie Carrick to answer every single question.

00:18:40.180 Talk about everything on the sole condition that that interview become public, you know, whether it's a public hearing or whether a taped interview that the videotape is then released immediately thereafter.

00:18:53.040 Benny Thompson made the conscious decision to reject the privilege waiver, to only receive part of the information because he was too afraid to allow the entire interview to become public.

00:19:10.600 Who does that?

00:19:12.120 What real investigator does that?

00:19:13.620 And what congressional committee goes to is encounters executive privilege on the part of a former president and then follows with criminal contempt citations against one of his advisers.

00:19:34.020 In this case, I'm referring to, obviously, Steve Bannon.

00:19:37.760 That was one of the most tortured moments I've seen in the course of a week's trial of a man on contempt of Congress or any other charge.

00:19:48.360 Your reaction to what they did in that instance?

00:19:51.420 Well, you know, one thing to remember here, I'm I am primarily a federal criminal lawyer.

00:19:59.480 You know, I'm not a even though I represent figures in politics, I'm not a political lawyer by trade.

00:20:05.360 And, you know, I began my career in New York City doing a lot of organized crime work.

00:20:09.380 And I remember back then that there was, you know, there was a lot of case law that had developed.

00:20:15.340 And one of the appellate judges had even said at the time, you know, we can't create new rules just because the defendant's last name is Gotti.

00:20:27.840 OK, you know, we still have to follow the Constitution.

00:20:30.440 Sure. And I see kind of the same situation here where they're trying to create new standards and new rules because of their zeal to get President Trump.

00:20:44.120 And so, you know, with the way that they treat the executive privilege, a lot of these things are setting dangerous precedents that could certainly come back to bite them.

00:20:55.280 You know, should it should the same precedent be used against President Biden?

00:20:59.000 You know, is this going to become the norm now for future presidents that, you know, that the privileges are essentially going to be waived as soon as you get out of office and, you know, your successor doesn't like you as much?

00:21:16.060 You know, it's a very dangerous precedent to be setting here.

00:21:20.120 It is. And then we have.

00:21:21.620 And by the way, I'd be saying the exact same thing no matter which party is doing it.

00:21:26.240 You know, these institutions, you know, there are rules and they have to be protected and you have to have a proper adversarial system.

00:21:36.260 And, you know, the fact that they're doing this is just wrong.

00:21:40.400 Absolutely. And I say on this on this show quite often, this isn't left and right and it's not conservatism versus liberalism.

00:21:48.740 This is right and wrong. It is good and evil.

00:21:52.560 And this country is embattled over those those direct opposite poles of human conduct.

00:22:02.880 And about 40 years ago, we started watching partisanship take on mean, ugly and direct, obvious and flaunted politics of personal destruction on the part of the Democratic Party.

00:22:16.700 And by the way, I'm not saying that as a partisan.

00:22:19.300 If the Republicans had done the same thing, I would be saying that of them, Tim.

00:22:23.740 By the way, I've been I've been blacklisted by a Republican White House, too.

00:22:28.440 So, I mean, I have I've got some some claim to independence and impartiality.

00:22:36.320 I am without a question pro-Trump.

00:22:39.840 I am. I think he is the right man for the job without question in 2024, just as it was in 2016.

00:22:47.280 But that has nothing to do with independent, objective truth and anyone who cares about this country, our traditions, our our values, our Constitution.

00:22:58.740 You talk about the judiciary system.

00:23:01.000 I hear you saying that with great, great respect and reverence as any officer of the court should.

00:23:08.800 But what we are witnessing on the part of the legal profession right now, I think, is is everlasting, shameful, because no one is standing up and saying this from the Democratic side, the left side, saying this is not the way this is not who we are.

00:23:28.160 Stop this, Joe Biden.

00:23:29.500 Stop this, Hillary Clinton.

00:23:30.940 Stop this now.

00:23:33.440 Well, they are blinded by the hatred that they have right now for Donald Trump.

00:23:38.800 You know, I think about, you know, the hearing that they had a couple of weeks ago with Cassidy Hutchison.

00:23:44.420 And, you know, again, I look at it as a criminal lawyer and I say, you know, how would DOJ have handled this or any prosecuting agency for that matter?

00:23:54.020 You have a witness who comes in and tells you this absolutely fantastical story about, you know, him, you know, physically assaulting the, you know, the the Secret Service agents to try and go to the Capitol.

