reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker questions the authority of Jack Smith as a private citizen to represent the US. They discuss the Appointments Clause and the lack of nomination or confirmation for Jack Smith. The speaker challenges the creation of the special counsel office without congressional authorization. They also touch on DOJ's handling of January 6 cases and the upcoming inspector general report. The speaker emphasizes the independence of the inspector general and commits to not interfering with their work.

President Trump stated that a corrupt group within the American government weaponized intelligence and law enforcement agencies. One speaker argues that one doesn't have to be a member of MAGA to acknowledge legitimate grievances regarding Peter Strzok, Lisa Page texts, FISA abuse, and the Alvin Bragg case. Another speaker asserts that Merrick Garland followed the facts and law, and grand juries in Florida and DC believed there was enough evidence to indict Donald Trump on 44 counts. Jack Smith believes he would have been successful in two cases if Trump had not been elected president. The speaker claims the charges were dropped only because he was president. The first speaker clarifies that the initial concerns were about the Russiagate investigation and the Alvin Bragg case, while the second speaker addressed the Jack Smith investigation.

Attorney General Garland was questioned about overruling FBI agents in a raid on ex-President Trump's residence. He stated he approved the decision but did not make it. The senator cited a Washington Post article claiming FBI agents were against the raid. Garland denied discussing this with the White House and faced criticism for FBI leaks distancing themselves from his decisions. Garland deflected the accusations, questioning the motives behind the leaks. Senator Cotton's time for questioning expired. Translation: Attorney General Garland was questioned about his involvement in a raid on ex-President Trump's residence. He approved the decision but did not make it. The senator referenced a Washington Post article claiming FBI agents opposed the raid. Garland denied discussing this with the White House and faced criticism for FBI leaks distancing themselves from his decisions. Garland questioned the motives behind the leaks. Senator Cotton's time for questioning expired.

Yesterday, we told you that new documents we got showed that Fonny Willis was recording was working secretly behind the scenes with the Biden justice department, the Biden White House, and the j six democrats to create a double jeopardy, double drain on Donald Trump's supporters by creating a similar indictment to Jack Smith, but in Georgia to move resources and lawyers and and attention span and divide it. We have we're supposed to have a justice system that avoids double jeopardy, but in this case, you can see the plot being created by these lawyers and by the collaboration. Today, we raise a question or we provide some evidence to a question that Jim Jordan raised about a year ago, the House Judiciary Committee Chairman. He believed that Fonny Willis' prosecution of Trump was being underwritten by the justice department because he saw a stream of funding. What we see, what we've provided to the public, is an unusual situation. In the middle of Willis building your case against Donald Trump and 18 of his allies and and to charge them with conspiracy in and racketeering in Georgia to double up on what Jack Smith charged in Washington, The justice department comes to Fonny Willis and says, hey. We just want you to apply for this grant, and we're gonna take this grant, which is normally competitive. We're gonna make it noncompetitive. Basically, you're the only one that's gonna get the money. Just fill out the paperwork and take your cash, about $2,000,000. It's that classic Washington grant, go help kids, not really much specificity, but they move it from competitive to sole source, meaning that it's wired just for her. It looks like the old Boss Hogg way of doing business or Tammany Hall way of doing business. And I think for Jim Jordan or Barry Loudermilk who was on our show last night investigating January 6 from the judiciary committee, this is a pretty serious issue for them to investigate. This looks like a gift grant to Fonny Willis while she's doing the bidding of Joe Biden to pursue and tie down Donald Trump and his friends in a criminal prosecution in Atlanta. It looks just like Tammany Hall, Chicago style politics, and there's now a complete body of documents for congress to look at this. It's it's a pretty pretty clear case of what's going on.

The speaker questions the appointment of a special counsel, suggesting that it may give him the power to charge in different locations. They mention that the special counsel previously claimed to have the authority to do as he pleased, but whistleblowers contradicted this, stating that he was unable to do so. The Justice Department denied the whistleblowers' claims. However, the speaker believes that the recent move implies that the whistleblowers may have been correct. They express concerns about the political implications raised by Republicans.

