TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @SenMikeLee
@SenMikeLee - Mike Lee
This information was withheld from the American people by the Democrat-led J6 Committee and FBI Director Christopher Wray for over 5 years.
@SteveBakerUSA - Steve Baker
🚨Breaking🚨 The FBI has acknowledged it had 275 plainclothes agents in the massive crowds on Jan. 6, 2021, more than four and a half years after questions were first raised about the level of FBI involvement day, @theblaze has learned. https://www.theblaze.com/news/fbi-had-275-plainclothes-agents-embedded-in-jan-6-crowds-congressional-source-says
FBI had 274 plainclothes agents embedded in Jan. 6 crowds, congressional source says | Blaze Media
Disclosure by the FBI to Congress answers a long-simmering question but does not reveal what the agents did that day.
theblaze.com
@SenMikeLee - Mike Lee
Why are top Democrats suing to allow non-citizens to vote in American elections? You know why. https://t.co/IxciF63kB9
@SenMikeLee - Mike Lee
Every FBI Director I’ve questioned has lied to me. @Kash_Patel told the truth. https://t.co/929MCdTlfw
Video Transcript AI Summary
I've served as a US senator for 14 years and have consistently raised concerns about FISA 702. Unlike previous FBI directors, you acknowledge the issues surrounding the collection of Americans' communications without warrants. The 4th Amendment requires warrants for searches, yet there have been numerous instances where private communications of Americans were accessed without proper authorization. This includes inappropriate uses of FISA 702, such as agents checking on personal matters. A FISA court report revealed over 255,000 improper queries of American citizens, eroding public trust. It's crucial for Congress and the FBI to work together to restore that trust and ensure accountability. Your willingness to address these issues gives me confidence in your leadership.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I've been a US senator for 14 years. I've been on this committee the entire time. You're the very first FBI director or FBI director nominee, who, when I've asked about this, hasn't said, oh, don't worry about it. We'll handle it okay. We've got good people on the inside.
We would never breach the trust of the American people. Do you know what? They were lying. Let's talk about the 4th Amendment for a moment. The 4th Amendment tells us that in order for the government to breach your expectation of privacy relative to your person, your home, your papers, they want to search that.
If they want to seize you, they've got to get a warrant, and that warrant has to describe with particularity the persons or places to be searched or to be seized and to connect them up with a showing of probable cause. Now in the case of FISA 702, we're dealing with a somewhat different universe. Now moments ago, we heard some discussion about FISA 702, about suddenly we've got a different FISA 702 than what we had when president Trump was last in office. Is that true? Because my by my count, FISA 702 has not changed substantively since president Trump was in office last.
Speaker 1: That's correct.
Speaker 0: Okay. And there was also some back and forth discussion about FISA 702 and the use of it and the fact that in real time, it might not work to get a warrant. This, in my view, misses the point. The concern that the American people have with FISA 702 is not about the real time collection of communications regarding foreign targets. The concern is that once those communications are stored, you have within them what are referred to as incidentally collected communications of Americans, text messages, emails, recorded phone calls, and so forth.
If they wanna go in and search for someone, let's say you, if someone wants to go into one of those databases after they've been collected collected, Let's see if you're unwittingly, communicating with somebody who, unbeknownst to you, happens to be an agent of a foreign power or otherwise under surveillance under FISA 702. If they wanted to search for you, they wanted to enter your name, your phone number, your email address, or some other personal electronic identifier, would they have to get a warrant to do that under current law?
Speaker 1: Under current law, I believe so, senator.
Speaker 0: Under under current law, they routinely access that without getting a warrant. In order to access it, they've got their own internal procedures. They're not supposed to use this for light or transient reasons. They're supposed to have a perfectly good reason, and yet we found that on 100 of thousands of occasions, they have accessed the private communications of Americans searching for those individual Americans by name, by number, by email address, whatever it is, without a warrant or anything tantamount to it. On occasion, they've even been used for overtly nefarious reasons.
One agent, deciding to look in on his father because he suspected his father might be having an extramarital affair. On another occasion, an agent, looked at people who were thinking about renting an apartment from him to make sure they were upstanding citizens and could be trusted. Are these appropriate uses of FISA 702?
Speaker 1: As you alluded to, the FISA court, it's not me deciding it. The FISA court put out a report in 22 or 23 where 255 1,000 illegal improper queries of American citizens had occurred. 255,000 reasons why the American people don't trust it. And that's what we must work together, congress and me, if I'm confirmed as FBI director, restore that trust and protect the mission.
Speaker 0: Music to my ears because I've been a US senator for 14 years. I've been on this committee the entire time. You're the very first FBI director or FBI director nominee, who, when I've asked about this, hasn't said, oh, don't worry about it. We'll handle it okay. We've got good people on the inside.
We would never breach the trust of the American people. Do you know what? They were lying. I was willing to believe that they thought they were telling the truth, but they were mistaken. But they were lying.
Time has told us they were lying. You will not lie, and that's why I wholeheartedly support you.
reSee.it AI Summary
I recently learned that the federal government is monitoring Americans' financial activities, including purchases and bank accounts, even for those not involved in any crime. Agencies like the Treasury and FBI have tracked transactions related to specific political terms, while the SEC is building a database to monitor stock market transactions. This infringes on our Fourth Amendment rights. In response, I introduced the Saving Privacy Act to repeal invasive reporting requirements, strengthen privacy protections, and prevent unauthorized databases. I urge others to spread awareness about this issue.
@SenMikeLee - Mike Lee
Did you know that the federal government is spying on Americans’ purchases, credit cards, and bank accounts, even if they are innocent of any crime? Did you know that the @USTreasury and the @FBI have surveilled financial transactions containing the terms “Trump” and MAGA,” and relating to guns and religion? Did you know that the @SECGov has been quietly constructing a centralized database, called the Consolidated Audit Trail, designed to track every stock market transaction and the personal information of millions of Americans? These actions are deeply unconstitutional, a violation of your 4th Amendment rights, and enable political persecution. That’s why I just introduced the Saving Privacy Act: ▪️ Repeals the Bank Secrecy Act’s SAR and CTR reporting requirements while maintaining record-keeping provisions. ▪️Repeals the Corporate Transparency Act. ▪️Strengthens Fourth Amendment protections, bolstering warrant requirements in the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978. ▪️Repeals the SEC’s Consolidated Audit Trail (CAT) database. ▪️Requires congressional approval for any new databases that collect personally identifiable information of U.S. citizens. ▪️Prohibits the creation of a Central Bank Digital Currency. ▪️Requires congressional authorization for financial regulations deemed major rules. ▪️Institutes penalties for federal employees who illegally seek constitutionally protected financial information. ▪️Establishes a private right of action for Americans and financial institutions harmed by illicit government activity. Please like and share if you think more Americans should know about this grave threat to our freedom. @CatoInstitute has a great policy analysis in the link below 👇
@SenMikeLee - Mike Lee
https://www.cato.org/blog/latest-attempt-restore-financial-privacy-saving-privacy-act
@SenMikeLee - Mike Lee
Strongly worded statements are not enough. Those who turned our judicial system into a political cudgel must be held accountable. We are no longer cooperating with any Democrat legislative priorities or nominations, and we invite all concerned Senators to join our stand. https://t.co/H0CzIjXgwC
@SenMikeLee - Mike Lee
It is illegal for non-citizens to vote in federal elections. The vast majority of Americans agree that photo ID should be required to vote. Why do some people in Washington oppose this simple measure to secure our elections? https://t.co/oj0vkXHqIf
Video Transcript AI Summary
Only citizens should vote in federal elections according to most speakers. Some believe proof of citizenship should be required for voter registration, while others find it redundant and discriminatory. Voter ID laws are supported by some for ensuring election integrity without disenfranchising legal voters, citing increased turnout in states with such laws.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Do you believe that only citizens of the United States should be able to vote in federal elections?
Speaker 1: We don't have a position about noncitizens voting in federal elections. We believe that's what the current laws are. And so we are certainly fighting for everyone who's eligible under the current laws to be able to vote. Miss Reardon?
Speaker 2: I do not believe that noncitizens should be able to vote in federal elections.
Speaker 0: Ms. Camarillo?
Speaker 3: That's a decision of the state law. But I want to, emphasize that.
Speaker 0: Of state law as to who should vote in federal elections?