00:24:07.400 And let me tell you how a real investigator would have handled that.

00:24:11.740 What they did, they loved the story.

00:24:13.760 They immediately held an emergency hearing.

00:24:15.660 They put her out there and let her tell this false tale in front of millions of people. 0.99

00:24:21.260 Real investigator would have said, OK, she wasn't there.

00:24:24.620 She heard the story from somebody else.

00:24:26.140 But guess what?

00:24:27.520 We happen to have direct access to the primary sources, the people that were in the car, the person that told the story.

00:24:33.820 And we've talked to them before.

00:24:35.700 They're compliant.

00:24:36.640 So why don't we go talk to them first to to get some corroboration of this?

00:24:41.920 Assume for a second that the story was true.

00:24:47.880 If it were true and if this committee was staffed by actual investigators instead of, you know, partisan, you know, essentially election strategists.

00:24:59.360 What they would have done, the presentation they would have given if it were true, they would have had her come in.

00:25:07.480 They would have had her testify.

00:25:08.860 They would have paused to show videos of the agents corroborating it.

00:25:13.020 And then where he got into the car, there were plenty of cameras around there.

00:25:20.060 The front windows are not as tinted as the back.

00:25:23.180 They would have put up a dynamite video of an arm reaching up from the backseat to grab the the wheel.

00:25:30.820 And then it would have been lights out.

00:25:33.840 But had they done any of that corroborating investigation.

00:25:38.620 Then they wouldn't have found that stuff and they wouldn't have been able to put her up to begin with. 0.53

00:25:45.020 And that's the difference between this committee and actual investigators.

00:25:51.320 And your point should be enough to embarrass the committee and all who had any part in its so-called investigation.

00:26:01.660 We all know it's a disinformation campaign, again, originating from the Marxist Dems who are leading the Democratic Party. 0.79

00:26:10.360 I know you point out to destroy Donald Trump.

00:26:15.280 They've been trying to do that for six years.

00:26:17.780 And they have done nothing but shame themselves.

00:26:20.760 But because of the corporate media in this country, the corporate news media, there is no accountability.

00:26:27.260 There is no consequence to their behavior as there would be with a truly independent, objective national news media.

00:26:38.040 You talked about corroboration.

00:26:40.340 There was a time in this country that journalists had to have two separate sources before a story would go.

00:26:49.920 There was a time in this country where we did not use unnamed sources.

00:26:54.700 We did not reference speculative origins of a statement.

00:27:02.440 And, you know, you're at least gave him a great name like Deep Throat.

00:27:06.440 So the country has to understand we're in decline.

00:27:10.480 Our standards are what we tolerate.

00:27:13.820 We are now in an era of excessive partisanship and a deficiency of integrity that is just breathtaking.

00:27:25.660 That's true.

00:27:26.520 I mean, it's something that as a lawyer, it bothers me because, you know, I prefer to deal with the facts and the law.

00:27:37.180 You know, there's a reason why I'm not, you know, the so-called political lawyer.

00:27:41.120 You know, because I just want to deal with what are the facts, what is the law.

00:27:47.020 And I represent people on both sides of the aisle, you know, happily.

00:27:50.740 As long as there you have a case that is based on the facts and the law.

00:27:55.760 And that's why, you know, if you have a system that allows for, you know, an adversarial process to present both sides of the story equally with certain guidelines and rules,

00:28:12.180 so that ultimately, whether it's a jury or whether it's the public, they can reach their own conclusions because they've been presented with both sides of the story to let them decide what is their analysis of somebody's credibility.

00:28:26.520 And which story do they believe more, you know, then that's where people can actually get to the truth.

00:28:34.100 But when you only present one side of the story and then people get so, you know, married to the first thing that they happen to hear that anybody else that tells them something that differs from that, you know, they want to get violent with.

00:28:49.420 Yeah, that's terrible.

00:28:50.760 It is terrible.

00:28:51.800 And I'm thinking of two trials, Steve Bannon and the only person to have a public trial coming out of the origin investigation, the John Durham investigation, in which two D.C. juries didn't need much fact.

00:29:09.480 They didn't need any time to deliberate.

00:29:11.680 They had already made their decision.

00:29:13.000 And, you know, and everyone knew darn well they'd made that decision based on partisanship purely and simply.

00:29:19.740 There was no, I don't believe anyone could honestly say they were shocked or surprised by either verdict.

