Aug. 25, 2022 - Human Events Daily - Jack Posobiec
23:33
Aug 24, 2022 - The FBI Mar-A-Lago Raid Had No Legal Basis
According to two constitutional lawyers who served under former presidents, the FBI Mar-a-Lago raid warrant actually had no legal basis due to the Presidential Records Act. The University of Washington conducted a study on transgender procedures and depression; turns out, the procedures did not lower the patients depression, so the university lied and published a false study claiming the opposite in order to fit the narrative. The two police officers involved in the Rayshard Brooks shooting i...
New constitutional lawyers are out saying that that's absolutely the case.
And also a huge announcement!
The Great Reset Conference is coming to Arizona September 16th and 17th.
Come join Charlie Kirk, myself, Steve Bannon, Drew Hernandez, and so many more as we rally in Phoenix, Arizona to stop the malicious plan from destroying America.
We hope that you will stand to fight tyranny and preserve freedom.
Go to reset.tposa.com.
Secure your tickets immediately.
Well, ladies and gentlemen, welcome aboard tonight's edition of Human Events Daily, powered by Turning Point USA.
Today is August 24th, 2022, and I'll dominate tonight's top headlines.
The FBI Mar-a-Lago warrant apparently had actually no legal basis, according to constitutional lawyers.
We'll break that down next.
Huge scandal out of the University of Washington in Seattle.
A transgender study actually lied about its effects.
Third, Two officers down in Georgia will not be facing charges in the Rayshard Brooks shooting.
What does that mean?
And fourth, campus Google partners with top universities for fellowship, but lawyers are saying that racial quotas and gender quotas that they are imposing are illegal.
"All This and Morehead: Human Events Daily." - You still have the surveillance tape Is that correct?
Will you, are you allowed to share that with the country?
Absolutely, Sean, at the right time.
And your body cam point was spot on.
That's why cops wear body cams.
They don't tell you to turn off cameras.
They want transparency.
And that's not what happened here.
And you know, for a fact, they asked for the cameras to be turned off.
They asked for the cameras to be turned off.
Wow.
By the way, I just gotta say to Eric, to the Trump Organization, I'd say drop the cameras, drop the tapes, give us all of it.
We want these tapes, we want the surveillance.
I don't know if they're playing, there's the famous Trump thing, you know, the whole Trump family has got this, apparently, of that, I'll release it at the appropriate time, I'll release it at the appropriate time.
The time is now, because we wanna go through these videos, we wanna see everything that's going on in there.
And people are just like, oh, you're doxing the, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
The agents are the ones who showed up.
That's the government.
When Jake Tapper was complaining about this, and he was in that debate on Sunday, and he said, well, hold on, hold on, don't, doesn't the FBI have the standard of innocent before guilty as well?
No.
The government does not have that standard.
The prosecution doesn't have that standard.
The defense has that standard.
The defense is the one being accused.
That's why the raid is going on.
The government doesn't have that.
The government never had that and it never will.
I'm not even a lawyer.
Right?
This is just basic 101 legal stuff that any citizen should understand about their country.
But I understand, obviously, that the education system doesn't teach you basic things like that, Jake Tapper.
If you listen to CNN, you're definitely even... It's worse because rather than just be uneducated, you go to CNN and you get miseducated.
No, the government does not have the burden of innocence.
They have the burden of truth.
They have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt what it is they're accusing of.
So, what we have here from Epoch Times.
A former president's raid under the Presidential Records Act supersedes the statutes the Department of Justice and the FBI used to carry out the raid earlier this month.
What does it mean?
Two former constitutional lawyers that worked under Ronald Reagan and George H.W.
Bush in the White House wrote that essentially the warrant itself is charging the president with a crime that it couldn't have because the president's rights under the Presidential Records Act stem directly from, from what?
The Constitution.
And if they stem from the Constitution, this is a charge that you can't even, this is a crime that you can't even charge the president with.
And here's what they say.
The judge who issued the warrant for Maulago has signaled that he is likely to release a redacted version of the affidavit supporting it.
But the warrant itself suggests that the answer is likely no.
The FBI had no legally valid cause for the raid that they wrote in this op-ed in the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday.
What does this mean?
