« List

« Previous | Next »

Name: 20170201_Wed_NightlyNews
Air Date: Feb. 1, 2017
686 lines.
| Copy link to current segment Download episode

TimeText
Welcome to NIFA Wars Nightly News.
I'm David Knight.
It's February 1st, 2017.
Here are our top stories.
Tonight, Donald Trump announces his Supreme Court Justice.
We look at the implications of this pick and the future of the Supreme Court.
Also, Democrats are taking every measure to stop anything President Trump does, showing their blatant political double standards.
And then, our own David Knight speaks with John Kiriakou to talk about how his CIA training prepared him for life in prison.
And developing.
Gangs are telling Trump that they want to help him make America great again, offering compromises to the President.
All that and more tonight on the InfoWars Nightly News.
In case you haven't heard, InfoWars has become the most influential media outlet in America.
We're making freedom go viral, and now we are proud to announce a new weapon in the epic battle against the globalists.
InfoWars Prime, where you can watch live high-definition feeds of the Alex Jones Show, plus exclusive insider videos from the InfoWars crew and behind-the-scenes
Action!
Go to InfoWars.com forward slash app and download today.
InfoWars Prime is available right now for your iPhone or Android.
You will have access to exclusive videos that you can't see anywhere else.
That means live coverage of events and breaking news on location as it happens.
You can also take advantage of amazing deals from the InfoWars store that are only available for InfoWars Prime subscribers.
That's InfoWars Prime at InfoWars.com forward slash app.
If you can hear my voice, you are the resistance.
Last night, Donald Trump announced his pick for the replacement of Justice Scalia on the Supreme Court.
49-year-old Neil Gorsuch.
And we're going to take a look at the process that's going on here.
We're also going to take a look at the justice himself and the opposition to it.
But first, let's remember that this is one of what may be four picks for President Trump.
Salon last summer said the next president will likely appoint four Supreme Court Justices, and they were wringing their hands over the fact that most of their people were not paying attention.
Well, they're paying attention now.
And this is what they point out.
They said since 1971, the average age of retirement for a Supreme Court Justice has been just under 79.
Ginsburg is 83, Kennedy is 80, and Breyer turned 78 last August.
And so all of these and some of the most liberal justices on the Supreme Court are at or well beyond what has typically been the retirement age at this point.
And we're talking about now four years out.
And they go on to say the new justices will set the direction of the Supreme Court and the values that guide it for the next generation.
Actually, that should be the Constitution.
But of course, that's not the view of the liberals.
That is the view of constitutionalists, originalists, textualists, like Scalia and like Justice Gorsuch.
We're going to talk about that in just one moment.
But when you go back and look at this, of course, the opposition from the left is saying, this is a stolen seat.
The Republicans stole this from Merrick Garland.
When Scalia died last February, then they should have replaced him at that point.
And we're going to take a look at that.
We're going to take a look at the Biden rule.
But first, understand that Barack Obama, like most of the presidents, had two picks.
The only president to have only a single pick.
We're good.
I don't
I think so.
The relevant rule here requires that Supreme Court justices recuse themselves if in their previous capacity they served as a counselor or advisor concerning a current matter before the court, or if there's anything about the proceedings by which the justices impartiality can reasonably be called into question.
Now, why would it be called into question?
Judicial Watch got emails that revealed that in 2010, when Obamacare passed, Ms.
Kagan was Solicitor General, and she said in her emails that Obamacare was simply amazing.
She assigned a deputy in her office to help prepare legal defenses to any challenges to Obamacare.
In another email, when she was asked for her opinion, she asked for their phone number, which indicated that she might want to do this privately and not have an audit trail.
So you see, clearly she was acting as a counselor or advisor in a matter that she had a deep interest in.
Nevertheless, she refused to recuse herself.
Now we're seeing from the left, the LA Times editorial board.
The editorial board, mind you, puts a title out here.
When the GOP stole Merrick Garland's Supreme Court seat, they set the stage for a miserable battle.
And they said it is hard to express how head-shakingly unfair this is.
Well, they find it difficult to express because, you know, it really isn't unfair.
But they do make an interesting point here.
When they're looking at this, they said the Democrats have been put in a terrible bind.
Of course, they wrote this before we had the pick of Gorsuch.
They said, do they take the Republican bait?
Do they declare the seat stolen and launch a filibuster against any candidate in spite and in vengeance?
Or do they roll over, brand themselves as patsies,
And allow Trump to appoint a Scalia clone, or someone worse, to fill the seat.
And of course, that's what we do have, is a Scalia clone.
They finish by saying it's an awful predicament, it's bad, it's hard to see how this is going to end out well.
Of course, it isn't going to end well for the Democrats.
They should be afraid.
They should be very afraid.
Because we're going to show you what is going to happen.
There is not going to be a way that they're going to be able to stop this confirmation pick.
We'll talk about that in a moment, but as the Huffington Post points out, they said the Democrats are still bitter that how their SCOTUS pick was treated.
They say the ghost of Merrick Garland still floats around parts of this place.
And then they go on to say, this has been a cynical strategy not to put somebody in there.
It's a cynical strategy done by Mitch McConnell to hold the seat open for Trump.
Really?
Let's go back and look at what Joe Biden said.
Back in 1992, in a Senate floor speech, and of course this all came up last year as the Democrats were demanding that Merrick Garland be put in place, they went back, wisely looked at the record and said, but wait a minute, Vice President Biden said we shouldn't do that during election years.
This is what he had to say.
He said, it is my view that if a Supreme Court justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, remember that was an election year,
President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors.
The practice of a majority of his predecessors.
This wasn't something that was an idea that Joe Biden had.
This is something that had been a precedent.
And not name a nominee until after the November election is completed.
He said wait until after the political campaign season is over.
And then he goes on to say, I sadly predict, Mr. President,
That this is going to be one of the bitterest, dirtiest presidential campaigns we will have seen in modern times.
He's talking about the 1992 campaign.
And he says, some will criticize such a decision and say it was nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it.
Or, you know, they might have called it cynical, just as Huffington Post called Mitch McConnell and the Republicans cynical when they did the same thing that Joe Biden was saying back then.
And, of course, that was pointed out in February last year by Senator Charles Grassley, and he even called it the Biden rules.
Now, in the Washington Post, there's an interesting article by Jonathan Adler, and he tells it straight.
Very unusual for the Washington Post.
He says, no, the obstruction of Neil Gorsuch is not about Merrick Garland.
He said, the usual pitch against the Supreme Court nominee is that he or she will alter the balance of the court.
But that argument has no purchase here.
Replacing one conservative jurist with another won't alter the balance of the court.
He said the problem with this argument is that most Senate Democrats are willing to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee before Garland was nominated, let alone blocked by Republicans.
And he goes back, he looks at what Obama did, he looks at the progressives, how they push back against nominees like Alito.
He says, let's review the history, and it is a quite long history that he goes into.
But then he finishes up with this.
This is his conclusion.
A final point, he said.
If it were up to me, there would be no obstruction of any qualified nominee to the court.
I have maintained this position for more than 15 years, but I'm not holding my breath that that is going to happen.
And of course, it didn't happen.
They had announced that they were going to obstruct it all along, and we have seen as they go through these different, as they point out, this is not going to alter the balance of the court.
But we see, as we have these justices come forward, many times they've said, we need to have, this is a female judge, we need to have a female replacement, or this is a black judge, or this is a Hispanic judge, and we need to keep that seat for that particular identity politics.
We should have maybe seats for ideologues, but even if we do go with ideology rather than identity, that doesn't change anything to replace Scalia with Gorsuch.
That is the quality of the appointment that Donald Trump has made.
A great quality appointment.
If we go back to 2006, 11 years ago, Gorsuch was confirmed unanimously by a voice vote, and 12 of the 48 current Democrat Senators were in the Senate at that time.
That would put them well over the number that they need, 60, in order to confirm Gorsuch for the Supreme Court.
And yet, we see Ron Wyden, one of those Democrats, saying, Gorsuch represents such a breathtaking retreat from the notion that Americans have fundamental constitutional rights.
Really?
I don't think so.
You know, here's what the problem is right now.
Americans are going through a very painful divorce with the Democrat Party.
And hell hath no fury like a Democrat scorned.
Take a look at Nancy Pelosi.
She comes out with another preposterous statement, saying that Gorsuch is against employees' rights, clean air, clean water, food safety, even autistic children.
She said, elections have ramifications.
Yes, they do.
And you are not willing to accept those ramifications, are you, Nancy Pelosi and Democrats?
She said, here is a living, breathing example of it.
She said the president and his first appointment to the court and hopefully his only appointment I don't think that's gonna be the case Nancy I think there's gonna be at least one maybe three more Has appointed someone who's come down on the side of corporate America versus class action suits on securities fraud He's come down against employers rights clean air clean water food safety safety and medicine and the rest She said it's a very hostile environment
Well, I don't think anybody is swallowing any of that.
And I don't know what she's inhaling.
But let's take a look at some of his positions.
Breitbart points out that he has supported the Second Amendment as an individual right.
And this is very important because if your children are going to a government school, this has been the case for a very long time, they will tell your kids that the Second Amendment, that the militia, is about the National Guard or some nonsense like that.
That it doesn't have anything to do with individual rights.
We've been clawing back at that with some recent Supreme Court decisions.
And of course, he is in line with that.
It is obviously an individual right.
All of the Bill of Rights are individual rights, except for the 9th and 10th Amendment.
And those are individual rights and state rights.
But nevertheless, going back to this opinion for the United States versus Gamez-Perez, he said, the 2nd Amendment protects an individual's right to own firearms and may not be infringed lightly.
I would just say,
The word lightly is not in the Constitution.
It may not be infringed.
Should have stopped at that point.
Period.
But then he goes on to say, there is a long tradition of widespread gun ownership by private individuals in this country.
Again, it's great that we have a tradition, but the Constitution specifically protects that God-given right of self-defense.
But they point out in this article that Trump pledged to nominate a justice in the mold of Scalia.
And that's truly what we have.
An originalist, a textualist, somebody who goes to the Constitution for what it says.
If you don't do that, then what you wind up with are justices who act as dictators, who say, the law is in my mouth.
I can change the Constitution.
It's a living document.
That's the alternative.
They call it a living document approach.
They say that he comes with a set of judicial and ideological commitments apart from his policy.
I think?
Of referring to legislative history instead of the Constitution, and he is less than enamored of the dormant Commerce Clause that they love to appeal to, like the Welfare Clause.
Let's take a look at another thing that they're complaining about as well.
Of course, there's the Hobby Lobby decision, which has been criticized by Democrat senators.
I've heard them say, look, he said that a corporation had religious liberty.
No, that's not at all what that's about.
We'll talk about the Hobby Lobby decision and whether that is giving religious liberty to a corporation, but let's take a look at a related case which they were also very upset about, and that's Little Sisters of the Poor.
They also had to take their case to the Supreme Court because liberals did not want to allow a group of nuns who were taking care of elderly citizens to get by without buying insurance for contraception and for abortion.
How ridiculous is that?
And that was a unanimous decision by the Supreme Court without Scalia on it.
So even the liberals shut down the idea that you're now seeing bantered around by the senators who are opposing Gorsuch saying, you know, we have to have, we can't allow them to opt out of Obamacare even for religious reasons.
And if we look at his decision, what he actually said, it is not for secular courts, to paraphrase it, to decide about religious teachings.
We have the free exercise religion.
He's also written against euthanasia and assisted suicide, even though in Colorado, where he is, they were legalized last November.
Now, they talked to a longtime friend of his, and I think this gives an insight into his character.
And the friend said he's won some of the largest damages ever under the Sherman Antitrust Act, one of those on behalf of a Memphis business.
But then he talks about how he represented a small business owner, treating it with the same gravity that he treated this large corporation.
He told a story about a smaller award for a small gravel pit owner that he represented who was cheated out of his fair share of mining royalties.
During his closing remarks, he looked at the jurors.
He said, this is what they did to my poor client.
He put his hands in his pockets and he turned them inside out.
He said, for Neil,
His friend said, for Neil Gorsuch, this fight over a few thousand dollars worth of dirt was the most important case ever tried.
For Neil, this wasn't gravel.
This was good versus evil.
And a woman who had been a member of the jury came up to him afterwards and said, you're Perry Mason.
Let's hope that we have somebody with strong moral character.
I think we do.
And if we look at what Ted Cruz is saying, he said, every option is on the table.
Let's hope.
I don't know.
And it's time for humanity to stand up in the info war and say, I don't know what's going to happen at the end of this, but you want to fight?
You better believe you got one!
Now, what I'm announcing here today is already a custom here in the United States, and that is extending the Christmas holiday up until New Year's Eve and then taking down the Christmas trees and taking down the Christmas lights.
Ooh, I keep saying Christmas.
I'm so politically incorrect.
The day after New Year's Eve or New Year's Day.
And so I've decided right through New Year's Day, we're going to keep
The virtual Christmas tree or an HD video shot of downtown Austin at the capital of the beautiful Christmas tree up just to upset the social justice warriors and all the little snowflakes that want to bully us into banning our culture and banning free speech.
In fact, there's a war going on, not just online, but in the streets.
I've seen it, where people on the hike and bike trails say Merry Christmas, and then folks don't respond and they say Happy Holidays!
Or even family I have, that I send the message of Merry Christmas to, they respond back with Happy Holidays.
It is some distant cousins, but it's going on.
But we're also going to extend the Christmas sale right through until New Year's Eve, until everything sells out at InfoWarsTore.com.
Now, we normally try to budget things to where, in the warehouse, most of the products sell out by year-end, and the new products come in in a few weeks or a month after, because we have to pay taxes on inventory.
And this year, I've decided to extend the sale until everything completely sells out.
So to be clear, almost every one of our best-selling nutraceutical supplements is selling out, and for a good reason, because here are the specials that we're running until they sell out or until the new year comes here in just about four or five days.
Living Defense, 30% off.
Super Mel Vitality, 30% off.
These are huge specials.
Silver Bullet Coil Silver, 50% off.
Brain Force Plus, 33% off.
Winter Sun Vitamin D, 25% off.
And again, a lot of these are selling out as we speak or have sold out.
Survival Shield X2, 30% off.
Bio True Selenium, 30% off.
And then let me finish up with this, the Coup De Grace.
Store-wide free shipping until New Year's Day.
Store-wide at InfoWarsTore.com.
On the non-GMO heirloom seeds, and the Trump is my president shirts, and Hillary for prison 2017 shirts, and deport George Soros, the goblin globalist specials.
Store-wide free shipping.
50 to 30 percent off on scores of items and all of these are super high quality products.
They help fund the spearhead in the fight against the globalists and they are game changers.
We couldn't have built this operation without you.
So you're not standing beside us or behind us.
You are standing at the heart
Thank you.
I certainly hope and pray you had a blessed and merry Christmas, and I'm really focusing and working hard to make sure we have a great new year as Americanism, not globalism, accelerates into the future.
So again, I want to encourage you all, take advantage of the biggest sales of 2016 with Christmas sales extended with free shipping store-wide and 50 to 30% off on high-quality supplements and many other items at InfoWarsTore.com
And Infowarslife.com.
I'm Alex Jones signing off from the Central Texas News Center in Austin.
Go to Infowarsstore.com today for 30-50% off specials while supplies last plus free shipping or call 1-888-253-3139.
Last night we played the first part of our interview with John Kiriakou.
Of course, he is a CIA agent who had 14 years experience as an officer.
He blew the whistle on waterboarding and torture, and he was the only one to go to jail.
So we're going to play a little bit more of that interview for you tonight.
It talks about torture, it talks about the persecution of whistleblowers, how the people at the top who
We're good to go.
What you do, the only way you can succeed really, is to establish a rapport, or to establish a relationship with a prisoner.
Get the prisoner comfortable, maybe offer him a cigarette, or a piece of fruit or something, and eventually he'll open up to you.
That's succeeded since the end of the Second World War, when the FBI was interrogating Nazi war criminals.
But that was too slow for the CIA.
And so George Tenet, who at the time was the CIA director, went to President Bush and asked President Bush to give primacy over the case to the CIA rather than to the FBI.
President Bush did that.
The FBI withdrew from this secret location.
And on August 1st, 2002, the torture of Abu Zubaydah began.
And so before we get into the details of that, you know, going back again to the ethics issue, you know, one of the things that concerns me about this is that we don't want to become what we fight.
You know, and this is why we had people that we executed, as you pointed out, in World War II, who did waterboard torturing.
This is why we imprisoned American soldiers who did this.
This is something that it goes before Donald Trump.
It goes before Barack Obama.
It goes before George Bush.
We had made that decision for ethical reasons.
That we want to take the high ground.
We do not want to become the same as the terrorists.
So that's a very important point.
You also pointed out that the legal issues, you also pointed out that there's a pragmatic issue that again, you and the FBI agent and General Mattis have all said that it is much more effective to use other interrogation techniques because once you start torturing people, they will tell you anything to get it to stop, won't they?
They will tell you literally anything.
You know, I hear something that's called, I'm having a mental blank right now, the ticking time bomb scenario.
Oh yeah, yeah, 24, yeah.
They dramatize that on a weekly basis.
We saw it every week.
You had to beat somebody, you had to torture somebody in order to get the information at the last second, yeah.
Exactly.
And the truth of the matter is, there is no such thing as the ticking time bomb.
This is just right out of the movies.
It doesn't happen in real life.
It's a red herring that people throw out there into this debate when they are pro-torture and can't really articulate why they're pro-torture.
So this idea that there's a bomb getting ready to go off in an American city and you have to torture the person to get the information to prevent the bomb from going off.
But the person you're torturing will tell you literally anything that he thinks will cause you to stop the torture.
Let's say there is a bomb getting ready to go off in New York.
He's going to tell you that it's in Chicago, or Los Angeles, or Atlanta.
All he's going to do is buy some time and get you to stop torturing him.
And in the meantime, you have to vet this information.
That's it!
You have to analyze the information.
You can't just run to... He's not going to give you an address where you can go dismantle the bomb.
This is only in the movies.
So to me, that argument is just a non-starter.
Let's talk about the actual process.
Can you describe this?
You've seen it, presumably, right?
Can you describe this for the audience so they understand what we're talking about here?
Yes.
Why we made this a heinous crime?
Why we executed Japanese soldiers for doing this?
Why Americans should not be doing this as a matter of policy?
Talk about the actual process.
And I'll give you Abu Zubaydah as the example.
Abu Zubaydah was waterboarded 83 times.
What that means is the prisoner is strapped to a board or to a gurney with his feet slightly elevated, so there's more pressure on the upper part of the body, on the face and head, on the torso.
And his face is then wrapped in material.
It can be cloth or burlap or even cellophane, something like that.
And then water is forced on the face, like from a hose, for example.
So the prisoner takes in water.
There's going to be water escaping into the nose or into the mouth, and it creates a sense of drowning.
The prisoner begins to panic, and with that water going into the mouth of the nose, it ends up collecting in the lungs.
So you really do believe
That's a good question.
Abu Zubaydah was so severely waterboarded that he went into convulsions and finally his heart stopped and he had to be revived.
So this is a technique that can result in death and actually sometimes does result in death.
One thing I want to point out too, not all of the so-called enhanced interrogation techniques that were approved by the Bush White House are torture techniques.
If I grab you by the lapels and I say, answer my question, darn you, that's not torture.
Did they call that enhanced interrogation?
Yeah, that was actually one of the enhanced interrogations.
That's another part of it.
It's not just playing with the language, but it's including things that are innocuous into things that are really severe like this, and just grouping them all together into this bureaucratic term.
Precisely, and there were techniques that I always believed were far worse than waterboarding.
There was a technique called the cold cell, for example, where a prisoner is stripped naked, he's chained to an eye bolt in the ceiling like this so that he can't get comfortable in any way.
The cell is chilled to 50 degrees Fahrenheit, and then every hour, a CIA officer will go into the cell and throw a bucket of ice water on it.
This technique actually killed two prisoners.
Two prisoners die of hypothermia.
Now, the point is not to kill the prisoners.
The point is to soften them up, so to say, so that they will give you that actionable intelligence that you need to save American lives.
But when the result is death, that's not a workable technique.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld famously said that he didn't believe sleep deprivation was torture because he used to stay up 24 hours, 48 hours, and he had a stand-up desk.
He had a stand-up desk so he wasn't even sitting and resting during the course of the day.
Well, there's things we know and there's things that we don't know and there's things we don't know that we don't know.
That's right.
The master of doublespeak, yeah.
We know also from both the Senate Torture Report, which you just had on the screen, and from the American Psychological Association, that people begin to lose their minds around Day 7 of sleep deprivation.
Yeah.
Wow.
Who are unable to participate in their own defenses because they've lost their minds thanks to this technique.
Wow.
That's amazing.
Now, while we're talking about the torture report, let's talk about the accidental destruction of that 6,700 page report.
And one of the things that gives me hope about all this is that Dianne Feinstein, you said, used to be a real cheerleader.
Yes.
As he sees some of this, it's going to pull him back just like Dianne Feinstein was pulled back with some of this.
I hope that's going to create a healthy skepticism from the president on that.
But talk about how a 6,700 page report can just disappear.
This is unique to the United States, isn't it?
Yeah, the Senate Torture Report was based, as I said a moment ago, on primary source CIA documents.
And so the CIA makes a case that it owns the Senate Torture Report, right?
Because CIA documents, they still belong to the CIA.
They are what the CIA calls currently and properly classified.
So they were
Loaned, if you will, to the Senate investigators to do the report, but the ownership of the report is the CIA's.
Everyone knows that InfoWars funds our operation by selling high quality products that we use and that everybody needs at very competitive affordable prices.
That's why I get questions all the time over the years.
Why don't you sell body armor at infowarestore.com?
Or why don't you have sponsors that sell body armor?
And it's simple.
I will only promote and I will only sell the very, very best out there.
And there's a nexus point.
There's quality versus price.
And those two points have to come together.
National Defense Labs and its civilian subsidiary, Citizen Armor,
has given InfoWars the exclusive on distributing to the American people.
The true next generation in body armor.
People are always saying, it's the 21st century, where are the silver jetpacks and where's Buck Rogers and the Skycars?
Well, the globalists have basically suppressed a lot of those developments.
They admit they want a post-industrial world.
They call any technology that gets around their systems of control disruptive.
Well, believe me,
This is Disruptive to Tyrants Worldwide.
Basically what we're bringing to the Info Wars team is a new line of dynamic, lightweight body armor.
It's nanotube technology.
It's created here in Texas.
It is lighter, more flexible, easier to wear, more comfortable, and stronger than anything else on the market.
We've, uh, went out and did some testing.
We originally found their claims, saw what they said.
We were all kind of hesitant to believe that something so light, so flexible, um, could be so strong.
So what we did is we went out, we used, um, different pistols, different calibers to test different pieces of the body armor to ensure that it was up to the high standards that we expect to carry here at the M4 War Store.
Born in Texas.
Made in America.
Exclusively available at InfoWarsTore.com right now.
I mean, it's unbelievable.
It's a quarter inch thick.
I mean, it's got a 20-year warranty.
It's waterproof.
It's comfortable.
You can wear it.
I mean, it's not bulky.
I mean, that's the biggest, I think, intrigue for you, Alex.
The biggest thing for us is, unfortunately, we live in a society now where we need to be able to defend ourselves and our families at any time.
And this is something that is so thin and so lightweight.
You said when you talked to people that have been using this, actually testing it for years, people that currently have tested it for us, they didn't just say outstanding.
What did they really say about it?
No, this is through the roof.
They want to know how do they get it, where do they find it.
A lot of my law enforcement official buddies want to know the same thing because they're weighing, they're wearing these big heavy bulky vests that don't work as well.
So, they're looking for something you can wear all day, 12 hours a day, in and out of a car.
And 90, I mean, you can look up the numbers, 90 plus percent of fatalities with guns when they're used in a commission of crime, I think it's like 94, is pistols or shotguns.
This stops that, unless it's a slug.
I mean, that's amazing.
So, they can wear this and only somebody with a rifle around is going to get through it.
And soon, and we'll have it, if it's available to civilians, they're not sure, we're going to have the stuff that's, I mean, unstoppable.
This deal is so insane, is so good, it makes my head spin.
But I guess the first people to sell cars kind of had to give them away.
People didn't believe it.
Hell, I don't want that thing.
I feed my horse hay.
The backpack body armor is only $200.
And we shot everything you can imagine on it.
Again, fund the Info War, get the game-changing nanotech tubes from Buck Rogers.
It's a win-win.
$200.
Go check out all their different products at InfoWarStore.com.
It's amazing.
So the CIA argues then,
That the Senate does not have the right to keep or to maintain a copy of the full report in its spaces.
That's ludicrous.
I mean, that's what congressional oversight is all about.
That's why the Senate and House Intelligence Committees were created in the first place.
At the same time,
The CIA maintains that other executive branch organizations, the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the Department of Homeland Security, the Attorney General's Office, also do not have a right to keep a copy of the report because, being currently improperly classified, it's the property of the CIA.
So what we really need
We're good to go.
And that's the key thing, too.
We've seen in so many different areas, and those of us who listen to the radio program and the nightly news here understand that Congress has abdicated its authority to the bureaucracies in so many different ways.
They allow them to essentially write the laws.
They're allowing the CIA to run roughshod over this.
Let's talk about some of the things that did come out in the only 500 pages that surfaced of that.
Some of the things like rectal hydration.
With hummus, sexual assault with broomsticks, some of these things that came out in this report.
We can understand why they wanted to keep this secret, but is this authorized by the CIA, or is this criminal actions that nobody was punished for?
No, this was not authorized by the CIA, and this has been my position all along.
And again, this really points to the weakness of Barack Obama and his utter inability to stand up to the CIA.
Also, John Brennan was a monster of Barack Obama's creation.
This is another thing I've maintained over the last four years.
Oh, yes.
Things like rectal rehydration using hummus, things like sexual assault using broomsticks, or repeatedly slamming
A prisoner's head against the wall, which we did to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's nephew, to the point where it causes permanent traumatic brain injury.
Those actions are not authorized by anybody.
Not by the CIA, not by the Justice Department, not by anybody.
Except that they're not punished, you could say that there's a tacit authorization, then isn't there?
Then once somebody does that, they're not punished for it, then it's kind of understood with a wink and a nod that that's authorized.
You're exactly right.
You're exactly right.
And that's really the core issue.
The core issue is we're supposed to be a country of laws.
We're supposed to be a country that has what is perhaps a divinely inspired constitution.
So we're either going to live by those laws and to respect that constitution or we're not.
And if we're not, we should not profess to other countries to be this shining beacon of civil liberties and civil rights.
As we started out, you said we need to have this conversation.
Exactly.
That's what you said ten years ago when you broke this information out there.
If we don't have this conversation, if we don't decide as a nation what the rules are going to be, then we don't have any rules.
And we are a lawless
That's it.
No, they don't punish it.
And oftentimes when senior CIA officers are put into a box, when they get caught doing something like this, they'll say, well, we briefed the committees and the committees didn't tell us to stop.
And in fact, some of the time they did brief the committees, most of the time they actually didn't.
They may send a memo to the chairman or the vice chairman, but then that's it.
They consider that to be informative.
And when there was no objection, they just took that as the green light or as carte blanche to go ahead and do what they want.
That's not congressional oversight.
Let me ask you about John Rizzo, of course.
He was a lawyer who defended enhanced interrogation techniques.
His book, and of course you're talking about how the CIA maintained they owned the report.
I guess they look at it like a book that you have a copyright on because they call themselves the company.
His book was called The Company Man.
And I thought the most interesting thing in his book was the fact that he said that he wanted to join the CIA when he was watching the Frank Church Committee hearings where they were talking about the lawless actions of the CIA.
Yeah, he must have had the sound off.
And to me, that was amazing to see.
That would inspire him to want to join that organization.
And evidently it wasn't to bring law and rules to that organization, but to help them get away with it.
Yeah.
Rizzo obviously had the sound off when he was watching the Church Commission hearings.
I knew John Rizzo very well.
John Rizzo makes a very specific point of not talking about me and not mentioning me or my case, which I appreciate, frankly.
But John Rizzo was wrong about enhanced interrogation techniques.
He was wrong about waterboarding.
He was wrong about torture.
He did nothing to stop it.
And in his book, he sort of throws the reader a bone, saying, well, I probably should have stopped it.
I didn't.
I probably made a mistake.
We're the good guys, they're the bad guys, so we just need to move on.
It's not that we need to move on.
We need to clarify what we're going to do as a country.
We need to clarify what kind of intelligence policy we're going to have, and whether or not we're going to follow the Constitution, follow the law of the land.
Clean and simple.
Well of course we had that discussion with the Pike and the Church Committee hearings.
And it was all because the CIA and the NSA were spying on conversations, phone conversations at that time, of American citizens.
We all focus on the assassination guns that were shown, you know, that they're passing around everything.
But the core of it was that they were spying on American citizens, so they created the FISA Act, and then they used that
To spy on American citizens as authorization to spy on American citizens.
So clearly they didn't learn anything from that or they use that as they typically do to move forward.
But before we get into the persecution, the way they prosecute you, the double standards that we see here, because that's another key thing that is happening to Americans all over the place is the double standard that we see for the people at the top.
I just want to ask you, when you were there, were you
Kind of the outlier that was concerned about what was going on with the waterboarding excessive techniques here or were there a lot of people that were concerned about it but were afraid to speak up?
I thought at the time that I was the only person who had a problem with this.
There were 14 of us who were approached by a senior officer in the CIA's counterterrorism center asking us if we wanted to be what he called trained in the use of enhanced interrogation techniques.
Of the 14, two of us said no, and one of the two changed his mind and went into the training.
So of the 14, I was the only one who said no.
I said, this sounds like a torture program.
Torture's wrong.
I don't want any part of it.
And in fact, I didn't even say that right away.
I said, give me an hour to think about it.
And I went up to the seventh floor, which is the CIA's executive floor.
There was a very, very senior CIA officer there for whom I had worked in the Middle East about a decade earlier.
And I went in and I said, hey, do you have a minute?
I said, they just approached me and asked me if I wanted to be trained in these enhanced interrogation techniques.
What do you think of this?
And he said, first, let's call it what it is.
It's a torture program.
They can use whatever euphemism they want, enhanced interrogation techniques, whatever they want.
It's a torture program.
Second, torture is a slippery slope.
And you know how these guys are.
Somebody's going to go overboard.
They're going to torture a prisoner to death.
And then there's going to be a congressional investigation.
And after that, there's going to be a Justice Department investigation.
And then somebody's going to go to prison.
Do you want to go to prison?
And I said, no, I don't want to go to prison.
As it turned out, I was the only one who went to prison and none of the torturers ever went to prison.
Absolutely.
But I went back down to the Counterterrorism Center and I said, this is a torture program and I don't want any part of it.
Well, you know, that's the amazing thing, too.
And as Jesslyn Radick, your lawyer, pointed out, you said you're the only one who went to prison because he said that.
She said the people who ordered the torture, the lawyers who justified it, the people who carried it out, those who destroyed the videotapes of it, none of them are being held accountable.
The only person going to jail in this connection with this is the person who blew the whistle on it.
In fact, if John had actually tortured someone, I don't think he would be going to jail.
You would have gone along with the program, you would have been a fine.
The thing is, and we hear this from people like Frank Serpico, talking about the police, he said, look, any organization you've got, you're going to have good people, you're going to have bad people.
And the difference as to whether or not this organization is going to be a good or bad organization is, do you purge out the good people, or do you purge out the bad people?
And clearly, in your case, what they're doing is they're purging out the good people.
You know, I joined the CIA because I'm a patriot.
I joined the CIA because I'm a second-generation American whose family always stressed the importance of public service.
This country has been so good to us, we needed to pay it back for all the riches that we've gotten over the years.
And for me, that was joining the CIA and serving my country overseas.
I just assumed when I joined the CIA that everybody felt the same way.
Alex Jones here with a very important news update to anybody out there that wants to be prepared.
But it goes beyond being prepared.
Our bodies absolutely must have the good halogen iodine or we will die.
And you look at all of the thyroid problems and all the people that don't have energy and that have all sorts of hormone problems.
And from my research and a lot of just mainline research, it leads back to iodine over and over and over again.
It's as important as vitamin C.
If you don't get iodine, you die.
But most people are just deficient, so they're low energy, they're sick.
You've got to have iodine in your body so that your body can produce the hormones you need.
It is the base to so many things.
And since I got into iodine four years ago, we've helped change the entire paradigm by developing and bringing to the public deep earth crystals from 7,000 to 12,000 feet of the purest iodine available.
Other iodine comes from the ocean or from other byproducts of chemical facilities and is tainted.
It's bound.
It's not absorbable.
I tried it and I had incredible effects even with dirty iodine because the body needs it.
When you don't have iodine, it absorbs the chlorine, the fluoride, and all these other bad halogens.
Do yourself and your family a favor and check out the importance of iodine for yourself.
I think you're going to be blown away.
And whatever you do,
Support the broadcast and get a bottle of Survival Shield Nascent Iodine X2.
Also, consult your physician because if you've been deficient in it or have other issues, it can have some dramatic effects.
As for me and most folks I talk to, it's been a game changer in the positive column.
But still, consult your physician because iodine is no joke.
It's a key building block of the body and if you haven't had it for a long time and suddenly have it, some folks say they've experienced things like a detoxing effect and things like that.
You've got to have vitamin C. You've got to have iodine to live.
You've got to have water to live.
Iodine is key.
You must have it.
But consult your physician first before you get powerful survival shield nascent iodine, X2, at Infowarslife.com or call toll free.
888-253-3139.
We can answer your questions.
It's been one more of a busy day for President Donald Trump.
He was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize today.
We broke that story earlier this morning.
Meanwhile, mega-church pastor Daryl Scott sat down with him.
Get this, folks.
He said that the Chicago gangs contacted him.
They promised to murder less if Trump would come to the table, that they actually respect him.
I cannot make this up.
We have a video clip.
Take a look.
At a White House Black History Month breakfast, a black minister from Cleveland who was on President Trump's transition team put Chicago crime back in the spotlight.
I was recently contacted by some of the top gang thugs in Chicago for a sit-down.
They reached out to me because they associated me with you, they respect you, they believe in what you're doing, and they want to have a sit-down about lowering that body count.
It's a great idea because Chicago is totally out of control.
I'm joined in studio now by Millie Weaver.
And Millie, we know that Chicago former community organizer, President Barack Obama, this seemed like a swipe at him because he did so much work on the ground to make sure that the Chicago gangs weren't murdering as much.
Now they finally have a president that they respect.
They reach out to this mega pastor to be able to come to the table for once and say, we want social programs.
We're going to stop our killing.
If you give it to us, what do you make of this?
It's absolutely absurd.
I mean, it's pretty crazy that, you know, they would even be trying to barter.
You know, we'll cut our body count down.
We'll cut our numbers down on
I don't know.
So, it's just really crazy to see that they would be bartering in this way.
Something that really struck me, so Pastor Scott, he actually said, we don't, this is coming directly from the gangs of Chicago, we didn't respect the former president, we actually respect you.
That was a direct quote from this, and I'm just gonna read.
He's a black Trump supporter.
He was contacted by some of the top gang thugs in Chicago for a sit-down.
And he's saying, look, they told me out of their mouths themselves, we didn't believe in the prior administration.
We believe in you.
It looks like Trump, you know, the 12th day of office here, he's already bringing the Chicago murder rate down.
No thanks to Rahm Emanuel, by the way, who has nothing to do with this.
And we saw him buck up against Trump.
I know you and I talked about this off camera.
The Sanctuary City aspect of Chicago, we've seen
Yeah.
A little bit.
Keep it a sanctuary city.
And as well as the City Council, and they did vote on that.
Now, as far as, you know, having the federal government come in, that might be what's necessary in order to get rid of the crime element.
I mean, they're trying to barter with him, but I really don't see Donald Trump, you know, giving them much leeway.
He could be just doing this, making it seem like he's going to barter with them so that they come out and expose their criminal nature.
I don't think that he's going to negotiate.
You think he's not going to actually negotiate?
No, I really don't.
Well, I mean, you know what?
Anybody that wants to come to the negotiating table, you know, I really commend them for that.
You know, thank God they're going to murder less and no less in Chicago and the thuggery going on in Chicago.
You know, the gangs are the least of it.
We cover this time and again on Fours.
And really, it's the mayoral process.
It's their mayor.
And frankly,
He took one up from the Godfather.
He is the Godfather, in my opinion, of Chicago in terms of his lack of ability to reduce violent crime and being a part of it, frankly.
But this is a good sign.
I want to take us now.
So you put in some stories.
We've had some really controversial headlines.
We were talking about this off camera for just a moment.
I know that we're going to transition now a little bit.
So Millie has been covering and kind of following this latest trend.
Yes.
We saw with the Women's March in D.C.
just recently.
Which you were there, right?
Yes, I was there and it was absolutely mind-blowing to see women out there, these women who are proclaiming themselves to be feminists, out there saying that, you know, a woman in a hijab is a symbol for woman empowerment and promoting Sharia law.
We even saw women singing, you know, a la Akbar.
It was pretty insane.
And at the same time, you have to also remember and take notice, because it's very important, that women under Sharia law are extremely oppressed and it is absolutely the reverse of woman empowerment.
It's actually woman oppression.
And so I just find it, you know, really crazy that we're going to be
You know, we were going to be allowing in these Muslims from other countries where, you know, we could have potential ISIS members coming through.
And then we have, you know, this raw Emanuel saying, no, we're going to go ahead and let this be a sanctuary city regardless.
You know, my question to you, Margaret, may be what type of cultural clash do you see this as?
Even the fact that we already have a lot of these people in our country?
Well, I think that with Rahm Emanuel specifically, it doesn't matter, you know, as long as he's in disobedient defiance to a presidential order, you know, there seems to be like, almost like a demonic energy where there's an utter confusion surrounding what is oppression and what isn't.
And we cover this really frequently on Empoors.
Thank you so much.
They hate men, frankly, and they align with Sharia law.
So they have this belief system that is really oppressive to begin with, and they're aligning with a fell of demonic oppression.
In my opinion, from what I've seen as a reporter, it's really interesting because you would think that the whole, the irony of this, that the feminist women's movement is supposed to free women, and yet it chains them with these lies.
We're good to go.
We're good to go.
You know, it's pretty intense and they have to have three male witnesses to come out and say that they saw it happen.
Otherwise, they won't report it because fear of basically admitting adultery and that's a death sentence to a woman in those nations.
So it's pretty bizarre to see, okay, like we've seen in the European nations where they've been bringing in a lot of these refugees.
The clash that's been happening, because they're not used to seeing women in anything but a black sheet, you know?
And these aren't, you know, as much as we want to talk about religious rights, which I firmly do believe in religious rights, and I think that religious freedom should be protected.
We love liberty!
I do too!
I don't care what you are, we love liberty, just don't shove it down our throats, and don't try to make it our own law that we all follow.
Like, that's fine with me.
Exactly.
The problem is when humanitarian issues kind of get in the way, I mean, you can't
We can't have like a satanic religion that's gonna go out and, you know, kill people or something because that would be violating other people's rights and it would be violating human rights.
So that's basically the way I feel on Sharia law is, you know, a lot of these things that, you know, they say against women and against homosexuals
Those things would be breaking the law here and that's a major problem with having so many, such an influx coming in to the country of people that have such a different culture.
You know, we could talk about this all day.
That's going to do it for us for tonight.
Be sure to check us out tomorrow.
I think it's Leanne McAdoo hosting the InfoWars Nightly News.
I'm Margaret Hell reporting with Millie Weaver.
And all you ISIS people threatening us?
Hey, we're not a French newspaper.
Okay?
We got people that have taken your asses out in this building right now.
We're armed to the teeth, and we're not scared.
You got that, you sons of bitches?
This is Texas.
You want to threaten me?
You can go straight to hell.
You understand that?
Never water yourself down just because someone can't handle you at 100 Proof.
It's the Alex Jones Show, because there's a war on for your mind.
In the past decade, we have witnessed unparalleled scientific discoveries in the area of health.
But no one has put together a formula that focuses directly on brain health, nerve growth factors, and optimizing your cellular energy at the same time.
DNA Force is one of the most expensive formulas to produce.
Some of the ingredients in DNA Force are $12,000 a kilogram.
We are using the coveted, patented, only American source of PQQ, CoQ10, and more.
You want the best that's out there at the lowest price anywhere?
Well, we're bringing you a total win-win.
The ultimate value, cutting-edge, trailblazing game-changer that also supports the info war.
We have produced a limited run of DNA Force and it will take up to 12 weeks to produce more once we sell out.
Secure your DNA Force today at InfoWarsLife.com or call toll free 888-253-3139.