00:29:26.720 Your thoughts?

00:29:29.900 Many times I say that a criminal case is decided by the end of jury selection, not by the end of the case.

00:29:36.280 And if you have, if you have a good and fair jury, you know, then you can present your case and, and, and get a fair shake.

00:29:47.080 Um, and I had, I remember as a young lawyer being taught that, you know, the exact same case in New York city, whether you're trying it in the Bronx or Manhattan or Staten Island, have to be three completely, totally different presentations because they're very different jury pools.

00:30:03.560 Yeah.

00:30:04.120 And, you know, you know, these cases to be presented to a D.C. jury pool, that's, uh, yeah, that's, that's a tough draw.

00:30:14.000 A tough draw, indeed.

00:30:16.400 Uh, and it seems to be the nature of the system that that's where the draw is going to, uh, to lead, uh, each time in, uh, these cases, uh, I, I want to just, and I appreciate your time today.

00:30:30.180 I, uh, Merrick Garland, uh, making it clear that he is, uh, open to, uh, charging, uh, Donald Trump, even if he is a candidate for 2024, uh, the 2024 presidential election.

00:30:43.360 Just the news is reporting right now that the justice department is investigating Trump in a January 6 criminal probe.

00:30:51.520 Uh, what is your reaction to, uh, to America?

00:30:56.640 Well, you know, I know this is a difficult question for you to answer, but what is to stop the Republicans for saying that, uh, they're open, uh, to impeaching Biden, Kamala Harris, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, uh, if they win the majority, uh, in the Senate and in the house, uh, in, uh, 2022.

00:31:16.420 This right here is exactly why the criminal justice system should never be weaponized for any political purposes.

00:31:27.020 And, you know, the, I can certainly give you my legal analysis as to why I think that a, a prosecution against Donald Trump is, you know, really legally doomed to failure, um, both legally and factually.

00:31:42.260 Uh, but ultimately, do you want to, if you want to erode the public's confidence in the system, this is how you do it.

00:31:51.040 This is how they do it in banana republics. 0.99

00:31:53.320 Um, when you think about it, how upset did everybody get at the crowd shouting, lock her up?

00:32:01.040 Uh, and, and ultimately when Trump took office, you know, could he have had, you know, the justice department to go and, you know, relook at Hillary Clinton?

00:32:13.100 You know, certainly Jim Comey didn't, you know, give her immunity or anything like that, but.

00:32:18.620 He did what most administrations do, which is to say, I'm not going to use the criminal justice system right or wrong to go against my political opponents.

00:32:33.020 Um, you know, Hillary commit Clinton in the manner in which she handled the classified material certainly did commit a crime in my opinion and could have been prosecuted, but. 0.99

00:32:42.680 Um, it makes sense that it makes sense that we didn't do that.

00:32:48.060 Um, it makes sense that they didn't, you know, prosecute, you know, Richard Nixon.

00:32:53.140 Um, there are reasons why we don't want to do those things.

00:32:57.100 And, uh, so just from a policy perspective, um, I think this is a bad precedent to set.

00:33:05.080 I do think that the, you know, the Garland memo that, uh, outlines how to deal with politically sensitive entities and individuals.

00:33:16.000 Um, I think that the media kind of grabbed onto that as, you know, having various interpretations as it relates to Donald Trump.

00:33:26.620 And really what I saw it being is more of, um, for these past two years, the U S attorney in Delaware has been left mostly on, uh, unrestrained by main justice in the investigation of Hunter Biden.

00:33:41.960 And that memo, as much as it may apply to a prosecution of Donald Trump, it also asserts control over the Delaware U S attorney in what they can and can't do with Hunter Biden.

00:33:55.780 Yeah, that's a great point, uh, which frankly, I hadn't considered because I am so frustrated that the U S attorney in Delaware has had the, the field of four years to carry out a straightforward investigation.

00:34:12.820 You as a, uh, uh, organized crime, uh, prosecutor, uh, investigator, uh, investigator, you know, if you're, if you give people four years to deal with evidence, to manufacture and construct alternative realities that they can put in front of a jury, that isn't serving justice.

00:34:35.360 That's serving the defendant's interest, the criminal defendant's interest.

00:34:40.200 And it makes no sense that this justice department has also become the go-to agency where send truth there.

00:34:50.500 And it will surely die because of the idea that there is no urgency.