We're going to get into the details because that's what we do here on Human Events Daily.
The judge who issued the warrant for Mar-a-Lago, this magistrate judge Bruce Reiner, stated that it allowed FBI agents to obtain all physical documents and records constituting evidence contraband fruits of crime or other illegally possessions in violation of 18 U.S.C.
793, 2071, or 1519.
And by the way, you guys remember this.
Because it was Human Events Daily that initially dropped the receipts of this warrant itself.
We were the first place in the entire world that released the warrant.
It then later says, The materials that could be seized are, quote, any government and or presidential records created between January 20th, 2017 and January 20th, 2021, which obviously encompasses all of President Trump's term.
As a result, the two scholars said that virtually all of the materials at Mar-a-Lago obviously would fall into this category.
However, comma, federal law gives President Trump a right of access to all of them.
His possession of these documents is entirely within that right and therefore lawful, regardless of the statutes that the FBI cites in its warrant.
Those statutes are general in their text and application.
And by the way, here's the way it works, folks.
This would apply to pretty much anybody else, literally anybody else.
It's also like the declassification standard.
This would apply to anyone but the president, okay?
If you were someone who wasn't a president, you wouldn't get that.
But if you are the president, it's at your discretion.
And guess what?
A Supreme Court decision all the way back in 1974 has affirmed that argument.
The Presidential Records Act applies differently to anyone else other than the president.
So they are going to have to figure out why it was that they did this.
President Trump, the ball is in his court.
Look, I just gotta come out and say it.
Liberals can play their word games with recession, but they can't hide the pain that Americans are feeling as a result of their destructive policies.
Between inflation, a looming recession, and instability all over the globe, you need to prepare before it is too late.
And that is why I recommend that you diversify with gold and silver now.
And the only company that I recommend is Allegiance Gold.
My friends at Allegiance Gold can help you protect your IRA or 401k with physical gold and silver and have it delivered securely right to your door.
They will educate you on the benefits of physical gold because they care and they want to build a long-term relationship.
Allegiance Gold has the highest ratings in the industry, 5 stars, with a trusting AAA rating with the Better Business Consumer Alliance and have an A-plus with the Better Business Bureau.
Get $500 of free silver on a qualifying purchase when you tell them that Pozo sent you.
So don't wait, call or click today.
Go to allegiancegold.com slash poso.
The link will be in the description of this episode.
We cannot control the Biden administration, but we can prepare.
Allegiancegold.com slash poso.
I am Rachel Simon.
I use she, her pronouns.
I am a psychotherapist, educator, consultant, and author.
I run my private practice here in Philadelphia, and I am the author of The Every Body Book, which is an LGBTQ inclusive sex ed resource for 7 to 12 year olds.
But you're so right that sexuality education starts The minute you're born.
I mean, we're born with bodies.
We're learning about privacy and, you know, being sexual in public from a very early age.
We're learning about... So drop the cons of talking about sexuality with parents.
Homophobic and transphobic ideas from parents can absolutely be a problem.
Inescapable judgment.
Yeah, bigoted, misinformed parents who have no idea how to talk about gay sex.
They're biased.
If they are religious, it can be very difficult to get into the conversation with them.
So that was a psychotherapist.
I think you could probably just drop the word therapist off there.
No, that's just psycho.
Hi, I'm Jack Posobiec, host of Human Events Daily.
My pronouns are shut up.
With all of that.
All of that.
But Jason Rantz, who's a fantastic journalist investigator in Seattle, Washington.
I don't know how he could stay there, by the way, after we met when I was covering Chazz in 2020.
Back in 2020, we infiltrated with my brother.
But this piece he's got out, it's one of the most incredible investigative pieces I've seen in a while.
And this is something that I was talking with Liz at TikTok about earlier this week.
We're also co-hosting or guest hosting on the Charlie Kirk program.
And she said, they're mutilating children.
They're lying about it.
I said, they can't be lying about it.
You know, they're not doing all this, all that.
Well, here's what happened.
Jason Rantz has the study out from the University of Washington.
It says the University of Washington put out a new study.
Essentially on transgender surgery and transgender materials, transgender procedures.
And in that study, when they went in, they conducted these procedures, they followed, I think it was 104 people.
