Analyzing the Redacted Affidavit—A Preemptive Coup?
In one of the most important breaking news episodes of The Charlie Kirk Show to date, guest host Jack Posobiec is joined by several other guests to try and unpack the heavily redacted affidavit that led to the unbelievable and unprecedented raid on Mar-A-Lago. As new information comes the surface every second in this episode, Jack is joined by an all-star cast of guests including Mike Davis of the Article III Project (twice), Allum Bokhari of Breitbart News, John Solomon from Just the News, and Devin Nunes, Former Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. Was this simply a paperwork dispute with NARA? Or was the FBI after documents tied to the Russia Collusion Hoax? Jack and guests break down all of the angles bringing you the facts literally hours before the mainstream news media.Support the show: http://www.charliekirk.com/supportSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
DOJ Redactions and Election Interference00:12:07
As the affidavit is released in real time here on the program, we bring on Mike Davis, Article 3 Project, Alan Bakari of Breitbart, John Solomon of Just the News joins me in studio.
And then we bring Mike Davis back on after he has a chance to read the thing.
And Devin Nunes, the former House Intelligence Chairman.
We break down everything that you need to know about the affidavit.
This is a preemptive coup to stop Trump from running in 2024.
Jack Pesovic on the Charlie Kirk show.
Charlie, what you've done is incredible here.
Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campus.
I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk.
Charlie Kirk's running the White House, folks.
I want to thank Charlie.
He's an incredible guy.
His spirit, his love of this country, he's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created.
Turning point USA.
We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country.
That's why we are here.
Brought to you by the Loan Experts I Trust, Andrew and Todd at Sierra Pacific Mortgage at andrewandTodd.com.
How do you guys handle things when they're a big news item that's controversial?
Like there was a lot of attention on Twitter during the election because of the Hunter Biden laptop story, the Neo-West.
Yeah, so you guys censored that as well?
I mean, basically, the background here is the FBI, I think, basically came to us, some folks on our team, and was like, hey, just so you know, like you should be on high alert.
There was we thought that there was a lot of Russian propaganda in the 2016 election.
We have it on notice that basically there's about to be some kind of dump of that's similar to that.
So just be vigilant.
So when you say the distribution has decreased, it got shared.
How does that work?
It basically the ranking in newsfeed was a little bit less.
So fewer people saw it than would have otherwise.
So it definitely, by what percentage?
I don't know off the top of my head, but it's meaningful.
So the FBI censored the story.
Just to recap, in case you didn't live in this country prior to two years ago, that's not allowed.
You're not allowed to do that.
That is election interference.
That is an attack on democracy by our most powerful domestic government agency.
It's unbelievable.
You would think that these companies would be independent, but clearly they're not.
The FBI picks up the phone and says, you know, censor a story about Hunter Biden because there's also Russia disinformation, and they do just that.
Meanwhile, the story was true.
The New York Post reported all accurate findings of that laptop.
But President Biden just trashed 70 million Trump supporters.
Again, the Republicans have made their choice to go backwards, full of anger, violence, hate, and division.
I don't respect these MAGA Republicans.
The MAGA Republicans don't just threaten our personal rights and economic security.
They're a threat to our very democracy.
They embrace, embrace political violence.
But Biden really didn't feel like he nailed it.
So he went a step further saying this, quote, what we're seeing now is the beginning or the death knell of an extreme MAGA philosophy.
It's not just Trump.
It's the entire philosophy.
Wait for it.
It's like semi-fascism.
Jack Posobic here in for Charlie Kirk.
Massive show today, huge PAC show.
We've got Mike Davis coming on the Article 3 project.
We're also going to have Alan Bakari.
We're going to get into this latest admission by Mark Zuckerberg that he did positively receive what we're told on this Joe Rogan interview, a visit said the FBI came to us and told us that we needed to censor things on Facebook during the election.
And then he gets into this weird semantics argument that says, oh, no, it was just diminished distribution.
And then Rogan says, well, how much is it?
And he said, well, it was significant.
But Rogan doesn't actually call him on that.
He said, wait a minute.
You said it was diminished distribution.
It wasn't censorship.
But then you said it was a little bit, but then you said it was significant.
So which is it, right?
When you have an interview subject and they're saying, especially when it's someone who's, for all intents and purposes, an American oligarch like Mark Zuckerberg, a guy who we know was spending millions, hundreds of millions of dollars of his own money to influence the election, you have to call them when they change their story on something.
You can't just leave this stuff aside.
You have to say, wait a minute, you just said it was a little bit.
Now you said it was significant.
What was it?
What was the number?
What was the percentage?
And of course, he doesn't actually tell him.
We've got Mike Davis here with us from the Article 3 project.
And just to give everyone the context before we go in, in case you've been living under some kind of rock, the FBI raided Mar-a-Lago, the private home residence of President Donald J. Trump.
They did this under the predicate, we're told, some leaked information that's come out.
Under the predicate, there may have been classified information, national security information, presidential records.
There's all of these questions about what potentially could have been there.
But we know that the FBI went to this magistrate judge, Bruce Reiner.
He's ruling that it should be released and it should be released noon today, and that it should be coming up as soon as possible.
I want to go to Mike Davis to bring him in right now.
Mike, Mike, what are you hearing?
Do we have this thing yet?
It looks like it's going up.
And as you said, PACER is actually just crashed.
The PACER website just crashed.
Yeah, so that makes sense.
I mean, it's the government.
Why would it function properly?
So, yeah, I mean, this isn't going to be a surprise to anyone.
This biased magistrate judge, Bruce Reinhart, who just recused from President Trump's civil lawsuit versus Hillary Clinton on June 22nd, eight weeks ago, because he has a clear judicial bias against President Trump, as evidenced by his 2017 Facebook post trashing President Trump.
Somehow, this bias magically went away over six weeks, and now he's going to rubber stamp this redacted version of this affidavit.
This judge has the exact same incentives as the Biden Justice Department to cover their tracks here because they work together to obtain and order an unlawful, unnecessary, unprecedented home raid of a former president who happens to be the Biden Justice Department's boss's chief political ramble for 2024.
So it's not going to be a surprise today.
Lots of blackout.
Look, Pete, this is a day that people really want that granular detail.
This is the kind of day where we know because we've seen the FISA application all the way back when they used that to spy on the president's campaign.
Oh, I'm sorry, insert surveillance operatives and clandestine human sources, right?
Come on.
I've been on the other side of that aisle.
It's a spy, right?
You know, say, call it what it is.
What should we expect to see in an affidavit like this?
Let's take out the fact that it is President Trump.
Just what type of language, what type of material would normally be included in an affidavit like this to a judge?
What it would show, it would be very factual.
It would have hearsay statements.
It would have statements from federal agents.
And it would show that it would try to, it would try to lay out factual allegations that would amount to probable cause that a crime occurred.
And so that's what they're looking at.
They're looking at a potential violation of the Espionage Act.
They're looking at a potential violation of a separate statute that relates to the destruction or theft of government records.
And then they're looking at a third crime related to obstruction of those prior two charges.
And as a matter of law, it is impossible for President Trump to have committed any of those three crimes because President Trump had the absolute constitutional authority as commander-in-chief to declassify anything he wanted in any manner he wanted for any reason he wanted.
And he didn't have to jump through any hoops or get Congress's or his any bureaucrats' permission to do that.