00:34:55.100 There is no, uh, there is no institutional, uh, it seems compunction to be efficient and effective and deal with it efficiently.

00:35:07.240 It just doesn't make sense what we are witnessing, whether it be in the Hunter Biden case or any number of others, uh, where truth is gone to die.

00:35:16.500 Yeah.

00:35:17.540 And I will correct you on one point.

00:35:19.340 I actually wasn't a prosecutor or an investigator.

00:35:21.320 I was defense attorney the whole time.

00:35:23.940 Okay.

00:35:24.420 But, uh, I mean, but that's, but that's absolutely true that, but, but, but that is absolutely true.

00:35:30.260 It's, you know, it is something where, you know, you can speak better to what I just said.

00:35:35.300 It is a gift to the defendant and his or her attorney.

00:35:41.200 Yeah.

00:35:42.160 I've, I've, I've seen what the justice department can do when it's motivated.

00:35:46.520 I can definitely see what they can do when they're motivated to do that.

00:35:50.600 I, I, you know, I really haven't seen the motivated to do anything other than, uh, uh, you know, try to overthrow a president, uh, and to conceal the truth rather than reveal it, uh, and punish evil doers.

00:36:03.240 Uh, and, and, and right now the experience of the past six years, it looks like the justice department and the FBI, uh, have more evil doers than the people they're investigating.

00:36:13.400 With the 51, the, the, the thing, the thing with, with that situation is that there's not really any defense because they, they wrote it out.

00:36:26.120 You know, they put it all on paper and they signed their names to it.

00:36:30.240 So it's not, um, yeah, I'm very confident in it because this is black letter law. 1.00

00:36:37.600 They each signed a contract when they received their top secret, uh, security clearances.

00:36:45.280 They certainly knew about this.

00:36:47.120 I mean, hell, one of the signers of that letter had previously written an op-ed discussing the pre-publication review process.

00:36:54.620 And, you know, you got one of the, uh, I believe it was Panetta who was investigated, um, and initially the IG found, you know, certain violations.

00:37:06.580 And then that was quietly cleaned up related to, um, you know, his, his assistance on the movie related to the Bin Laden raid.

00:37:16.440 Uh, you have people on the other side of it.

00:37:18.720 You know, one of my clients, um, Matt Bissonnette, who was, uh, who was the Navy SEAL, who was one of the three guys who walked into Bin Laden's bedroom that night.

00:37:29.020 They went after him and they've completely destroyed him financially.

00:37:33.740 And, you know, completely wrecked his life for writing this book.

00:37:41.480 And he didn't reveal any classified information.

00:37:44.360 He didn't even intimate that there was any classified information in it.

00:37:48.680 And yet, you know, with, with these individuals, it really does come down to a matter of prosecutorial discretion, where if they want you and they, and they exercise the discretion to say, okay, we're going to hold this person accountable.

00:38:07.140 They can, and they will look at John Bolton, John Bolton released his book without getting pre-publication review.

00:38:14.760 They brought him into court.

00:38:17.140 He filed the motion to dismiss.

00:38:19.200 He lost the motion to dismiss.

00:38:20.760 The court said, no, you know, the, uh, the government had absolutely has an interest here in, in ensuring that you've complied with pre-publication review.

00:38:31.860 And then the administration changed.

00:38:33.740 And the new DOJ leadership, who was perhaps more, um, favorable to the information that John Bolton put out, forgave the fact that he failed to get it properly reviewed and withdrew the case.

00:38:51.680 So it really does come down to that measure of discretion.

00:38:55.480 It is, but when we're not, but when we're doing the lawsuit, as opposed to, you know, the government, yeah, through the FEC, uh, the, the election law, uh, context, you know, yeah, I'm very confident.

00:39:10.300 Well, that, that is good to hear.

00:39:13.240 And what will be the consequence?

00:39:15.160 What will be the punishment, uh, for the, these insidious acts?

00:39:20.660 I mean, this is a crime against the state, as far as I'm concerned, because they changed history without question.

00:39:27.780 Um, the consequences, I mean, the, the biggest consequence that I think will come is the truth is that the truth will come out.

00:39:38.020 Um, are any of these guys going to jail?

00:39:39.860 No, they're not.

00:39:40.900 Um, you know, in, in my lawsuit, do I have the power to, you know, put them in jail or to take their security clearances or things like that?

00:39:49.480 No, I don't.