He's got all the emails in on this.
They found that these studies and these procedures were not helping the patients who were diagnosed with depression.
In fact, they found no change whatsoever after these procedures and a variety of procedures and the level of depression.
for these patients.
And yet, that suddenly wasn't politically correct enough for them.
That wasn't the narrative they wanted to spread.
So what did they do?
They put out a study claiming that the treatments actually, by the way, helped decrease the levels of depression.
It was a lie.
It was a complete lie.
And Rance has all the emails back and forth on this from a whistleblower telling them, or we can see here, we can see in the emails, that they knew they lied, And they didn't feel like reaching out to anyone to correct the record, even after their false press release went out.
And even people on the research team said, hey, what they're saying about our study isn't true.
It's not what we found.
Of course it's not what they found, because it doesn't matter.
What matters to them is the agenda.
So we've seen that.
There's a story out of Sydney right now, which is, it's horrifying.
And the Postmillennial has it up.
It says a woman is suing a psychiatrist over her gender transition.
This is down in Australia.
A woman who had given this as a teenager, a mastectomy and a hysterectomy, says she can't have children because her psychotherapist, her psycho-psychotherapist, talked her into this.
And then another one from Postmillennial.
A kid-friendly, quote-unquote, Washington Pride Festival is handing out free medical referral letters for, quote, gender-affirming drugs and surgery.
I love that.
Gender-affirming.
They always come up with the euphemism.
They always use newspeak.
It's a grooming behavior.
Number one.
It's mutilation of children.
That's number two.
And it's child abuse.
That's number three.
That's what these people are pushing.
And it's not just from activists anymore.
You're getting this from the psychotherapist class.
You're getting this from the experts.
You're getting it in universities.
You're getting it in schools.
You're getting it in Parades and festivals that children are attending.
This is what's going on in your country, Americans.
So when I say, understand what part of the movie you're in, you've got to understand, this is what's going on around the country, in many cases, even in schools with young children that's targeting them.
I don't want to be targeting my children, and that's why we watch anyone who's around our kids like a hawk.
But at the same time, you need to understand that this will not change unless we, the American people, do something about it.
I think you've had too much to drink to be driving.
So put your hands behind your back for me.
Put your hands behind your back.
All right, 63.
Okay, for our audio-only audience, not for our live chat audience, which we love our live chat.
By the way, shoot us your emails, libertyattposa.com, libertyattposa.com.
I want to explain what you just listened to.
Was that audio of the Rayshard Brooks arrest, fight, and then shooting that took place down in Atlanta, Georgia, Almost two years ago, actually over two years ago.
I remember that because it took place while my brother and I were in Chaz, and we were watching this video one of the nights when, you know, it was like two in the morning, three in the morning, and we had just gotten back to the hotel and said, oh, we got to check this.
We watched the whole thing, watched the hour-long video.
Both of the officers will not be charged.
Two officers will not face charges in the Rayshard Brooks shooting.
One of them was initially arrested He was fired, Rolf, but then he was reinstated in May of 2021 because of false procedures or the lack of procedures used by Atlanta City against this.
So what happened?
You can see in the video that there's this long exchange.
Go watch the full video.
I highly encourage it, by the way, that this guy is being pretty much cooperative.
He's talking to him.
He's clearly inebriated throughout the film.
But then when they go to put him in the handcuffs to arrest him for DUI, he was asleep in a Wendy's drive-thru, by the way, he goes and starts attacking the officers physically.
The officers then deploy their taser.
He takes the taser.
turns, goes to shoot the officers with the taser, that's when the other officer returns fire.
Because he was using force against the officers.
In the city of Atlanta in 2020, when everything was going on, the BLM riots were in their full swing.
This was another piece that was added, a fuel to the fire, of these activists And these extremists claiming that police were out there targeting people, targeting black people, and just going out and killing them.
But if you actually watch the video, you would see from moment one that the officers here conducted a basic field sobriety test, right?
By the way, practice your alphabet backwards.
Z, Y, X, W, V, U, T, S, R, Q, P, O, N, M, L, K, J, I, H, G, F, E, D, C, V, A. So you know, so you know in case you have to do a field sobriety test.
Just practice.