Former deputy independent counsel Saul Weisenberg and founder of the Article 3 Project, Mike Davis, discuss Attorney General Merrick Garland's appointment of David Weiss as special counsel. Weisenberg criticizes Garland for not following the special counsel's requirements and suggests that Lisa Monaco, the deputy attorney general, is actually in charge. Davis believes that Weiss was chosen because of his loyalty to Biden and to protect Hunter Biden. They also mention a plea deal for Hunter Biden that included a hidden paragraph granting broad immunity. Weisenberg speculates that the Biden defense team may enforce this agreement, rendering the special counsel appointment irrelevant.

The conversation centers on a so-called “rear guard” and how it operates inside the U.S. government, as described by the speakers. - Speaker 0 asks about the identity and role of the “rear god/rear guard.” - Speaker 1 defines the rear guard as a group ideologically driven to a particular point of view not shared by the current administration, and asserts that it is organized. - The mechanism of influence is explained: in a large, geographically dispersed organization, if one doesn’t have a loyal team, the team can undermine leadership. The claim is that even with good intentions, without a loyal crew, the organization won’t respond to the boss, leading to actions that bypass or undermine higher authority. - The discussion claims a current case where the president signs a presidential policy directive stating that corruption will not be tolerated, and the attorney general issues a memorandum declaring alignment with the boss to fix corruption inside the department. The attorney general allegedly helps set up a weaponization working group, and an assistant U.S. attorney asserts representation of The United States of America while saying they do not want an investigation into corruption involving the DOJ. The speakers label this as illegal and a violation of jurisprudence and canons for a government attorney. - The question is asked: who directed the assistant attorney general to act this way? Speaker 1 suggests that, as an investigator, one would subpoena the assistant to determine who directed them and who told them to do what, implying chain-of-command exposure—but cannot provide the name in this moment. - They insist that the actions are not random but come from the rear guard. The whistleblower disclosure is mentioned: before Pam Bondi’s appointment, a disclosure claimed that all assistant U.S. attorneys who had worked for Jack Smith should be investigated, but nothing was done to hold anyone accountable, and those involved were let go. The disclosure’s author is not named in the moment, but Speaker 1 says they will provide it. - The rear guard is further described as an organized group; the organization named is the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (SIGI). The discussion covers SIGI’s creation in 2008, in conjunction with legislation and Senator Grassley, as a bipartisan effort to establish an independent entity inside the executive branch to oversee, train, educate, and provide counsel for all inspectors general. - The speakers explain that SIGI operates within the executive branch but is independent; the implied tension is whether an entity can be independent while being “inside” the executive branch, challenging the unitary executive view that the president controls the entire executive branch. - They discuss the concept of the administrative state: unelected officials who operate with their own power, suggesting a two-tiered system in America between “them and us.” They note that this view affects multiple agencies, including the Department of Justice and the EPA. - The president’s belief in leading the country by the majority is noted, along with the tension between the executive branch and the administrative state, which allegedly believes it serves its own interests rather than those of elected leaders. The dialogue hints at a broader narrative where the president is not always perceived as fully in charge, and a cultural portrayal—via media—that suggests the president is not the sole driver of policy.

Some Democratic members of Congress are preparing for the possibility of litigation. They're considering if they have the best teams possible to carry out their work. Some Republicans may say that Democrats are weaponizing the Justice Department, citing Trump's trial as an example. But in the United States, we are judged by a jury of our peers. Trump was found guilty in court on 34 felony charges. It's hard to make a partisan argument against that.

The special counsel did not charge President Biden with a crime, citing his failing memory. This report highlights a double standard, as President Trump is facing charges for the same offense. The Democratic party is trying to convict and imprison Trump to prevent his re-election, which is what you would expect in countries like Pakistan or Brazil, not in the United States.

The president has suggested investigating Jack Smith, but I need to review the facts before committing to any investigation. A summary from the president isn't sufficient for me to act. Currently, I have no knowledge of any factual basis to investigate Jack Smith or Liz Cheney. My role requires independence, and I won't play politics. Regarding the 2020 election, I cannot confirm massive fraud without examining evidence. As for pardons, I will review each case individually if confirmed. I will ensure that evidence from the January 6th investigation is preserved according to the law and ethical guidelines. I cannot promise to destroy or not destroy evidence without understanding the legal context.

The speaker questions the authority of Jack Smith to represent the United States without nomination or confirmation. The discussion delves into the legality of Smith's appointment and the role of US attorneys under the Appointments Clause. The conversation also touches on the handling of January 6 protesters and potential Supreme Court rulings. The speaker raises concerns about excessive sentencing and the upcoming inspector general report on DOJ's response to the Capitol events. The attorney general emphasizes the independence of the inspector general and commits to following the law.

On JFK’s inauguration day, 48% of all State Department political-section employees were not actually State Department employees at all; they were CIA operatives under diplomatic cover. While parked at a US embassy, they did not answer within the State Department chain of command and acted as covert operatives for organized political warfare conducted by the CIA. Because they dominated the political section, they could set their own political policy for the country. If the State Department did not want to overthrow a regime but the CIA did, the CIA could use the embassy’s political-section bandwidth to contact dissident groups, run money to them, provide logistical support, connect them, and run a parallel operation without observing the White House National Security Council chain of command. The speaker gave examples where in some embassies 80% of the political affairs staff were CIA, not State Department at all. The speaker then notes Joe Biden’s CIA director as Bill Burns, describing Burns as a buddy of Jeffrey Epstein. It is asserted that in the 1990s Burns was the head of the political section for the US embassy in Russia, and that Burns “never worked a day at the CIA in his whole life before he’d be handed the reins to be the CIA director.” The speaker emphasizes that Burns was a State Department figure the whole time, serving as the head of the political affairs section, and questions where he was positioned “at state” when he was the head of the political affairs section.

The attorney general can only appoint a special counsel from outside the Department of Justice to avoid conflicts of interest. In this case, the attorney general, Merrick Garland, appointed David Weiss, the US attorney in Delaware, who is ineligible under DOJ rules. Garland appointed Weiss because he has shown a willingness to cover up Hunter Biden's wrongdoings and protect Joe Biden. Two IRS employees have come forward as whistleblowers, accusing Weiss and Garland of obstructing justice and covering up wrongdoing. This appointment undermines the integrity of the Department of Justice.

The case against Trump involving classified documents is over. The FBI turned off body cameras at Mar a Lago, brought fake cover sheets, and illegally appointed Jack Smith as special counsel. These actions make a trial impossible.

The speaker believes that the appointment of a Special Counsel is not significant because the person in question, Weiss, previously approved an unprecedented deal. They argue that Weiss is unlikely to investigate the potential corruption of the current president. The speaker suggests that Americans and the rest of the world are puzzled by the criminalization of certain actions. They emphasize the need for a clean Justice Department that represents justice for the American people, criticizing the political nature of the department under President Biden. The speaker also mentions a raid at Mar-a-Lago and a tip to the Bidens, which they believe undermines the central institutions of democracy.

Speaker 0 contends that a large number of pardons were issued by the auto pen on the final day of the Biden presidency, and asserts there is no record showing that Joe Biden participated in the authorization of those pardons. The speaker claims that these pardons include notable examples such as those for Dr. Anthony Fauci, members of the Biden family, Adam Schiff, the January 6 committee, and an extensive list that the speaker describes as continuing at length. The core assertion is that every one of these pardons was signed with the auto pen and there is no evidence that Joe Biden was personally involved in the decision-making process behind them. According to the speaker, the absence of Biden’s involvement in the decision-making is a key element of the argument, and the implication is that this absence of direct participation should be recognized in legal terms. The speaker further states that these pardons could be declared null and void by the Department of Justice. The underlying claim is that there is a basis for such a nullification rooted in the way the pardons were issued, specifically the use of the auto pen and the lack of documented presidential involvement. The speaker also asserts that the ongoing investigation will produce evidence that will support the DOJ’s decision to void the pardons. In this framing, the investigation’s forthcoming findings are presented as capable of reinforcing the claim that the pardons were improperly issued or improperly authorized due to the absence of direct presidential action. The overall narrative presented is one of procedural challenge to the pardons, anchored in the asserted method of issuance (the auto pen) and the supposed lack of Biden’s participation in the process. The speaker emphasizes a sequence in which the pardons, if deemed void, would be reversed or nullified by official action from the Department of Justice, with future investigative evidence expected to validate that outcome in court.

Jack Smith was not nominated by President Biden or confirmed by the US Senate. The special counsel statute has expired, so the authority to appoint a special counsel is questioned as it was created without Congress authorization.

The DOJ may not want to release Biden's transcript because Republican leadership altered Nina Jankowitz's transcript by cutting and pasting. Releasing audio would uniquely chill future DOJ investigations, and finding a waiver would punish DOJ for cooperating with Congress. A Republican, Mr. Hehr, found no basis for charging Biden, while a special prosecutor indicted Trump. Republicans claim the transcript and audio are not the same. The audio is the best evidence, and releasing the transcript waived privilege. Merrick Garland should be held in contempt of Congress. Republicans deny altering Jankowicz's transcript, but claim special counsel Robert Hurst stated Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials. He declined prosecution because Biden is a sympathetic, well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory, and a jury wouldn't convict. Democrats believe the judiciary committee is dishonest enough to manipulate the video, so that is a good reason to withhold it.

The qualifications for a special counsel require them to be chosen from outside the US government. However, David Weiss, who is currently employed by the US government, does not meet this requirement.

The investigation found no evidence of President Biden violating laws on classified materials. The Espionage Act was analyzed, but exoneration was not confirmed. The discussion was cut short due to time constraints. Translation: The investigation cleared President Biden of any wrongdoing regarding classified materials under the Espionage Act, but the discussion was stopped due to time constraints.

The qualifications for a special counsel require them to be chosen from outside the US government. However, David Weiss, who is currently employed by the US government, does not meet this requirement.

The White House confirmed Letitia James and Fannie Willis visited before suing Trump. Willis appointed her alleged lover to prosecute Trump, paying him $650,000 in taxpayer money. Nathan Wade conspired with the White House, billing them for meetings. Willis also collaborated with Adam Schiff on the January 6th case. Republicans were barred from the committee, which later destroyed evidence. Is the Biden White House orchestrating Trump's prosecution? - Armstrong Williams. Translation: The White House confirmed that Letitia James and Fannie Willis visited before suing Trump. Willis appointed her alleged lover to prosecute Trump, paying him $650,000 in taxpayer money. Nathan Wade conspired with the White House, billing them for meetings. Willis also collaborated with Adam Schiff on the January 6th case. Republicans were barred from the committee, which later destroyed evidence. Is the Biden White House orchestrating Trump's prosecution? - Armstrong Williams.

The uproar over the anti-Trump partisan Mueller operation suggests that the Garland Justice Department may be hiding something. Special prosecutor Jack Smith and his team are targeting Trump and other Republicans with unprecedented investigations. It is important for Smith to be held accountable and for transparency to be maintained. The American people deserve to know the truth.

The US attorney in Delaware, despite being portrayed as having similar powers to a special counsel, was actually constrained and restricted by DOJ officials and other US attorneys. In my experience, it seemed that the investigation was constantly hindered and marginalized. Therefore, I believe that appointing a special counsel is essential for this case.

I disagree with the ruling that the justice department's process for picking special counsels is illegal. We believe it is constitutional and have appealed the decision. This process has been used for decades, including in previous administrations, and has been upheld by every court that has reviewed it, including the Supreme Court.