00:39:50.200 But, you know, it is, it is more monetary penalties.

00:39:53.320 Uh, but the complaints that we filed with the CIA and, and the various other intelligence agencies, um, which they, I have not seen whether they've taken any action on yet.

00:40:10.580 I'm hoping that they will.

00:40:12.280 I presume that in January when the, um, you know, when the house changes hands, that there will probably be more questions, uh, from the legislative branch and providing oversight.

00:40:23.320 To make sure that those investigations have been properly handled.

00:40:27.840 Um, but those investigations can and should result in all 51 of these individuals losing their security clearances, all 51 of these individuals being prohibited from working for the government, working in any intelligence capacity.

00:40:45.320 Um, and I mean, quite frankly, here, here's the other thing.

00:40:51.640 The, the pre-publication review rules as written, if enforced, would completely change a whole bunch of stuff that's going on right now.

00:41:04.280 Because right now you have a whole host on both sides of talking heads, you know, former Intel officer now, you know, providing their commentary on, on events.

00:41:18.780 And all of that is completely prohibited, but not enforced.

00:41:24.000 And if they actually enforce all those regulations, then both CNN and Fox News will lose their ability to put former Intel officer on to comment on, you know, their analysis of current events.

00:41:40.060 But the viewer is not going to lose anything because they'll be able to put, you know, college professors and, and other very knowledgeable people on to give the same type of commentary.

00:41:49.620 But ultimately I think it's going to trickle down to recruiting because what's going to happen at the recruiting level of CIA, when you remove that motivation and you remove everybody from the agency, whose career aspirations is to someday be involved in politics or political commentary or be a news media personality.

00:42:14.220 And they're really just there to check a box in their resume.

00:42:18.000 Right.

00:42:18.480 And when you remove that further career aspiration from them, I think that'll actually go a long way towards removing a lot of the politics and the, you know, the deep state of these people that are in these agencies with, you know, with later political ambitions and instead attract people to the intelligence community that are motivated to perform the work necessary to keep our country safe.

00:42:46.940 And here's the, you know, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the Democrats, and they have every reason to be right now, but we have to have some system in which that there is a consequence for what happens.

00:43:12.120 It is not enough for us to, it is not enough for us to wait until there's a generation of new intelligence officers who are serving as we would expect anyone in our military to serve for the nation.

00:43:23.480 And if we are that far astray, we desperately need consequences for those who break the rules, break the regulations, and flaunt, flaunt their efforts to corrupt our entire federal government.

00:43:38.740 Do we not, do we need a major course correction on these things?

00:43:43.620 We always conclude with the, our guests having the last word, uh, and if you will, your thoughts as we wrap up.

00:43:51.980 Well, you know, I, as a lawyer, I've always been a, a great fan of, uh, John Adams.

00:43:59.940 Um, you know, one of the founding fathers who tried, you know, one of the first major murder trials in this country, the Boston massacre.

00:44:06.980 And, you know, it's, it's something that he said in his closing argument that guides everything that I do in the courtroom and that I wish would guide more people in how they analyze these cases.

00:44:21.480 Um, what he said to the jury at that point was, he said, facts are stubborn things and whatever may be our wishes or inclinations or the dictates of our passions.

00:44:31.480 They cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.

00:44:35.560 So I hope more people would, would, would focus on that as the theme for how they analyze things.

00:44:42.780 We thank you for sharing those words, those sentiments, uh, and, uh, and, uh, they are inspiring to, to even journalists in this country.

00:44:52.180 I would hope, uh, we appreciate it, Tim.

00:44:55.880 Thanks so much for being with us here on the great America show.

00:44:58.220 God bless you.

00:45:00.020 Thank you.

00:45:00.640 Thank you so much for having me.

00:45:02.820 Thanks for being with us, everybody.

00:45:04.520 Our guests here next week will be Senator Marsha Blackburn, Senator Rand Paul, pollster Robert Cahaly, conservative attorney, Kurt Olson, candidate for Arizona attorney general, Abe Hamaday and judicial watches, Tom Fenton and pastor Robert Jeffress.

00:45:22.180 Please join us here on the great America show till then.

00:45:26.600 God bless you and God bless America.

The Great America Show - July 29, 2022

THE J6 COMMITTEE IS TRYING TO INFLUENCE THE OUTCOME OF THE MIDTERMS THROUGH THE DISSEMINATION OF DISINFORMATION

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript