All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 18, 2024 - Firebrand - Matt Gaetz
41:48
Episode 172 LIVE: The Jeff Clark Story (feat. Jeff Clark) – Firebrand with Matt Gaetz
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Thank you.
the biggest firebrand inside of the House of Representatives, You're not taking Matt Gaetz off the board, okay?
Because Matt Gaetz is an American patriot and Matt Gaetz is an American hero.
We will not continue to allow the Uniparty to run this town without a fight.
I want to thank you, Matt Gaetz, for holding the line.
Matt Gaetz is a courageous man.
If we had hundreds of Matt Gaetz in D.C., the country turns around.
It's that simple.
He's so tough, he's so strong, he's smart, and he loves this country.
Matt Gaetz.
Wow!
It is the honor of my life to fight alongside each and every one of you.
We will save America!
It's choose your fighter time!
Transcending the firebrands.
Hey, everyone.
Welcome back to Firebrand.
We're broadcasting live from the Rumble Studios here in our nation's capital in Washington, D.C. Remember, the best way to consume Firebrand, download the Rumble app, set your notifications on.
That way, when we have conversations, when we've got breaking news, and when we've got the Gates Network running 24-7, You're going to be able to have access to the information that will make you the smartest person in the room and informed as to the true character and nature of the decision-making process here in Washington, D.C. Now, one of the things that we talk about frequently on the program is lawfare, the weaponization of the justice system against those who are righteously in the fight.
And we're going to do a deep dive in some of those election integrity issues and the ways in which this Biden Justice Department has really targeted people and has really Taken what we believe about due process and about evidentiary presentations and instead used the awesome powers of the Department of Justice to suppress evidence and then to try to hassle people and do great harm to our country.
That's unfortunately what we've seen in too many circumstances.
And there's no better person who I think has been fighting the good fight than my good friend Jeff Clark.
Jeff, thanks so much for being here with me.
A lot of people remember you as the mild-mannered environmental lawyer at the Department of Justice.
And when we started to see in Congress, when others started to see real concerns about the way the 2020 election was being...
Sort of adjudicated and investigated that there was an active effort to shut down review of different allegations.
And we know as lawyers that allegations are not evidence.
You have to corroborate things that you hear from people.
You've got to look at the validity of documents.
But just for a moment, before we get into everything that's kind of happened since, bring my audience to that, to what it was like for you as a senior lawyer in the Justice Department When you started to see some of these concerns percolate about the 2020 election and the ethic and dynamic that was going on at DOJ at that time.
Sure.
Well, thanks for having me on.
I really appreciate it.
And so we're in November of 2020. It's after the election.
And I'm watching all of the election irregularities mount up one after another, right?
You know, the late night dumps of ballots, the shutting down of the counting process, the fake water main break at the Georgia, you know, Atlanta Convention Center.
And, you know, I'm just scratching my head and I'm like, what are we doing about this?
So Bill Barr puts out a memo on November 9th, 2020, and he says that all of the U.S. attorney's offices, the head of the criminal division and the head of the civil rights division can investigate allegations of election, not just fraud, but also irregularities.
And I thought, all right, well, you know, they're doing something, right?
Time goes on.
We're getting later and later into November, and I'm not hearing that anything is going on.
And so, you know, eventually I went to talk to some of the Uber leaders of the Justice Department at the time.
And, you know, expressed my concerns and said, what's going on?
And what I was basically told was, you know, we were told by different parts of the career staff that there's nothing we can do here.
There are no, we don't have any real levers.
And I scratched my head.
I said, that can't possibly be true.
I broke out the election manual.
There's a multi-hundred page election manual that the criminal division, which has charge of election investigations primarily historically, I saw all sorts of provisions that could be used.
And I also thought that some of the things I was hearing out of the states, like in Georgia, the idea that while there were no options because they couldn't go into special session, so they couldn't investigate the fact that they'd gotten a report from one of their own senators, Senator Ligon, who'd done multi-day hearings, and he'd gotten a lot of evidence collected of fraud and irregularities, especially Fulton County, but in other parts of Georgia as well.
And I came up with the idea of trying to tell them that they have the power directly as a direct U.S. Constitution delegation to call themselves into special session because they have that direct delegation to regulate the election under the electors' clause.
And then we started talking about that issue internally, and it just led to a firestorm.
And that firestorm, you know, led to all the other things we'll get into, like just a house of bricks kind of coming down on me.
And then this was all internal to the Justice Department.
And, you know, there are still many parts of it that I think are privileged and the details of it are privileged.
And President Trump's asked me, you know, And so, but, you know, there are parts of the story that have been made so public that I can talk about those.
And, you know, that was all the result of anonymous leaks from my own colleagues, many of whom were Trump appointees, although not all of them were Trump appointees, to the New York Times, two days after Joe Biden was elected.
And ever since, I've been canceled by big law.
I've been attacked constantly by MSNBC and CNN. And, you know, the rest of the story we'll get into.
Yeah, I think that it showcases the way the regime fights back.
But I think there's two theories of the case about those moments at DOJ directly following the certification from—well, not even leading up to the certification— One theory is, well, these were just a bunch of buffoons who had no real understanding of their powers to investigate these claims of irregularity or what you were seeing in affidavits emerge in various courts around the country.
And then there's another theory of the case where they were actively suppressing the organic upward movement of information from field offices, from state and local authorities, from even a state legislative committee.
They were actively ensuring that that never developed into a legitimate investigation.
And I actually think it's the latter.
I don't think that Barr and his top people were just too incompetent to investigate election fraud.
I think they were subversive in the way that they purposefully tried to diminish any concern that arose.
Is that a fair characterization?
I think it is, especially based on some things I did not know at the time that would come out later.
So we know that Bill McSwain, the U.S. attorney in Philadelphia, my hometown, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, He had, you know, serious information about election fraud in Philadelphia.
And Philadelphia is a hotbed of fraud, which I also knew from my mom, who was a Republican poll worker.
And also from this scandal in the 1990s, I actually interviewed with a judge who had this case called Nueva Forma.
That, you know, the Democrats were basically trying to do some of the same sorts of fraud things we've seen.
And, you know, he had charge of that case.
They threw the book at that case, and that was shut down in Philadelphia.
So McSwain was aware of all this.
He wanted to pursue it.
He went to Bill Barr.
Bill Barr said, nope, can't do that.
And I want you to turn over any evidence you have to Josh Shapiro, who was then the Attorney General, right, who had already pre-announced that Biden was going to win the election.
So that was pointless.
There's Larry Keefe in Florida, U.S. Attorney in Florida.
He had information that related to shenanigans tied to...
Vote by mail requests.
Yes.
And that was also shut down by Barr.
And indeed, Barr issued a threat that if I ever hear about this again from you, you're going to get fired.
The third incident I would point to is that there were these allegations from the postal truck driver in Bethpage, New York, that he was taking ballots suspiciously into Pennsylvania.
And that was being investigated by the Amistad Project and by Colonel Schaefer.
And Barr winds up on the phone yelling at Colonel Schaefer to tells him to shut down the investigation.
So there's three things right there.
And then I'll give you fourth data point.
So we have Barr's testimony after to the January 6th committee.
And unlike many witnesses, like witnesses, you know, generally tend to get like a few minutes to say something, you know, to kind of set the stage for themselves.
But he was allowed, I think, in an unprecedented way since I've read many of those deposition transcripts that are publicly available.
There's some that You know, apparently have been destroyed that we don't have.
And they destroyed the videos, as you know.
But he was allowed to say, look, I want to set out three categories.
There's a category of election laws being changed by actors within a state other than the legislature because the electors' clause says the state legislature is in charge of those rules.
And so that's an unconstitutional problem right there, right?
The second category is there's election law in the state legislature.
It hasn't been changed.
It's fully operative.
It's been disobeyed.
So that's the second category.
Third category, fraud.
You know, like the equivalent of stuffing ballots, you know, either electronically or physically or putting in mail-in ballots that aren't legitimate.
He's like, we only looked at the third category.
We did not look at the other two categories.
And like right there, I read that.
I'm like, what?
Like, why would you disclaim authority to look at those two things?
Those were vital elements of what was going on in using COVID as a cover to have this entire giant mail-in voting operation.
And then I guess then I'll say here's a fifth element.
Barr brought in the U.S. attorney from the Eastern District of New York, and he was not appointed by Trump.
It's a guy named Richard Donahue.
He was appointed by the judges of that district, which is pursuant to a statute that I'd urge you actually to take a look at because I think it's unconstitutional.
I think the president has to make all appointments.
But he took him as the U.S. Attorney and he moved him to make him what we call in DOJ, main justice, the pay dag, the principal associate deputy attorney general.
So he becomes the number two, the deputy attorney general, who's the number two in the whole department.
So Donahue is brought in and he's given exclusive charge of all election related investigations.
And I... I have no idea why you would bring in—first of all, why would a U.S. attorney want to leave to be the pay dag?
That's a demotion.
Instead of running his entire office and the Brooklyn U.S. attorney's office, they think of themselves as good as or better than the Southern District of New York, which they tend to think of themselves in elevated terms.
So why would someone want to leave running their own show in the Brooklyn U.S. Attorney's Office, which also can be a very lucrative position to get, and come in and be the pay dag who actually no one directly reports to?
They only have the authority that the Deputy Attorney General gives them.
And so it just seemed very strange to me.
And so I see that also as part and parcel of the fact that your second hypothesis is the one that is true.
And so the criticism of your efforts largely centers around the argument that you were trying to operate in a way outside of our institutions, that our institutions have this way to contemplate these questions, and you go rogue and you try to operate outside the institutions.
But as I've reviewed the memo that you wrote that that was like falsely deemed the insurrection memo, it is actually a roadmap on how to use a constitutionally contemplated process and how to use the institutions that exist, be it the legislature, be it the Department of it is actually a roadmap on how to use a constitutionally contemplated process and how to Like that must be as a as a Harvard educated lawyer, as someone who's worked at at a lot of these white collar law firms,
it must be intensely frustrating that the that the criticism really showcases the vulnerability of the people who are trying to use the institutions it must be intensely frustrating that the that the criticism really showcases the vulnerability of the people who And you are merely trying to use our institutions to conduct a lawful proper constitutional investigation.
It must be deeply frustrating.
It is very frustrating, Congressman.
And look, it led them to make accusations that are ridiculous and easily legally pierced.
For instance, at some points they've argued that, well, the Justice Department can't send letters to people.
You know, and can't send letters to states.
And I was like, why do we have an intergovernmental liaison function if that's true?
We do that all the time.
We do that all the time.
And indeed, you know, a very early act in the Biden Justice Department was the acting Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Rights Division, Pam Carlin, who was a law professor at Stanford, who also, you know, a quick deviation.
When I went into the Justice Department in 2018, The ethics officials told me that I would need to resign my unpaid volunteer position as the head of one of the practice groups for the Federalist Society.
And so, you know, I handed it off to somebody else.
I gave that to them, right?
But that was unpaid.
The ethics people cleared Pam Carlin while she was the acting Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Rights Division to continue to receive her $900,000 a year salary from Stanford.
And so she sends a letter when Arizona's doing their audit, and one of the components was to start canvassing.
She sends a letter to them and says, don't do that, that's voting interference.
No, no.
We covered that extensively on Firebrand about about that effort by the Justice Department to scare states into, you know, into basically lethargy so that they weren't doing the hygiene that you would do to continue to have clean elections.
Right.
So so you you seek the the lawful, legal, constitutionally contemplated process and then you get hammered for it.
You get indicted.
The bar takes action against you.
For folks that are just kind of getting familiar with their story, and we're going to introduce the movie in a moment, from that moment when you wrote the memo we discussed to engage this lawful process, the things that have happened in your life.
Well, it really started with the anonymously sourced story, which only could have come from lawyers because there was a big showdown meeting, and you'll see that, I think, in the preview in the Oval Office on January 3rd, 2021. Everybody in the meeting, with the exception of President Trump, was a lawyer.
And so all of them were bound by confidentiality.
I certainly didn't go to the New York Times and start laying out the details of what happened at that meeting.
So clearly my opponents did, and they're the ones who violated ethical strictures and the laws of confidentiality within the federal government to do that.
So that's the first thing that happened.
And then that led to the press descending on my house constantly, harassing me, following me, trying to talk to the children, etc.
Then the committee started coming after me.
The January 6th committee.
No, first the House Oversight Committee under Carolyn Maloney, then the Senate Judiciary Committee under Durbin, and then the January 6th Committee.
I fought with all of them for quite a while, and then as a result of that actually wound up being canceled and needed to find another job.
One reason why I'm very thankful to Russ Vogt My colleague from the Trump administration is that now I'm gainfully employed at the Center for Renewing America.
So, you know, there was economic pressure, there are legal fees, so many multiple proceedings.
There's such a big hit to your reputation.
my applications to law firms which I you know put in uh after the uh end of the Trump administration those all died because you know that that they just took at face value these ridiculous stories that President Trump and I were plotting a coup and that in particular right that I was the mastermind of this coup right that there there could be if if it's not me it's John Eastman or some combination of us or something even though we weren't working together on anything yeah we
We share your very high view of the Center for Renewing America, everything that you and Russ are doing there.
And they've made this terrific movie I want to get into, Fearless, at the point of attack.
But when the committees were after you, I mean, ultimately...
Ultimately, the congressional committees were after you to try to catch you in misremembering something, or it was a perjury trap.
It was a perjury trap, absolutely.
Yeah, and so you went and asserted your Fifth Amendment privilege to avoid that perjury trap.
Well, so the story is a little more complicated.
So first, the House Oversight Committee comes after me.
We're kind of talking to them about parameters, about the fact that a lot of this is privileged, etc.
Yeah.
Then I'm up in New York, actually, in connection with New York City, in connection with a job opportunity around Memorial Day of 2021. And I get, this is the most bizarre thing.
I don't think I've really told this story in a lot of different forums.
A staffer for Senator Durbin sends me a LinkedIn message and says, Senator Durbin wants you to come in to be deposed.
And, you know, I started talking to a lawyer who had done congressional investigations for it.
He's like, no, you get a letter from the committee.
And then, you know, we also discovered that he lacked subpoena power because of the 50-50 divide in the Senate at the time.
So, you know, I basically just stiff-armed that and just, you know, didn't go in and refused to do that.
While we were still talking to the House Oversight Committee, one day the House Oversight Committee representative just hauled off and said, you've been remanded to the January 6th committee, so we will no longer be dealing with you.
And then the January 6th committee dropped an appearance and a document subpoena on me.
And on November 5th, if I remember correctly, in 2021, that's when I showed up for a deposition.
And I think I shocked everybody.
They moved the hearing...
They placed three times, they said, to accommodate great interest in your deposition.
And so I think they clearly thought that they were going to lay this perjury trap, or they thought that I would cave and I would start saying things that they could use against President Trump, who's their ultimate end, as we all know, their objective to bring him down.
And so that's why they had everybody attend.
Adam Schiff came in person.
And everybody else was up on a, you know, Microsoft Teams kind of set up on the screen, all the members, with the exception of Benny Thompson, the chairman.
You know, he was AWOL. And, you know, they started launching some questions at us and we produced like a 25-page, you know, letter memo that said, all of this is executive privileged, it's law enforcement privileged, it's deliberative process privileged, and it is lawyer-client privileged.
And, you know, they tried to keep me there.
They went into a tiff and they said, you exit the room, we're going to have a discussion and then we'll have you return.
So we went off to a side conference room.
After 10, 15 minutes, they called us back.
And, you know, we walked in and we could hear they were still debating with each other.
They clearly were divided.
There were some of the members who were like, I mean, you know, there's some arguments here.
Like, we're going to have to digest this.
We're going to have to, you know, resume the deposition later or something.
And there were others saying like, no, we've got to do this today.
And so we walked in and then Schiff like turned around angrily and he's like, you know, Go away.
We haven't called you back yet.
But we obviously only went back once one of the staffers told us to come back.
So we went back.
We did another 10, 50 minutes.
We came back.
It was clear the strategy that they came to was that they were going to have Schiff try to crack me.
So he and I went kind of mano a mano on some legal arguments for a while.
And then we were just going round and round the horn with nothing much happening.
Liz Cheney, in particular, wanted to, you know, know the question of what members of Congress had I cooperated with and coordinated with in order to, like, write the letter, etc.
And so, you know, a whole bunch of lines of questions that we refused to answer because it was a perjury trap and because it's all privileged.
And so we just said, look, you can't possibly have digested this 25-page letter in, you know, 20 minutes, like, in between breaks.
And so, you know, we're going to leave.
And then, you know, I got the stern talking to you in the morning.
Chairman Thompson has not adjourned this deposition.
You may not leave.
And so I looked at the big Microsoft Teams thing, which is as big as this wall over here to your left.
And I said, well, Representative Thompson is not here.
Chair Thompson's not here.
So we're leaving.
So we got up and we left.
And to finish the story, because it's an interesting story, a few hours later, we receive a letter from Benny Thompson that purports to overrule all of the privilege claims with a little bit of legal argument thrown in.
It's a couple of three, four page letter.
And it says, we hereby order you to return for the continuation of the deposition at like 4 p.m.
And the problem was it was already 4.20 p.m.
So we had some fun writing back and saying, like, we don't have a time machine.
I can't get back there.
And in any event, my lawyer has already boarded a plane to return to Atlanta.
Very sorry.
And so eventually they tried to hold me in contempt.
And I had to come in for a second deposition.
It was at the second deposition.
I sent a long letter beforehand where I stood on that letter too.
But then I went in for a second deposition in early 2022 and took the fifth.
And then they just asked me a whole bunch of questions and they left.
And then all they did was attack me in hearings later that year.
And they are not the only entity that has been on the attack, whether it's been even the Department of Justices, the inspector general showing up at your house and wrestling you out of bed It seems as though the process is the punishment.
Yes.
And I tell you what, it really was captured by the Center for Renewing America's recent documentary produced and directed by our good friend Kingsley Wilson, and it is called Fearless at the Point of Attack.
It's Jeff's great story.
We've pulled a cut of it for you.
You're going to want to see the whole thing, but watch this, enjoy, and we'll be back on the other side to discuss.
At the center of Mr. Clark's plan to undo President Trump's election loss was a letter.
Just days before the deadly January 6th assault on the Capitol, one of the ex-president's top Department of Justice officials at the time was circulating a draft letter that would have helped Georgia Republicans overturn Biden's victory in that state.
So the letter was quite modest.
The letter indicated that the Georgia legislature could call itself into special session And they should look at the report they had received from their own Senate subcommittee and then decide for themselves whether the certified slate of electors at that time for Joe Biden was actually the proper slate of electors or not.
I mean, you can't imagine Something that seems, you know, more process-oriented, right, and more basic and more fundamental to making sure that the American people have confidence in their elections than a recommendation that a state legislature do a further analysis.
And yet, you know, the screaming talking heads on the MSNBCs of the world and the CNNs, you know, they just went into apoplexy about the idea that anyone would suggest this.
Before dawn on Wednesday, which is say yesterday, a large group of armed federal agents wearing body armor with weapons raided Jeff Clark's home.
They dragged him into the street in his pajamas.
Now, what did Jeff Clark do wrong?
Jeff Clark did not commit any crime.
What he did wrong was calling for an investigation into voter fraud.
When my youngest daughter, who was then 12, came back from Atlanta and nobody else was around, she sat down next to me and she asked, you know, Dad, do you think the agents read my diary?
And that really hit me, you know, because there's no one who should have to go through this because of these political battles and these perversions of the justice system.
I love the law and I've given my life to the law.
I studied the law.
I have practiced law as a litigator.
I have made law as a state lawmaker and as a federal lawmaker.
And so to see my profession weaponized and really just tortured in such a manner It's very painful.
It makes me feel empty about the work of my life on some days when I see what's happening to people like President Trump or Jeff Clark.
The way you get power in this town is you help your friends and you hurt your enemies.
And the DOJ is, I would say, probably the worst example of the worst features of that.
Jeff Clark saw through that, and that's why he was such a threat.
This lawfare has many elements of it.
Number one is to put Trump and Trump's inner circle of advisers either into bankruptcy or to put him in jail or to break him somehow, like they're trying to do the president.
The other aspect of it is to, and this is actually a more advanced element of it, is to make sure That they take out the lawyers.
Jeff Clark's not just his barman.
I mean, the whole assault on him every day and the assault in media is a coordinated attempt to basically show, like Eastman, we're going to take out the best guys you have.
We will only defeat these people if we are sufficiently relentless.
We have to exhaust them.
We have to offer everything that we have and, like, shoot at the Death Star.
We have no other choice because to decamp from the legal practice or even our institutions would surrender the greatest country to the most evil people in it.
In a word or in a sentence about what could be done, it would be to fight fire with fire.
Because until fire is fought with fire, the Republicans are going to be attacked by this lawfare, and the Democrats are going to dance around with glee that they're not facing any consequences for perverting the justice system.
And we can't allow that to happen.
We're back live and Jeff Clark is indeed sufficiently relentless.
This is a great flick.
Center for Renewing America has it on their X platform.
You can find it on our stream as well.
And it really shows the pattern that we see play out against President Trump, against other fighters.
You know, Jeff, you are still in the fight.
No one would have blamed you to take your brilliant mind, head off, and escape this kind of sewer of pain that has been inflicted on you.
But you're still here.
You're still working.
Talk a little bit about the work you're doing now at the Center for Renewing America and how folks can keep up with your writing and your research.
Sure.
Well, thanks for agreeing to be in the movie first.
I really appreciate that.
And I thought your contributions were great, some of which you saw there in the clip that you played.
So at the Center for Renewing America, we have a small but growing team of lawyers, as well as policy people.
We are probably one of Washington's newest think tanks, newest conservative think tanks.
We have budget experts.
We have folks who are working on matters of the intersection of faith and policy.
And we have legal experts.
And so most recently, one of my colleagues, Mark Paoletta, and some other affiliates we have put out some great work about the Impoundment Control Act.
Which, you know, may seem to be something obscure to, you know, listeners, viewers of yours.
But look, it's very important because basically it's an attempt to really blow the doors off federal spending.
It's one of the reasons why the budget has been, you know, just the deficit and the debt have exploded since the Nixon administration when they put this statute in.
So that paper's up on our website.
You can go there.
The website is americarenewing.com.
I've done and I'm still doing work about the Justice Department.
And so, you know, we got featured for a paper I did about the Justice Department on the front page of the New York Times, actually, a paper that I entitled the DOJ is not independent because another one of these so-called post-Watergate norms is the idea that the Justice Department a paper that I entitled the DOJ is not independent because another one of these so-called post-Watergate norms is the idea that the Justice Department is separate And somehow it's unseemly if he tells them what to do and politicized, et cetera.
And, you know, I remember having some early debates about this, even online on X with Kyle Chaney, this reporter from Politico.
And he was like, he couldn't see it.
He couldn't understand how is it that you could not be politicized if the president is in charge of the Justice Department.
And I was saying, look, you can violate the Equal Protection Clause.
If a president of one party or the other decides I'm going to prosecute only Members of the opponent party, that's clearly a violation of equal protection, right?
So that's the constitutional guarantee.
The idea, though, that the president is not the head of the executive branch, he is the head of the executive branch.
That means the DOJ reports to him.
Which branch of government is the DOJ in, if not the executive branch?
Well, what the unstated or sometimes stated answer to that is that they're part of the fourth branch of government, the unelected bureaucracy that wants to be free of presidential power or any other branch's power.
Yeah, that's not really built into our concept of checks and balances, that there's this completely unaccountable floating orb at the Justice Department.
Right.
And look, I don't want to pat myself on the back too much, but I viewed Merrick Garland, the Attorney General's Big statement that they broadcast last week from the Great Hall of Justice, which incidentally one of my big corner offices at the Justice Department was close to.
The other one was on the floor just above it, behind it.
And he's in the Great Hall of Justice on the second floor of the Justice Department, surrounded by murals of the great figures of justice like Moses and Jesus, but Blackstone, etc., And he's talking to all the U.S. attorneys.
And he says, at the Justice Department, we believe in independence and we believe in protecting the norms of, you know, the Justice Department that we've followed ever since Watergate.
And as my paper explains, and so I really encourage your, you know, viewers and listeners who have an interest in this to go to the website, americarenewing.com, and look at that paper, is that what are norms, right?
There's the Constitution.
There's statutes.
There are regulations.
There are judicial decisions.
Norms, for me, does not compute.
Norms are not law.
They're not any form of law, and they're certainly not a form of law superior to the Constitution and its separation of powers, which only has three branches, not four, not five.
And I thought that Merrick Garland's entire speech was essentially an attempt to push back on that and say, no, we want these norms.
And we're desperately threatened by the fact that if President Trump is re-elected, these norms that we developed of a fourth branch of government and trying to institutionalize that will go into the ash heap of history, but that's where they should go.
Yeah, describing something as a norm in Washington, D.C. used to be vaulted, and now it is like a critique, and rightfully so, by the way, because it's been a lot of these norms that have harmed our country a great deal.
Jeff, the question a lot of my viewers will have is, are we ready for what's coming next?
You got such a close look at the way the machine of this town tried to squelch any concerns about election integrity.
I mean, this election is ongoing right now.
People are voting in Pennsylvania and elsewhere.
What would you tell my viewers about the cleanliness and the integrity of the election that is underway currently?
Well, I'd like to see that there were more efforts undertaken in that direction.
We only have less than 50 days now.
So I think in terms of what operationally can you do, I think you need to get as many of your neighbors to either put in mail-in ballots or commit to show up that day.
And on election day, if you can take the day off and you can help drive people there, That'd be great.
Talk to any undecided voter you can.
Strike up conversations with your neighbors or with people you meet.
But just like, what about the laws?
Because I look at the laws in some places like Georgia, and they got better with signature verification.
And with ending Zuckerbucks in Georgia, for instance.
Very good.
So yeah, directionally correct.
Yes.
But then I look at Maricopa County, Arizona, and I can't really point to a lot of major improvements there.
And then I look at Pennsylvania and it almost feels like they're going in the wrong direction.
So when you amalgamate it all together, I guess when people are watching these results come in, how confident should they be?
Well, I think people should use their common sense.
And I think that's what the way the American people reacted after the 2020 election, right?
Despite the fact that a media onslaught ensued, not just based on, you know, what the experts were saying that no one should be concerned.
The election was, it was the most pristine election, most secure election in US history, right?
Even though they were violating all of the CISA protocols, even though they were violating the computer requirements and the Help America Vote Act have a You know, and on and on.
They tried to tell us it was the most secure election.
American people didn't believe it, right?
And they even didn't believe it after they tried to strike fear into the hearts of Americans by trying to string up anyone who went to the January 6th protest.
Whether they were engaged in the riot or not, just setting foot in the secured area, many of which, you know, people didn't even know it was a secured area because the fencing and signs had been knocked down by the time they got there.
So, you know, I think continue to exercise common sense when you look at this.
If we see another shutdown of counting in the middle of the night, you know, I hope the American people won't stand for that.
And I think this time, you know, I think the Supreme Court did not want to touch the 2020 election.
But I think what happened in the immunity decision that was issued by the Supreme Court on July 1st, I think the Chief Justice has had enough of this lawfare.
And I think that this time, you know, if there's a big case that comes to the Supreme Court and gives them a chance to rule on the 2024 election because it looks like it's been stolen a second time, I think they may well take that case.
So I hope it doesn't come to that.
I hope that we flood the system that, as the saying is going on the Republican side, it's too big to rig.
And I'm praying for that.
I think everyone should put prayers in, too.
But there is a better legal strategy, I think, and better legal preparations than last time.
But I guess I would rather have seen it be 100 times stronger than it's been.
On a scale of 1 to 10, on election integrity, not based on the third world, but based on where America should be, I feel like we're at about a 3.5 or a 4 in the 2020 election.
And I feel like now maybe we're at a 5, 5.5.
half.
I really don't think we have made the requisite reforms, particularly to the mail voting, where we're certain that the ballots that are being tabulated were indeed intended to be cast by a voter.
That's my principal concern.
And a lot of the people who watch this program, you're engaged, you're involved.
But what you need to know is that the survival of the republic depends on folks a lot smarter than us, technocrats who studied these things, who work on these things, and then who are resilient in the crucible moment when it's really on the line.
And Jeff Clark is a hero of mine.
He's a patriot for our country.
Because when he saw things weren't going well, he could have just gone along with everybody else.
And by the way, if that were the case, he'd be making three times the salary at one of the Ivy League, you know, white shoe law firms here in Washington, D.C.
But he wanted to be a voice for our institutions.
That's what's so tragic about this.
He wanted to be a voice for the institutional capacity to deal with these irregularities that we were seeing and the concerns that legitimately needed to be evaluated.
And for that, they smeared him.
They indicted him.
They're trying to disbar him.
And this film, Fearless at the Point of Attack, Center for Renewing America, it really chronicles what happens to the people that you have to rely on if you want a safe and secure country.
And, you know, this is not a political show.
It's a show that goes over policy.
But the policies that we want to see at the Department of Justice are in line with what you just heard Jeff describe, where the Department of Justice isn't some, like, unaccountable thing out there.
But it is actually part of the executive branch and that it's fulfilling the mandate that the executive achieves through a free and fair election.
Jeff, I want to give you the last word, give you the chance to talk about where folks can follow you on X and continue to be supportive of all you're doing for the country.
Well, thanks again for having me on.
I really appreciate it and your contributions to the movie.
So the Center for Renewing America, again, is at americarenewing.com.
I am at Jeff Clark US on X and on Getter and at Real Jeff Clark on Truth Social.
And, you know, can I do this?
Can I ask, you know, if any of your viewers see fit to do it, to send either prayers or contributions to givesendgo.com slash JeffClark, that's just J-E-F-F-C-L-A-R-K, because, you know, at this point, the legal bills, they're just, they're enormous, and they spread across six different forums since they started unleashing these attacks against me in early 2021. We have to be relentless.
Jeff Clark certainly is, and we would ask all of you to be relentless as well.
Thanks so much for joining me, my friend, and we'll be back soon.
Roll the credits.
▲
Export Selection