So that's number one.
That's a 1988 decision, Department of the Navy versus Egan.
There is no way that Trump, as a matter of law, could have violated the Espionage Act.
Well, so let's, and I want to bring this along for the folks not in the chat or folks who aren't lawyers.
The idea is the warrant came first.
And I was able to break that on my show, Human Events Daily.
We were the first place anywhere in the world to break the full search warrant, as well as the underlying materials for this that were taken, the inventory from the search.
But of course, the way that this works is it's actually backwards.
So the inventory is last, then the warrant, then, but the affidavit was first.
The affidavit was the real background document that they never shared with Trump's attorneys.
So they're going to be seeing this.
And correct me if I'm wrong, Mike, but will Trump's attorneys be seeing this in real time along with all of us?
Yes.
And so normally they don't turn over the affidavit on these warrants.
But what this is different, that the difference here is this is an unprecedented, unnecessary, and unlawful home raid of a former president.
And they've been selectively leaking, the Biden Justice Department is selectively leaking out of this affidavit to paint a narrative, a false narrative.
They've also been leaking grand jury material, which is illegal.
They've also been putting out there that the Attorney General did not personally approve this home raid, which is nonsense.
We know that he did.
They leaked out that Trump had nuclear documents, which is also nonsense.
He didn't have nuclear documents as evidenced by the fact that there aren't Q-level classifications on the raid inventory.
Q is Department of Energy classifications for nuclear documents.
And then if he had nuclear documents, why did they wait 18 months to go get them?
Why did Merrick Garland deliberate for weeks before ordering the raid?
Why did they wait three days after this biased judge issued the home warrant to execute it?
It's just complete nonsense.
The other thing that they said that was nonsense, a lie, was that the Biden White House was not involved with this raid.
We know that Deputy White House counsel Jonathan Sue was heavily involved for months on this because, and we know President Trump was, or President Biden was as well, because President Biden had to personally waive former President Trump's assertion of executive privilege.
President Biden's the only one who can do it.
So they had to waive executive privilege so they can move forward and get this home warrant and do this raid.
And as you and I know, Jack, they did this raid because they wanted to get those crossfire hurricane records, those Russian collusion records that President Trump declassified with a memo on January 19th, the day before he left office.
It wasn't a magic wand.
It wasn't a standing order.
It was actually a declassification memo.
He actually could have done it through a magic wand or a standing order, but he actually did it with a memo.
And the Biden, the Biden Justice Department, the National Archives, the bureaucrats of the National Archives, they dragged their feet and didn't publicly release these documents.
Mike, I am seeing one document here up on Court Listener, but if I'm reading it correctly, I believe this is the Department of Justice's notice of filing of their redactions, what they wanted to be redacted.
And of course, as usual, much of this, even this document, it's 14 pages long.
And even this, much of it is redacted because it's talking about witnesses.
And then it says, for example, and the whole page is blacked out.
Then the next page, it's talking about witness identities blacked out.
The investigative roadmap.
So, I want people to understand the investigative roadmap, correct me if I'm wrong, they're talking about the criminal investigation into President Trump.
Yes or no?
Yes.
You cannot get a warrant for a home raid unless there are underlying crimes.
Investigative Roadmap for Trump00:02:27
And the underlying crimes that they're investigating are the Espionage Act, as we talked about.
It's legally impossible for a president of the United States to violate the Espionage Act and how he handles classified materials.
The Espionage Act applies to everyone else on the planet except for the sitting president of the United States because he is the commander-in-chief under the Constitution.
That 1988 Supreme Court case, Department of the Navy versus Egan, makes that crystal clear.
The Biden Justice Department knows this.
And so, what we have left, we have this government record issue that Trump kept government records or destroyed government records.
Number one, he made a copy of the records personal, which is his absolute sole statutory power under the Presidential Records Act as confirmed by a 2012 case by Tom Fenton and Judicial Watch against Bill Clinton.
President Worker, I want to see if we can get any more of this document out.
Of course, we're seeing the redactions of the document, but this really is the motion from DOJ.
We're still yet to see the actual underlying document from, would that be actually DOJ or FBI?
The affidavit?
The affidavit would be from, it would be from an agent at the FBI, presumably.
That's what the Justice Department Charlie Kirk here.
MyPillow is having their biggest sheet sale of the year.
You all have helped MyPillow become an amazing company and really honestly become what it is today.
Now, Mike Lindell, inventor and CEO of MyPillow, great American, wants to give back exclusively to his listeners.
The Per Kale bed sheet is available in a variety of colors and sizes, and they're all on sale.
For example, the queen size is regularly $89.98, but now it's only $39.98 with our listener promo code.
Order now because when they're gone, they're gone.
The Per Kale sheets are breathable and they have a cold, crisp feel.
These come with a 10-year warranty and a 60-day money-back guarantee.
Don't miss out today on this incredible offer.
This is a limited time supply, so make sure to order now.
Go to 1-800-875-0425 now and use promo code Kirk or go to mypillow.com and click on the Radio Listener Square and use promo code Kirk.
This offer will not last long and they're known to sell quick.
So order now with promo code Kirk at mypillow.com.
I've got the headline.
It says, redacted affidavit just says orange man bad.
Oh, no, wait, sorry, I'm reading that.
That's Babylon B. Sorry.
Got producer Andrew.
Why are you sending me Babylon B links over here?
Come on, this is serious work today.
It's Babylon B. All right, let's, but we're still waiting for this thing.
Misrepresentations and Media Leaks00:05:15
Now, when it comes in, we're hearing things that there's more restrictions that are coming in on the docket.
And Mike, let's just go take it back for a second here.
Let's pull back out of the process.
What does it say to us that we as a country are stuck here refreshing Twitter and refreshing a 1990s era website to find out why it is that the secret police in this country decided to raid a former president who is, for all intents and purposes, the leader of the opposition, which Joe Biden named him as last night?
He specifically named them as enemies of his government.
That's what he said last night in Rockville, where there was a guy that ran up screaming and stole the election.
So we're now at the mercy, I guess, of Twitter and the tech overlords, who, oh, by the way, Mark Zuckerberg says we're only allowed to see certain things unless he deems he decides that it's his information because the FBI told him.
Mike, what's going on?
Well, we're not going to see much in this affidavit.
They're just going to, the Biden Justice Department's just going to leak it to their friends in the New York Times and the Washington Post to trash Trump because that's what this is all about.
This is this whole operation by the Biden Justice Department is to get Trump.
Trump has the goods.
He has the crossfire, hurricane records, declassified a personal copy.
These are highly damaging records that blow up the Russian collusion debacle.
Very bad stuff for Obama, for Hillary, for Biden, for the FBI, for the Intel community.
President Trump took a copy of it that he declassified on January 19th.
And now the same people, the same units at the FBI that did the Russian collusion, the Project Hurricane Mess, the counter-espionage unit, is now going to get their documents.
Lied about, right?
We know the FBI lied in those affidavits to the FISA court, and it took years and the work of Kash Patel and Devin Nunez and Rick Rinnell and Ratcliffe and everybody else.
Hold on, wait, I'm getting a message.
I'm getting a message from post-millennial.
They're saying at publishing time, the Department of Justice had agreed to declassify more of the document, but the only unredacted line was just re.
I mean, it's ridiculous.
I think it's ridiculous and it's a joke.
It shows that our country is becoming more and more of a banana republic.
This idea that we're just going to allow the secret police in this country to run roughshod, absolutely roughshod over our elections.
They're running roughshod over our freedoms, and they're running roughshod, by the way, over our future elections, because that's what this is all about.
This is about a preemptive coup against President Trump.
Look, we know they interfered in the 2016 election.
We now hear from Mark Zuckerberg that there was interference in the 2020 election at the behest of the FBI.
And now we're seeing interference in the 2024 election, even before it takes place.
Yeah, this is part of the pattern of this Justice Department to get Trump.
And we've seen this for the last six years.
And this is, you know, what we're going to see today is nothing.
We're going to see black ink.
It's going to be more and more black ink.
It's going to be more and more misrepresentations.
And even then, of this, the affidavit.
And Mike, let's go over the rules of the affidavits.
So is hearsay allowed in this?
It's under different rules.
So walk us through that a little bit.
Yeah, this affidavit would not be admissible in court.
What you have are agents who are gathering hearsay, they're trying to establish probable cause so they can bring in just about any evidence they want, hearsay, which are out of court statements that aren't subject to cross-examination.
So this is a one-sided show, and these affidavits are one-sided.
And then the fact that the Biden Justice Department is improperly leaking from this affidavit, how can they say that the public can't see this affidavit, but they're going to leak it to the New York Times and the Washington Post and other media outlets to paint a picture to damage Trump?
This is a political hit on President Trump, because again, it is impossible for President Trump to have committed the crimes that they list in the application for the home warrant raid, espionage, government destruction of property, and obstruction.
He could not have done that as a matter of law.
Okay, so I've just received the affidavit.
It is 38 pages long.
And Mike, you're exactly right.
It's from Politico got it first.
Politico has it.
Thank you so much, Mike Davis.
Article 3 project.
Thank you.
Okay, I just read the entire affidavit.
It's 38 pages long.
18 of those pages are redacted.
Here's the bit.
At the very end of this, by the way, at one point, they cite a Breitbart article that's referring to Kash Patel.
And at that point, it's where it says page 19, section 52, excuse me, 53.
It says, I'm aware of an article published in Breitbart on May 5th, 2022, available at, and I give the URL, which states that Kash Patel, who is described as a former top former POTUS administrative official, To call him the F POTUS.
Actually sounds kind of cool.
Declassified Documents and Kash Patel00:04:04
The Fotis characterized as misleading reports in other news organizations that narrow had found classified materials among records that F POTUS provided to NARA from Mar-a-Lago.
Patel alleges that such reports were misleading because F POTUS had declassified the materials at issue.
So they already knew even at the beginning of this, with the underlying affidavit that these materials were in question.
As to whether or not they had been declassified.
Kash Patel, who was a high-level aide for the FPOTIS, the former POTIS, President of United States Donald Trump, had stated that they were declassified.
We have a memo.
We have a memo from Mark Meadows that states they were declassified.
It memorializes the declassification of these documents.
So my question is, in these redactions, and I'd love to get, by the way, guys, let's see if we can get Mark Meadows on or get some kind of conversation, you know, some kind of communication with him.
Did they go and actually ask Mark Meadows whether or not he approved of this?
Did they go and talk to Kash Patel?
Or were they just reading stuff online?
They cite CBS Miami at one point.
And then it goes in here.
On June 8th, 2022, DOJ Council sent F POTUS Council 1 a letter which reiterated that the premises are not authorized to store classified information, requested the preservation of the storage room and documents that have been moved from the White House to the premises.
Mar-a-Lago does not include a secure location authorized for the storage of classified information.
As such, it appears that since the time classified documents blank, and it is blanked out, were removed from the secure facilities at the White House and moved to Mar-a-Lago on around January 20th, 2021, which again, we knew that the president had deemed these to be declassified presidential personal records under the PRA, the Presidential Records Act, and had decided to go through it from the start.
And I'm going through this line by line.
A lot of it is redacted.
Accordingly, we ask that the room at Mar-a-Lago where the documents have been stored to be secured and that all of the boxes were moved from the White House to Mar-a-Lago to be preserved in that room until current condition until further notice.
So that's June 8th, 2022.
Okay, that's June 8th, 2022.
And we've got the article here.
All right.
So what happened?
So between, think about this.
That was June 8th.
They requested they secure the documents.
So then we have two months after that that they knew these documents were there, the documents in question, and they did nothing.
It says that they secured the documents.
The documents were meant to be secured.
And then suddenly, and then it's redacted, And then finally, okay, here we go.
Based on this information, I believe that the storage room, F. POTIS's residential suite, Pine Hall, the 45 office, and other spaces within the premises are not currently authorized locations for the storage of classified information.
Similarly, based upon this investigation, I do not believe any spaces between the premises have been authorized for the storage of classified information since the end of F POTIS's presidential administration on January 20th, 2021.
As described above, evidence of these offenses has been stored in multiple locations at the premises.
They're accusing President Trump of a crime.
They're accusing him of stealing government property.
They're accusing him of stealing classified information, securing classified information improperly, and taking what they call here evidence contraband fruits of crime or other items illegally possessed in violation of the Gibbon statutes.
And I'm going through on this.
Ladies and gentlemen, they've got the emails and the letters that were sent from the DOJ.
They've got the responses from Trump's office in here.
There's no explanation in this whatsoever why this required a rate.
It said they knew what the documents were, they had an idea of where the documents were.
Originator Controlled Secrets Explained00:02:36
There's no question, certainly anything that was revealed to us in the redactions as to whether or not this was something that the president was going to be.
By the way, there's no question here at all about nuclear documents or anything like that.
I'm not even seeing it because in the classified section where it's going through telling you what is classified or what's not classified.
And if only we had a former intelligence officer who knew all of these acronyms off the top of my head.
So it gets into SCI, SI, it doesn't mention TK, but SITK is one of the more common ones, human control systems or HCS, FISA, Orcon, no form.
These are all caveats that are placed on.
So there's three levels of classification, essentially.
Confidential secret, top secret.
There's also unclassified, which is obviously a form of unclass or another form of classified information, not class as not classified.
So you consider it four.
The caveats which are attached to whether it be secret or top secret depend on how the information was derived.
So when you're seeing things like SI, like HDS, like Orcon, originator controlled, FISA.
So a FISA, everybody knows that one, right?
So FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, if information was gleaned through the FISA Act, that would be marked as FISA.
It could be secret.
It could be top secret.
There's also no form.
That means no foreign or not releasable to foreign nationals, governments, U.S. citizens.
That means you can only share that with other U.S. agencies.
There are times where you would have classified information that you, for example, if you're working on a NATO mission, for example, if you're working with the South Koreans, you're working with Japan, you would make it releasable to those entities.
So you would put RHEL NATO, you would put REL RHEL ROC or Republic of Korea, you would put RHEL Japan, et cetera, RHEL to Japan.
Then there's also originator controlled.
This is called Orcon.
So originator controlled.
I don't know if you guys think this stuff is interesting or not, but that just means if you want to disseminate it, you have to go back to the original person that created the report because it's originally they originated it.
So it's originator controlled.
It's kind of a lot of this is kind of on the need to know basis.
And then HCS, human control systems, that's your actual spies.
So that's anything that was gleaned from human intelligence, aka humans.
That's what comes through here.
There's nothing whatsoever, nothing whatsoever about nuclear systems.
There's nothing about nuclear documents.
There's none of it.
We do also have, by the way, Alan McCarry with us from Reitbart.com.
No Nuclear Systems Found00:05:31
Yeah, I mean, it really shows that Breitbart is in these people's heads.
They recognize we're a threat to the establishment, to the regime.
And yeah, you know, as you were saying, it's amazing the fact that this just a sheer number of redactions as well.
You know, you have to wonder, you know, given what they are telling us, you have to wonder what they are telling us as well.
But do you see anything in this article whatsoever that would call for in this affidavit whatsoever that would call for an immediate raid on the president of the United States's home, former president, the chief leader of the opposition?
Why would they take something like this, which is obviously a records-keeping issue, and then raise it to the level of the president needs to be raided?
The opposition leader needs to be raided.
Yeah, well, I haven't read the affidavit yet, but you know, just from seeing the raid play out and then hearing the details later about how this all was all about, you know, as you said, record keeping.
It's clearly, it's clearly smoke and mirrors.
The FBI clearly has it in for Trump.
And we see that with what they did with the Hunter Biden laptop story as well, pressuring Facebook to suppress that.
You know, we saw this with Roger Stone as well.
You know, the dawn raid on Roger Stone's residence a few years ago.
What was like a process issue?
So they find, it's like show me the man, show me the crime, right?
They try to find anything they can and then absolutely throw the book at Trump, like on the tiniest thing you could possibly imagine.
So, you know, obviously this is not going to happen to there are going to be no dawn raids on Honda Biden's residence, no matter how much evidence there is of wrongdoing.
There's going to be no dawn raids on any Democrats who's in with the establishment, in with the deep state.
Trump is enemy number one to these people, and that's been apparent for a long time.
It was apparent all through his presidency.
It's apparent now.
So break this down for me because we've got the, they cite Reitbart.com, Go the Techer, the senior tech writer at Reitbart.
We also have information from them that says they knew, they knew that there was a question that these materials had been declassified, and yet they decided to proceed with this all the way up into the point of requesting a raid from a magistrate judge.
Why are they doing this?
I think it's to make an example of Trump, frankly.
And I think it's to elevate, if they elevate every single tiny thing to the level of, you know, needing a raid, they're going to create this.
What they're doing is they're creating this atmosphere, this perception, especially among the anti-Trump side of the public, that there's some huge wrongdoing going on.
Obviously, when you see, when you read the details, you see this is just a dispute about declassified documents, which Trump had every right to declassify.
So when you look at it that way, it's clearly not a, there's clearly no sense that there's been some giant wrongdoing here.
But by raiding Mar-a-Lago, they're creating the public perception that there is.
And I think that's key.
That's really key here.
No, I think you're exactly right.
And so I've got to say, I'm flabbergasted by this.
This is a load of bull.
The idea that you could throw our entire republic, our entire system into disarray, defiling Mar-a-Lago, going after, remember, this is, of course, we knew that Hillary Clinton had the same level and above on her private server.
And I'm not playing what about it.
My point is, she was not the president of the United States.
She had no declassification authority whatsoever.
Donald Trump does.
You've thrown our entire system disarray.
Joe Biden's out there in Rockville, Maryland, saying that I view you as the enemy.
He's named the enemy class in this country.
He's named his Kulaks.
He's named his Lao Bai Shing.
He's named his deplorables.
He has told you specifically that you are not welcome under Joe Biden's regime, which is occupying Washington, D.C. and the White House.
And when you look at this, it's the thinnest, most basic records dispute that we have.
It's not about what's in there, Alam.
It's about what's not in there.
It's about the fact that this has never been done before.
It's completely unprecedented.
They found a judge to rubber stamp the entire thing.
I mean, and they even go back and forth with saying, well, there were presidential statements on this.
He put it out.
They had the boxes in.
CBS Miami reported on it.
It's very clear.
Orange man bad.
We want to get Trump.
There's nothing in here about securing, securing the nation or protecting people.
There's no probable cause here.
Okay.
There's no probable cause here whatsoever.
And the idea that you would take these drastic actions that put the entire integrity and fabric of our society at risk, you are tearing a hole in the very heart, not just of our constitution, but in the very heart of the people.
And to have this come out one day after Joe Biden goes up there on a stage surrounded by a paltry mix, a ragtag bunch of supporters.
In fact, one guy even came in in there screaming, got all the way up front and started screaming, you sold the election at him.
He got up there and he's in your grill.
Big Tech Censorship Concerns00:05:22
He said, I'm in your face.
You are the enemy, MAGA.
MAGA is the enemy of the regime.
He's named you.
He's called you up.
He's labeled you and he's targeted you.
He wants this to be a black mark that will remain on you for the rest of your lives.
He doesn't want you to be able to be employable.
He doesn't want you to be able to be accepted in high society, polite society.
He wants you stained.
He wants you smeared.
And he wants you left on the side of the road.
This is the same type of attitude that we've seen around the world.
If you've been in a post-Soviet country, if you've been down in Cuba, Venezuela, all over South America, Middle East, you've seen this before.
And they call you a fascist and they call you, or excuse me, a semi-fascist and an authoritarian.
No, we're not going to have it.
Absolutely not going to have it.
Alan Bakari, we're going through this thing, but you also, sir, have been probably the best reporter in the entire world when it comes to Google, Facebook, and big tech over at Breitbart.
I need to get your response to Mark Zuckerberg's admission that it was the FBI that came to Facebook, sounds like a visit to me, and told them that they needed to censor whatever they deemed to be Russian misinformation.
And then they deemed the Hunter Biden laptop to be Russian information, disinformation.
Right.
So I've been covering big tech censorship from the very beginning in 2014 and 2015.
Back then, every platform, you know, boasted about its free speech credentials and how they would allow an open platform for everyone.
And by and large, they did it, you know, five or six years ago.
But over time, that's been whittled down.
But there was a real escalation in 2020.
It really escalated ahead of the election.
And this, you know, this shopping admission from Zuckerberg, the FBI was talking to them and identifying Russian misinformation and propaganda, giving them warnings right before the Hunter Biden story comes out.
This kind of reveals what was going on behind the scenes, this very sinister relationship that's developing between the federal government and the tech companies.
Censorship by proxy.
The First Amendment doesn't allow the government to censor people directly, but what we're seeing now is they don't need to officially censor people because they get the private sector to do it for them.
I do find it interesting, though, that Mark Zuckerberg just came out in the middle this on Joe Rogan, obviously two years after the fact.
But I wonder what the FBI thinks about that Zuckerberg is revealing what's going on behind the scenes, a collusion between this deep state Praetorian guard and the world's largest social network.
I mean, it's ridiculous to me because, and I didn't listen to all of the Zuckerberg interview yet on Rogan, but I had some people, I had some friends who were, as we say, in the Philly area going down to shore, and they were listening to it last night.
And I walked through it and they said, well, what is it?
Does he explain this?
And they said, in his mind, he almost feels like he's the good guy who's threading the needle between censoring and not censoring because some people want this and some people want that.
What's your sense of him as a man?
What's your sense of him as a person when he sits there with the amount of power that he has over Facebook, over Instagram, over WhatsApp, over so much of the public discourse and so much power in our world?
Does he actually even have any self-awareness as to the amount of power he wields?
Yeah, I mean, it's interesting to see Silicon Valley CEOs playing the victim.
I think he does recognize, and I think many other people who run these social, these gigantic, powerful big tech companies, whether it's Facebook or Google or Twitter, they do realize that all their power can be taken away if they annoy the wrong people in the establishment.
They can be hit with real regulations from the Democrats.
They can be targeted by the federal government.
They can be kicked off the app stores.
We've seen this happen to social networks that have stood up for free speech, like Parla, like Gab, they've been targeted by the app stores, by web hosting providers.
There are all these pressure points that can be applied on tech companies.
Ad boycotts is another one.
So I think, you know, Zuckerberg, you know, is he not a free speech hero?
None of these Silicon Valley CEOs are.
He's censoring way more than he should.
He censors actually Breitbart.
Facebook took our traffic down by 20% after the 2016 election, and they did to a number of other concerned media outlets too.
It's not a level playing field.
But I'll tell you what, despite the massive censorship that exists on Facebook, the deep state, the media, they would love to see Facebook censor even more.
No, I think it's completely insane.
And of course, we're seeing now the redactions of the affidavit the same way that they redacted the Hunter Biden story again and again.
And I urge people to be peaceful, to understand that your anger is righteous and it's true.
But when we see these things going on, and Alan, thank God for your work, that you are out there every day exposing these people, exposing what's going on around our world.
Political Witch Hunt Claims00:15:49
Tell us, what are your coordinates?
Where can people go to find the latest that you're putting out?
You can read all my work on breitbart.com, of course.
We'll have some more coverage of this Zuckerberg interview up there very shortly.
I just published an article on it yesterday.
You can also find me on Twitter at Libertarian Blue.
This is sacrilegious.
This is sacrilegious to our nation, to our country.
They're laundering leaked information through the press.
They're using that in their affidavits.
And they have defiled Mar-a-Lago.
They have defiled Mar-a-Lago and they have defiled our nation.
There's no probable cause in these documents.
There's nothing that's been released stating that they had a justification to do this.
I'm not talking in the simply, in the strict sense that, oh, they could find some magistrate judge to rubber stamp the whole thing.
Don't get caught up in the game.
Understand what they're doing and understand what time it is.
They came crashing through the gates of Mar-a-Lago because they were instituting a preemptive coup of President Trump in the 2024 election.
They are trying to interfere with the peaceful transfer of power in this country.
They're trying to interfere in the political process.
You have the DOJ, you have the FBI, and you have to understand now we are in an era of regime politics.
We do have Mike Davis back.
He's on the phone.
He's gracious enough to call us back.
Mike, you've had a chance to take a look at this thing.
Are you as flabbergasted as I am?
So I've quickly read through this affidavit.
It shows that the Biden Justice Department and the National Archives have a fundamental misunderstanding of the law here.
And they think that the president did not declassify these records.
And that is just not the case.
President Trump exercised his power both under statute and as commander in chief under the Constitution to declassify the records before he took them to Mar-a-Lago.
These records that they're saying are classified at Mar-a-Lago have absolutely been declassified, whether it's by a declassification memo that President Trump signed on January 19th before he left office on the 20th or through his actions or other things he did.
Like he said, he had a standing order.
So these were not classified records.
And so that goes to the Espionage Act predicate charge that they're looking at for probable cause under this affidavit.
They're also looking at destruction, alteration, theft of misuse of government property.
And again, that is just not possible.
Number one, there's a 2012 Obama decision that shows that the president can make these records personal and it is his sole discretion like Clinton did with his audio tapes for eight years of his presidency.
So it can't be an espionage, no matter what they, what evidence they have, as a matter of law, there is no violation of the Espionage Act because a president cannot violate the Espionage Act by how he handles classified materials.
Number one, number two, that can't be theft or alteration, destruction of government property because as a matter of law under the statute of the Presidential Records Act, the president has the sole determination whether something is a personal record that belongs to him or a presidential record that goes to the bureaucrats of the archives and then comes back to his library.
So the third allegation is that he somehow obstructed these investigations into these two non-crimes.
Again, it is legally impossible for President Trump to have obstructed investigations into these two non-crimes.
They're not a crime.
The federal government, the National Archives, the Biden Justice Department had no right to look into these as crimes because as a matter of law, they could not have been crimes.
This is a phishing expedition.
This is a political hit on President Trump because he had damning records with the crossfire hurricane records and Russian collusion records.
And that's what this is all about.
This is about covering their tracks.
And this judge, this magistrate judge Bruce Reinhardt, is biased as evidenced by his June 22nd recusal in Trump's civil lawsuit versus Hillary just eight weeks ago.
Somehow this bias went away six weeks later where he issued this unnecessary, unprecedented, unlawful home raid of a former president.
And now he's agreed to these redactions by the Biden Justice Department where they're covering their tracks.
This makes Watergate look like a walk in the park.
This is a huge political scandal.
And I want to point out some things because you have been out front talking about the fact that it's very likely that they're going after the Russiagate documents in all of this.
I called them the Spygate documents.
We talked about on Human Events Daily a couple of weeks ago.
But when I'm looking through this, some of the markings that I see here, human control systems, HCS, that's your clandestine sources.
It mentions FISA information, that there's potentially FISA information at Mar-a-Lago.
Do you believe that because we're seeing that in the affidavit, do you believe that that could potentially point to the fact that it is indeed these Russiagate documents?
Absolutely.
And it's also been leaked out in news stories in the liberal media where you've seen the Biden Justice Department trying to rationalize their rate after the fact they've been leaking out the documents that are in this.
They say the public can't see this affidavit of their fake crime, their fake non-crimes against President Trump to go get back these politically damaging documents that are hugely damaging for Obama, Hillary, Biden, the FBI, the Intel community, but they're selectively leaking from this affidavit to build a narrative.
They've illegally leaked from the grand jury to Newsweek saying that the grand jury found that President Trump committed a crime, which is just nonsense.
It is an illegal leak.
This is a corrupted investigation from day one on non-crimes.
There is no way, as a matter of law, no matter what evidence that the Biden Justice Department put parties department puts in this affidavit as a matter of law.
It is legally impossible for a president of the United States, call it President Smith, because everyone's so Trump dringed.
It is legally impossible for any president, President Trump, President Smith, President anyone to violate the Espionage Act for how he handles classified materials.
It is legally impossible for any president to be charged with theft of government property for how he handles presidential records.
The Presidential Records Act actually contemplates that the president has classified materials when he leaves office.
It doesn't differentiate you.
Go ahead, Jack.
The fact that they're talking about FISA information and HCS information that jumped right off the page at me as a former Intel officer.
When you see those, you know you're dealing with a certain set of information.
And then we know, of course, based on all the available reporting, that obviously these are documents that President Trump would want to retain copies of for himself.
Do you believe, and have you, or also have you received information either through your sources or the Trump legal team that the president did indeed retain a copy of those documents?
Because we know that they transferred a copy.
The Meadows memo states that they transferred a copy of the DOJ to be released.
The DOJ refused to release that.
Have you heard or do you believe that the president, President Trump, did keep a copy of those documents?
It is my understanding that number two on the RAID inventory list, the leatherbound documents, are the Russian collusion crossfire hurricane documents that President Trump declassified on January 19th, the day before he left office.
He made his copy personal.
That is absolutely within his constitutional right as commander-in-chief and his statutory right as a president under the Presidential Records Act, as confirmed by the 1988 Supreme Court case, Department of Navy versus Egan, and the 2012 Judicial Watch Trump Fitton case against Bill Clinton by the Obama judge.
This is a political witch hunt into non-crimes.
It is not possible that Trump committed any crimes here as a matter of law.
So this search warrant is invalid as a matter of law.
And Merrick Garland, the attorney general, leaked out to Newsweek that he deliberated for six weeks before he got this home raid warrant.
Why didn't he get an opinion from the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel or OLC that would have showed that he had this legal authority?
Mike, thank you so much for giving us your time, being generous with us to go through this.
We've got John Solomon waiting in the wings.
He's going to join us immediately after this.
Do not touch that dial.
Ladies and gentlemen, we are breaking through this preemptive coup of President Trump's 2024, the 2024 election.
We are breaking this down in real time here on the Charlie Kirk show.
This is the only place you are going to get this level of analysis, this level of understanding of classified information, and the fact that between what Davis has told us and my reading of these documents, the HCS and FISA, do not forget the HCS and FISA because you're seeing that really indicates.
It's not that the affidavit itself is a bombshell.
The bombshell is that it's not a bombshell.
The bombshell is that they defiled Mar-a-Laga over a document dispute, over a records dispute, over one person says it's declassified, the other person isn't.
Who's one person?
Is that person the president?
Yeah, he was the president.
So guess what?
He can declassify it.
He is the security clearance.
President Trump, as the president, and by the way, whoever's the president, the president is the security clearance.
What we're seeing here is a pre-I've said this before.
This is a preemptive coup of 2024.
They are trying to stop President Trump in his tracks.
They're trying to dirty him up, smear him.
They want to go through this.
And as Mike Davis said, a fundamental misreading of the law.
But I'm joined by the great John Solomon, Justin News.
He's here right here in studio.
John, we were trying to get you earlier.
We're trying to track you down, but you were just, I saw you over there in the office.
You were flinging this affidavit.
Kind of like a Brankan Neil story.
You know, saying, what is this story?
That's where's the meat?
Where's the meat?
Where's the beef?
I remember that commercial when I was there.
Yeah, where's the beef?
So, what is your take?
Obviously, you've only had about an hour to look at this thing.
What do you come?
We've been doing a lot of reporting on this.
And a lot of the people I talk to, career FBI officials, some in, some out, and even some of their former executives, Kevin Brock, very respected intelligence defeat.
He actually had responsibility over intelligence.
He said he was fearful that this search warrant was going to simply criminalize a document dispute between NARA and former President Trump.
And after reading it today, keeping in mind there are redactions.
There may be things we don't know from witnesses in the blacked out materials.
It appears that this is a document dispute that spun out of control, and the FBI has now criminalized it against someone who was always critical of the FBI.
And one of the things that jumped out at me, they go out of their way to name Kash Patel.
Yes.
Kash Patel's former advisor to the president.
And they made sure to unredact the section where they named Kash Patel.
They do as well.
They do indeed.
And it's kind of funny enough.
By the way, I just have to point that out.
I'm sorry, because they say they want to protect their witnesses.
They want to protect people.
They want to protect agents.
They want to protect everyone involved.
This oh, but Kash Patel, you can name him.
That's right.
Well, let's go through a few things.
President Trump was going to name Kash Patel to be the FBI deputy director towards the end of his first term.
And FBI people threw their bodies in front of that.
Justice officials did.
He's the guy that helped Devin Dunes unravel the Russia collusion thing, which is one of the greatest embarrassments in the FBI.
And we have lines out to both Devin and Cash, by the way.
We're seeing track of them.
When you see this, when you look at what's going on here, you see an effort to try to drag his name into this as a guy who previously embarrassed the FBI.
And they're not even reciting something that Kash Patel said told the FBI.
They went to a Breitbart article quoting him.
Secondhand hearsay.
This sounds familiar for those of us who covered Russia collusion because when the Inspector General looked at the many failures in the Russia collusion case, one of the things it slammed the FBI for was relying on media reports to try to build a search warrant, a FISA warrant.
In that case, you can use them, but there's a high threshold for using them.
This seems to be gratuitous.
What Kash Patel says is, as an expert, I think the documents at Mar-a-Lago were declassified.
Why does he think that?
The president's the ultimate.
Well, here's what I want to know, though, is because did the FBI reach out to Kash Patel?
Did the FBI go to, and you broke the Meadows memo.
Yeah.
Did they read this?
Did they reach out to Mark Meadows, who was the chief of staff?
Did they reach in and do the actual work of contacting these people as you would do in the course of a normal investigation?
A great question.
We've never clearly talked to some witnesses.
We can see areas in this.
We don't know what the witness is, who they are, what they said.
So we have to keep our powder dry, learn those facts before we get there.
But right now, I think Kevin Brock's assessment, the fear that he had going in with all of the contact he has of the FBI, is coming true.
NARA and the president, the National Archives and the president, got in a dispute, and the FBI decided to criminalize it against one of its longtime foes.
Donald Trump has been an abject of the FBI since 20 summer of 2016.
There are 184 classified documents here that they said they found in the original dump that the president returned.
When I say classified, they had classified markets.
That's right.
And they're very careful to say that.
They don't call them classified documents.
They say documents with classified markets, leaving open the possibility that the president will demonstrate that he did in some way declassify them.
There's about 25 top secrets.
Everything else is below that level.
And I'll let you know the National Archives.
I checked this today.
I actually got this confirmed.
If a president accidentally took a secret document with them, you know how they can return it?
By mail.
They can really mail it back.
That's actually true.
I know the problem.
I could tell you the problem.
But yes, you can mail things like this through any mail center because that is an agency of the federal government.
You have to seal it properly.
It actually has to be double-sealed, double-sided tape.
They can't be tampered with.
Exactly.
Trying to pull this up on the fly.
But yes, you're drilled through.
This is also by the same way if you find a government like a CAC, a common access card, et cetera.
It really seems as though the FBI has gotten to a point where they are finding people that they target, people who've been critical of the FBI, people who have had public, huge disputes with the FBI.
Of course, President Trump firing Comey within his first, what, five months in office or so, May of 2017, and then these huge dust-ups that have continued and really were ubiquitous for his administration.
We know that they have discretion here.
We know that obviously they have a huge poll with the Department of Justice.
Do you believe that this was a score-settling situation?
Listen, we won't know until all the evidence is out there.
That is the fear, and it's also the perception among many different Americans.
When you look at the polling out there, I think there's a recent poll by the Convention of the States that said that most Americans think that the OJ had a political motive for doing this.
I think when people read through this document, it's going to sound an awful like Hillary Clinton dispute, except that Donald Trump got raided.
Hillary Clinton's lawyer got to keep the documents in the safe the FBI helped provide.
Hillary Clinton didn't get any criminal prosecution.
The president had a search warrant and a grand jury subpoena to him.
There's about the same equivalency, the number of documents, the number they're top secret.
There's one big difference.
Yeah, because there can be no equivalency between a Secretary of State and the President of the United States.
President's ultimate declassifying authority.
The president does not have security clearance.
The president is the security clearance.
Russia Hoax and Criminalization00:15:40
That's it.
It all falls down from there.
Yep.
I think that when people begin to get educated in what the law is, and they see the harsh act that the FBI took here, they're going to continue on this path of thinking that this was a political exercise by the FBI.
Now, maybe there'll be some things that come out in the redacted sections.
But right now, the idea that they're using new stories like they did in the Russia case, the fact that they're really criminalizing a document dispute, I think a lot of Americans just say we're not.
I don't see any information about, oh, we spoke with Cash and here's what Cash said.
We spoke with Mark Meadows.
Here's the memo.
But I do have a tweet, and I've got to read this to you from Maggie Haberman.
She's someone who is very early.
She wrote a book essentially making a lot of these claims.
And the tweet said from her says, is her analysis.
The affidavit makes it clear that according to the government, the claim that the Trump team was asked to put a stronger lock on the storage room in the basement at Mar-a-Lago was not what they asked.
They asked that the room be secured.
Video showed people were coming in and out.
Is she making a semantics argument here over this, you know, sealing a room versus, you know, like you're like your, was it a Fortunato in Edgar Allan Poe, you're sealed up in the basement?
I think Maggie Haberman oftentimes is a provocator.
She tries to find little things and interpret them without doing the reporting.
I talk to people in the government.
I talked to people on the Trump side.
The story about the lock is true.
And the story about the security footage is true.
But you can't read much into that, right?
I think at the end of the day, we know where these documents were.
And I'll tell you one anecdote.
I was told about this when the archives first started pressing to get the Kim Jong-un letter that's been widely out there.
I think the media has made that into a big deal.
I thought that the letter was just something that was incidentally included.
You're saying that that was something directly that they wanted back.
Understanding from the reporting is that they asked for it back a year ago.
They're looking for it.
You know how they asked for it to be sent back?
It was so sensitive.
Guess how they were going to do it back?
Well, I mean, I'm sure they were going to send escorts.
Wait, mail?
Drop it in the mail.
Not escorts, not the handcuff to the briefcase, you know, the GI G-men coming down.
So if that is a true anecdote, what people have described to me, then you realize that these documents aren't, at least some of them weren't as sensitive that they couldn't be mailed back.
This is a document dispute that's been criminalized.
And unless there is some smoking gun idea that the president was moving these documents and giving them to a foreign power, I think most Americans, at least based on the evidence of the search warrant, are going to see this as a criminalization of a document dispute.
Oh, why are we doing this?
Here we go again.
Deja vu all over again.
FBI versus Donald Trump.
I love also, by the way, so to the point you just made, in the document itself, obviously we know the president has the authority to declassify.
The affidavit mentions this, but Producer Andrew's pointing out that the part that immediately ends that section is redacted.
So it says, we acknowledge that the president has the classification authority and sole unilateral declassification authority is a plenary power of the executive the same way the president has a plenary power for pardons.
The president could pardon anyone he so chooses of a federal crime.
That's it.
The pardons can't be overturned, et cetera, et cetera.
But the part that seems to be their response as to why they're ignoring that is redacted.
Yeah, listen, the most likely.
Why would you redact a legal argument?
Because there probably is some witnesses that they've interviewed who claim they didn't know anything about a standing order.
The president may have only told one person about the standing order.
The president may have not told anyone.
He may have in his own just declared this.
There's going to be, as I wrote this morning, the five big legal questions that the FBI still has to answer.
There are a lot of serious questions.
Well, let me go back to this because I want to respond to Maggie Haverman on this.
So she says it wasn't secured.
I've been to Mar-a-Lago.
I know you have.
That it is.
Is it or is it not controlled by the Secret Service, effectively?
A security perimeter and room perimeter and the president are clearly protected by the Secret Service.
Not every aspect of the president should have rules on it.
The golf course probably isn't, unless the president's on it.
But there's a lot of security there.
Listen, they can argue about who had better security.
What was a better idea?
This sounds like the same stuff.
But a mailbox is more secure.
Apparently.
The mailbox is more secure than documents that are secret.
Which is, which for documents that are up to secret, not top secret.
But the mailbox is more secure than Mar-a-Lago, which is surrounded by Secret Service 24-7, even when the president's not there.
Internally, it's secured.
He has private security, of course.
Every single person who comes onto those grounds is checked.
Their background is checked.
That's pretty secure.
Plus, by the way, the president obviously maintained a security clearance as all presidents do.
They also maintain a reading room.
You would have this for, I'm sure Barack Obama has his reading room.
I don't know exactly if it's at, you know, Hyannis Port or Martha's Vineyard.
But of course, this end, by the way, correct me if I'm wrong on this, but the president also, former presidents also receive security briefings.
They can, absolutely.
Yeah.
Although I believe President Biden has revoked President Trump's security crisis, if I remember that correctly, I could have looked that up.
I have a recollection of Biden saying he was going to revoke it.
Again, listen, at the end of the day, the president has the power to declassify his power to determine what's his personal.
This is a dispute that's now been criminalized.
And you look at the reporting that's been done over the last few weeks, and now you look at this search warrant affidavit.
The reporting is a lot further out front than what's available in this evidence here.
And I think Kevin Brock's going to turn out to be right.
A guy, by the way, he's a very supporter of the FBI.
He's a G-Man.
He believes in the FBI.
He sees this as a document dispute that's gotten overly hyped and overly criminalized.
You are right, by the way.
It is, he was barred from security briefings last year.
So he was receiving them at first, but then he was barred.
Yeah, I think Biden removed him in the summer last year is my recollection.
We have a lot of questions still to be answered here, which should be nice to know what's in the redacted parts.
My guess is it's all witness testimony.
But at the end of the day, one question that I have, though, and I would say this right now, and I would urge the president or any of his team, and I'm certainly going to pick up the phone after the show here today and say this.
They still have that surveillance tape.
And they said they're going to release it.
Eric Trump says he's going to release it at the appropriate time.
Very in Trumpian phraseology there, the appropriate time.
Do you believe they are going to release it?
And have you heard any information about a timeline for the release of those tapes?
Because I think they should come out immediately.
Yeah, listen, the one I'm most interested in is the June 3rd meeting, where the president comes down and talks to the three FBI agents because, according to two eyewitnesses, I interviewed the president and said, let me know if you need anything.
Signaling the ultimate type of cooperation.
If that is on videotape, that's going to show that a guy who is telling the FBI, come back, I want to help you.
I'm not trying to be a problem here.
They go raid this home a couple months later.
Who made that decision?
Did the bosses who made that decision even know that President Trump made that claim?
If that's on videotape, and I don't know if it is, that's a pretty big statement.
There are a lot of issues at the president.
To use some legalese here, you would say, the only evidence we have is exculpatory evidence in this case.
We don't have any inculpatory evidence.
I haven't found any.
Where is the criminal intent here?
Where?
Well, I think that's one of the things that Americans are going to ask.
Unless there's some witness that's saying Donald Trump told me he was secreting documents and giving them to Vladimir Putin, I don't think they have that sort of thing.
They're going to make technical arguments about the Presidential Records Act.
They're going to make technical arguments about the security clearance and stuff.
But at the end of the day, the president has compelling comebacks, which is, it's my decision.
And I think that until we find out the evidence on his side, which we haven't heard much of, this is a very open question for most Americans.
I think most Americans are going to think this.
There's a politics.
Let's get the law the way now.
We know it's kind of bumbled.
Americans are suffering to make ends meet.
Gas, food prices.
They see the economy going down.
They think the country's in the wrong direction.
I think they're going to feel like we just had a month of drama in the middle of our very busy summer where we cut our gravel back and cut our gas consumption back.
And this is what it's about.
Couldn't two people get in a room and resolve this and not haul out the FBI?
And by the way, if the FBI is going to be this concerned about something this minor, what are they going to say about me someday?
They're going to come knocking at my door.
I think most Americans are going to yawn when they see what this is really about.
But it's not just about yawning because they'll yawn when they see the probable cause, but then they'll start to go back to the question of why was this done?
This is the famous barrier statement from the Soviet Union.
Show me the man, I'll show you the crime.
Because, John, from where I sit when I'm looking at this thing, they wanted, they wanted this.
And we do have a clip here.
It's clip 90.
It's Biden laying this out.
Their choice to go backwards, full of anger, violence, hate, and division.
I don't respect these MAGA Republicans.
They're a threat to our very democracy.
He's telling us right there, MAGA Republicans are the threat to our democracy.
Does he see MAGA as an existential threat?
I think language like that, if used by either side, is very dangerous.
When you start to demonize to the level of calling a political movement a threat to the country of security threat, you're moving into territories that most presidents of the past never did.
And I think that there are tens of millions of people that identify as MAGA or identify with the president's policies.
What do they think when the current president says that?
You're a threat to me, the president is saying.
I think the president and the White House ought to reevaluate their language and act more like the presidents before him who didn't do those sort of things.
But listen, the White House has to spin because the truth of the matter is at the ignition point of this investigation, Joe Biden was involved.
And the press secretary couldn't answer that question when tried to be pinned out.
The president of the United States, Donald Trump, former president, was targeted by the current president who said, give him those documents.
Waive their privilege if you like.
Go get them, boys.
That's what he said.
It seems like he is, it's not just the ignition point, but he's revving the engine.
He's revving the gas on this.
We're going to get Devin Nunes on immediately after this.
He's going to call in.
Where can people go to follow you to watch?
You're coming up later tonight in the afternoon, rather.
And justthennews.com, what else are you going to be having?
We're going to dive into some more of the quotes in this document, explain why they're important.
We're going to get some of those experts back on the air trying to do that tonight's show.
Just the news, not noise, 6 o'clock right here in Real America's voice, all lineup focused on this issue.
We have more facts to get, but I think the more facts that come out, the more people are realizing that this is a political criminalization of a document.
Historic, unprecedented day.
John Solomon, thank you.
I know it was raw.
I know it was quick, but that's, I don't know what else.
Thanks so much.
We have Devin Nunes, who is on the phone with us right now.
Congressman, thank you so much for joining us today.
Jack, it's great to be with you.
You've read the affidavit at this point.
What's your immediate takeaway here?
Well, there's not much to read, and it's essentially a flashback to what we've been dealing with the last five years as it relates to the Russia hoax.
And the fact that they would go to the court once again with news stories that they either selectively decide what they want to use out of the news story or it's just fake news, I think it's just astounding.
I mean, if courts are using news media reports as a way to get affidavits still, even after all the nonsense we've dealt with for the last five years, is just outrageous.
And then, you know, after the news stories then that lead out, that start the affidavit, then the rest of it's just blacked out.
So I think this is just the Russia hoax continued.
And, you know, the whole idea that they would raid the president's home and not call it a raid, we're just dealing with a banana Republic here.
And what I can't get to, and we just had John Solomon on, we just had Mike Davis on.
To me, going through this document, obviously, it's heavily redacted.
And so even the legal arguments seem to be redacted regarding whether or not this is declassified.
Of course, we know about the declassification of the memo, your great work with Kash Patel and Derek Harvey and others while you're at the House Intel community.
I want to get your take on this question as to whether or not you believe, as some have said, that this may have been the underlying Russia gate documents that they were after here.
Because when I'm reading this affidavit, I do see the caveats of FISA and HCS, human intelligence control systems, some of the same type of caveats, intelligence classification caveats, markings that you would see with a FISA operation.
Do you believe it's possible they could be going for those documents?
I don't see how it's anything but that.
If you just go through the history of this, remember, this all stemmed from a leak back in 21.
So there was a leak from the archives and the folks that went to the usual suspects.
And of course, the fake news and all the pundits jumped out and said, oh my God, Donald Trump has these classified documents.
I am sure at that time, Donald Trump and the rest of the team that was there didn't have no idea what the hell they were even talking about.
So then it sounds like then they were cooperating, working through whatever was there.
And then of course you've got the whole case that I'm very familiar with, which is, you know, when the House Republicans who have reviewed many of these Russia hoax documents, who have said that they're all declassified, Trump said numerous times they were all declassified.
I think he was very specific, you know, late in 2020 that everything dealing with Russia hoax is absolutely declassified.
And then lo and behold, a lot of people don't know this, but what we all assumed was going to be in the archives because Trump had declassified this.
This is what we had been led to believe.
Then John Solomon, who you just had on earlier, I'm not sure if he spoke about this or not, but they go to the archives and of course, and then nothing's there.
So I have no idea how that happened.
These were declassified.
The president said it no fewer than hundreds of times.
And these are of utmost importance to the American public for the malfeasance of the Department of Justice, the FBI, that dates back to the Obama-Biden administration, many of who are still in the new administration, the Biden administration today.
So, and these are, you know, at least the documents that I am familiar with that were not declassified showed completely the whole story of how DOJ and the FBI working with the Clinton team and the fake news were able to manufacture and frame then a presidential candidate and later the president of the United States using the most powerful tools that our intelligence agencies have.
And that's why when I say, Jack, that this is that we have slipped fully into the Nana Republic realm, that's where we're at.
Because look, if, remember, there was the leak.
And this is how you can always wrap these guys out because they do that to themselves.
So you had the leak of nuclear secrets, nuclear secrets.
Vindication for Trump and Nunes00:01:46
That's why they were there.
And then, you know, three days later, you know, when Garland finally goes out, it's clear he got the crap beat out of them, doesn't know what the hell's going on.
They got zero.
They got nothing.
And now that President Trump has pushed for this to be released and they only unredact just some news stories tells me that whatever's behind there is stuff that the American people should know and that we should have known for a long time.
And it probably gets to the bottom of the issue at hand here, which is the Russia hoax and the documents that were declassified.
And I'm sure they were probably looking for them because they want to hide them, burn them, and keep them from the American public.
And by the way, congratulations, Truth Social, all the success there.
I'm sure more people are going to be downloading it even now because they've heard of what the FBI is doing and the connections with Facebook, the connections with Twitter, your recent news, the partnership with Rumble Ads, the ad stack, I think is fantastic.
And then, of course, also for your service to our country and go watch the plot against the president.
I have a cameo in there, but the real star of that not only is Kash Patel, who is your aide, but also Chairman Nunes and your work uncovering that you were excoriated for this Russia gate hoax, but you were on the right side of history in the end completely vindicated.
Thank you so much for joining us, Chairman.
Well, Jack, thanks a lot.
And we really appreciate you put a lot of great content on True Social and we're glad that you're there.
Thanks for listening and make sure you click like and subscribe to the podcast wherever fine podcasts are downloaded.
For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to CharlieKirk dot com.