Speaker 3: To states decide who gets to vote, in various elections. And in federal elections, I believe that we should be encouraged people to naturalize and then vote.
Speaker 0: Okay. But you you're saying that the federal government should have no say in who votes in a federal election?
Speaker 3: I don't have a position on that.
Speaker 0: Mister von Spakasi?
Speaker 4: As a first generation son of naturalized citizens, I believe only citizens should be allowed to vote in all U. S. Elections. Ms. Lecken?
Speaker 2: Federal law prohibits noncitizens from voting in federal elections, and we support Our work focuses on enabling all eligible voters to be able to vote and cast their ballot and have that ballot counted.
Speaker 0: Okay. Do you believe that people registering to vote, should provide documentary proof of their citizenship in order to register to vote? Mister Hewitt?
Speaker 1: I think your first question, kind of answers the the second. Based upon the applicable rules, federal or state elections, or what have you, we know we have to follow those rules. The question is, what's the impact of those rules? Miss Reardon?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 0: Miss Camarillo?
Speaker 3: Voter registration cards and affidavits, when people sign them, people are suggest are signing, under federal under penalties of certain depending on the state, either criminal or otherwise Yeah. That they're
Speaker 0: Can I get a yes or no out of you? Should they or should they not have to require documentation establishing their citizenship?
Speaker 3: It's already redundant in many states, and it's already being asked.
Speaker 0: Mr. Von Spakovsky? Yes,
Speaker 4: all individuals should be required to provide proof of citizenship. Ms. Lakeland?
Speaker 2: Documentary proof of citizenship requirements are often discriminatory. In fact, we sued the state of Kansas and won litigation on this issue.
Speaker 0: Okay. I do find it troubling that these, couldn't both all be answered with a simple yes. I think if you ask most Americans, overwhelming majority of Americans would say, Yeah, you should have to be a citizen to vote in a federal election, and, yeah, you ought to be required to prove it. You have to show identification papers when you board an airplane, unless you're an illegal alien, of course, but that's a different question. To to go to the doctor in many instances, to pick up, prescription in many instances, all kinds of things require identification.
Why not voting? Now, the Carter Baker report from 2,008 keep in mind that the Carter and Carter Baker, as former President Jimmy Carter, recommended that states require voters to use a Real ID compliant identification to ensure that persons presenting themselves at the polling places are, in fact, the ones on the registration list. And I agree with former President Carter on that. And to that end, I've authored legislation that would allow states to enforce such identification laws, which are so popular among Americans and with good reason. The legislation, as compared to the likely unconstitutional John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, would respect boundaries of federalism, and that's important always that we do that, and that's one of our twin structural safeguards in the Constitution.
Mr. Bonsignorecki, in your experience, would more robust voter ID laws disenfranchise legal voters?
Speaker 4: The answer to that is no, and that's not my opinion. That's based on turnout data that we now have for more than 15 years. Election after election after election. Georgia, for example, ID laws have been in place since the 2008 election. They've seen record registration and turnout of all voters including black and Hispanic voters there.
And all the studies, the ones I cited, showed that when you compare all 50 states, IDs do not keep people from voting particularly because every state that's put in an ID requirement will provide a free ID to anyone who doesn't have one.
@SenMikeLee - Mike Lee
The crisis at our southern border is unacceptable. Americans are demanding accountability. We must fire @SecMayorkas. https://t.co/1uTEskfYH9
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker criticizes Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas for his handling of border security and immigration issues. They argue that Mayorkas has failed to enforce the laws and has created illegal parole programs that have increased illegal immigration. They also highlight the negative consequences of this, such as human trafficking, sexual abuse, and the entry of known terrorists. The speaker mentions the increase in deadly Fentanyl entering the country and the administration's decision to end the Remain in Mexico program. They criticize Mayorkas for not taking action to address the crisis at the southern border and call for accountability.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Mister president, I come to the floor to talk about the fitness for office of secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. Mister president, my remarks are not directed at mister Mayorkas' character. I don't know him other than in the context of the secretary of homeland security, nor do I direct my comments toward any other aspect of his life, his status as a husband, father, brother, son, neighbor, or anything else. But in this context, we have to evaluate the job that he's doing. And mister president, Secretary Mayorkas does not have the confidence of the United States Senate or those we represent to continue to defend our border integrity and protect our country.
It's the very job he's called to do. We have to remember that we have 3 branches within our federal government. One that makes the laws, one that enforces the laws, or is supposed to, And a third that interprets them, where people disagree as to the law's meaning. His role is narrowly focused on interpreting a narrow category of laws, including, and especially those designed to protect our border security. He simply refused to enforce the laws that he's charged with administering.
And under his watch, we've had at least 8,000,000 people coming to this country illegally. Over 8,000,000 unauthorized individuals are among those that we know came in unlawfully, and the numbers keep going up. Well, we've been breaking all kinds of records, the exact wrong records to break. We broke a record just last month where we had 302,000 Encounters with illegal immigrants just in December alone. Those are just the ones that we saw that we are aware of.
And that's the highest number we have ever seen in recorded history. Under the watch of secretary Mayorkas, this administration has incentivized parents, parents across the globe to send their young children, They're young sons and they're young daughters on a dangerous journey into the United States, where they end up in the hands of traffickers, where many of them end up as Indentured servants, and many of them subjected to the sex trade. Substantial portion of them, majority of them, according to some estimates, are subjected to sexual abuse, to rape, and other atrocities. More than 430,000 unaccompanied children have come into the United States illegally under his watch. Now, in the meantime, he's tried to paper over those, to make lawful entries out of those who have entered unlawfully.
He's created 13 separate illegal parole programs designed to increase the flow into the country by the hundreds of thousands, trying to make illegal immigration look legal when it is not, using this parole authority, parole authority that is there for a specific purpose. It's there to to serve a humanitarian or a public need purpose. And, it's always been understood to be something that is there only on a Case by case basis, not categorical. In other words, if we're aware of somebody with a humanitarian purpose, somebody's, grandmother has died, and they need to attend the funeral in the United States. They may come in for a short period of time, and then leave.
If they need a certain type of medical treatment Available only here. They can be paroled in for a short period of time, and then, they're expected to leave. The public purpose is also individualized. Somebody speaks, an obscure language. Somebody's on trial for that.
We need an interpreter. Can't be found inside this country. We bring someone in for a short period of time, then they leave. Always on an individualized basis, always on a temporary basis. And he's run afoul of those by creating at least 13 of these illegal parole programs.
So with these kinds of numbers, how on earth can he claim to have the border under operational control? He can't. He can't. And yet, somehow, he does so. And to do so, He has to accept this made up def definition of operational control.
A definition without any connection to actual statutory or operational requirements. On his watch, the CBP has decreased its vetting procedures, those designed specifically to deal with people coming from China, including military aged Chinese males who are crossing our southern border in unprecedented alarming numbers. Under his watch, we've seen a dramatic increase in the known terrorists who have entered through our southern border. 279, in fact, have been caught at our southern border since Biden took office. Now, by election day of 2024, mister president, we will have seen at least 10,000,000 illegal immigrants, will that will have crossed over our southern border.
Under his watch, the amount of deadly Fentanyl coming into this country has increased, increased dramatically. In fact, a report out in October of 2023, just a couple of months ago, indicates that there were six Billion with a b, 6,000,000,000 lethal doses of Fentanyl that entered our borders across our southern boundary. That, mister president, means that you could kill 3 fourths of the entire population of the world. You could kill every American 54 times with that. This is poisoning.
This is a weaponized tool that could kill Americans, and is killing Americans in droves. This is not free. This is not a victimless crime. There are victims littered All over the Western Hemisphere, all over the world, but especially here in America, mister president. Under his watch, the administration willfully ended.
The carefully negotiated and very effective Remain in Mexico program put in place by the previous administration, which required those seeking asylum, crossing on land through our southern border, to wait in Mexico, to await final disposition of their asylum claims during the adjudication of those claims here in the United States. They just ended it, then they litigated it, then they were told by a court to reinstitute it. And then they've been drawing that out in a rope a dope fashion. Under his watch, the administration has decreased willfully its ability to detain those required by statute to be detained even though illegal entries have increased dramatically. A recent CBS poll found that 75% of Americans say that the situation across the southern border is, a crisis, or or at least very serious.
The house judiciary committee report stated that between January 20, 2021, the day Biden took office, and March 31st last year, The Biden administration removed from the United States only 5,993 illegal aliens who were placed in removal proceedings before an immigration judge during that time. In other words, let's think about what this means. Of the at least 2,100,000 aliens released into the United States since January 20, 2021. The Biden administration has failed to remove through immigration court removal proceedings 99.7% of those illegal aliens. Mister president, it's a new day.
It's 2024. And secretary Mayorkas, just as he had all has had all along, still has the legal authority to enforce the border. But he still refuses to do so. The crisis at our southern border, mister president, make no mistake, is not the consequence of inadequate statutory text. It is not for want of legislative authority.
He has that authority just as the Previous president did, but unlike the previous administration, this administration refuses willfully to enforce it. I find it ironic and counterproductive, mister president, the United States Senate continues to negotiate with secretary Mayorkas on border security issues, Even as he refuses, as he has done from the very beginning, to enforce the border creating this humanitarian crisis, and even as he is facing as a result of that, Impeachment proceedings in the House of Representatives, even as we speak. We found him not to be capable of negotiating in good faith on this. Why? Because he refuses to enforce Existing law, which if he did enforce it, would bring this crisis to an end abruptly.
The crisis at our southern border, and it is a crisis, is unacceptable. Americans are demanding accountability. We must fire Secretary
reSee.it AI Summary
The FBI and TheJusticeDept cannot be trusted to fix their own problems. Congress must take action to implement necessary reforms and stop relying on the surveillance state. Watch full remarks for more information.
@SenMikeLee - Mike Lee
🧵 Why should we ever trust the @FBI & @TheJusticeDept to fix its own problems internally?
Video Transcript AI Summary
Every year, hundreds of thousands of searches of Americans' private communications are conducted without a warrant. This violates citizens' constitutional rights. The FBI claims they will fix the problem internally, but the number of illegal searches keeps increasing. It seems like the FBI only wants to avoid getting caught.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hundreds of thousands of searches of Americans' private communications and information are conducted each and every year without a probable cause warrant. Now, let me be very clear. That number should not just be going down. That number should be 0. Every, quote unquote, non compliant search involving U.
S. Persons violates an American citizen's constitutional rights, and yet every year, the FBI claims that we should just trust the FBI to fix the problems internally. Well, first, they tell us there are no problems. Then they tell us we will fix them because we've got good people and we've got new policies at this time. This time, it's going to be different.
Only later we find out that the FBI conducted more and more illegal searches in violation of Americans' constitutional rights than the last time we addressed the issue. So it's hard not to conclude that the only thing the FBI wishes it could fix here is the possibility of getting caught.
@SenMikeLee - Mike Lee
We have an opportunity to make necessary reforms this year, and we must do it.
Video Transcript AI Summary
All collected data, including communication content like phone calls, emails, and text messages, can be searched without a warrant based on probable cause. This violates the Constitution and leads to constitutional violations. Reforms are needed to stop this practice.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The bottom line is you collect all this data, and then after you store all that data, some of it involving communications, the content of individual individual phone calls, emails, text messages, whatever it is, the content, not just the metadata, but the content, you can do a backdoor search on that without a warrant predicated on probable cause, that is itself an affront to the Constitution. That is itself something that is always going to lead to constitutional violations, and it must stop. We've got an opportunity this year to make necessary reforms, and we must do it.
@SenMikeLee - Mike Lee
Congress has got to fix this problem and stop trusting the surveillance state.
Video Transcript AI Summary
We should question our trust in the FBI and DOJ regarding their ability to police themselves under FISA. They have consistently shown over the years that they cannot be trusted. Congress needs to address this issue and stop relying on the surveillance state to fix it, as it has proven ineffective. Trusting these agencies again would be unwise based on their track record.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Why should we ever trust the FBI and the DOJ when it comes to this issue, whether under the current administration or under a future leadership, why should we ever trust the FBI and the DOJ again to police themselves under under FISA, when they've shown us repeatedly for more than a decade that they cannot be trusted to do so. Congress has got to fix this problem and stop trusting the surveillance state to fix it. It can't. It won't. We know that because it hasn't.
@SenMikeLee - Mike Lee
Watch my full remarks here: https://youtu.be/KCaDhXawzJk