These officers did nothing wrong.
They responded based on their procedures.
And they knew what they were doing was according to those procedures.
There has been a war on our local police forces in this country that goes all the way back to 2013.
It goes all the way back to Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman.
It goes to Ferguson.
It goes through Freddie Gray.
Because there are forces in this country that want to destroy local police And at the same time, the defund the police movement has led to a situation where you're getting people that go into this profession, that go in, that aren't getting paid as much, that don't have as much training, that aren't right for the job in many cases.
And by the way, I have no problem calling out crooked cops or calling out police that do the wrong thing.
Okay?
Go ask Daniel Shaver about that.
But at the end of the day, you have to understand, That if we're gonna have a society that's upheld by someone, by any force, local police are one of the last bastions of this.
I said it on Twitter, I've been saying it on Charlie Kirk all week, you can be pro-police, but not be pro-police state.
There are two separate things.
And so when we want reform, of course we want reform, but you can't keep demonizing these police officers like this, and locking them up, putting away their jobs, arresting them, for doing what you asked them to do.
I don't think necessarily holistic admissions has to end.
Students for Fair Admissions just says race cannot be a part of that.
I think whether a platonic system created where literally no one ever had knowledge of any candidate's race is impossible.
Okay.
But the remedy that I think could be imposed is just, for instance, just taking it off the common app and telling, doing a sort of Prop 209 or Michigan Civil Rights Initiative style remedy Could be imposed.
Harvard already chooses to eliminate the religion identifier from the Common App.
So when you fill out the Common App, you can fill out your religious affiliation.
Harvard, by its own choice, blinds itself to what you said there.
Sure, some people discuss religion in their applications as well, and yet what Harvard says is they don't need to consider somebody's religion at all to make sure that they get the diversity they're looking for.
It's our position that there are steps they can take that would result in comparable racial diversity on campus, We gotta get the racial diversity that we're looking for, right?
That's exactly what higher education is all about.
Gotta get that diversity.
Diversity is our strength.
We love diversity.
We love multiculturalism.
Wait, did anyone talk about, you know, achievement?
Higher education or, I don't know, actual excellence, greatness, any of these things?
No, no, no, no, no.
We need to achieve diversity.
Why?
For the sake of diversity.
Because we are going to do anything we can to transform our society into this belief, this is the civil religion, by the way, this is the civil religion of the secular left, that all people are equal regardless of your race, your gender, your height, your religion, whatever.
You're all equal.
Everyone's equal, but also we love our diversity, right?
Everyone's equal, but we all love our diversity.
Well, what is the so what here?
Google and the Washington Free Vegan has the story.
Google has a new strict cap on the number of white and Asian students that universities can nominate for a prestigious fellowship program.
Legal experts are looking at this policy and they say that it obviously violates civil rights law and could threaten the federal funding of nearly every elite university in the United States.
Wonderful!
The Google Ph.D.
Fellowship, which gives promising computer scientists nearly 100 grand, allows each participating university a group that includes most elite schools to nominate four Ph.D.
students annually.
Quote, if a university chooses to nominate more than two students, Google says, the third and fourth nominees must self-identify as a woman, Black or African descent, Hispanic, Latino, Latinx, Indigenous, and or a person with disability.
The answer is obvious.
If you're someone who's not one of those categories, read what I just said.
It doesn't say you have to be one of those things.
It says you have to self-identify as one of those things.
Well, great!
Put on that... I'm gonna tell you right now.
Put on that application whatever you want.
If they want us to play the game, then fine.
We're going to win the game.
You write whatever you want on there.
If you're Latinx, sure, I'm Latinx today.
Are you indigenous?
Are you black, African descent, Hispanic?
Make them check.
What are you going to do?
You're going to run a DNA test?
Of course they're never going to do that.
They're going to say that's not PC.
Make them Live up to their own ridiculous standards.
That's the only way that you can break this system.
That's the only way you can push forward on this.
By the way, this is what I got into Ibram X. Kendi with on Twitter because he was saying that more and more people who are white are doing this very thing.
They're putting themselves in categories that they are not.
And I pointed out to him that that debunks literally everything that you said about systemic racism because there isn't systemic racism.
What we have are these quota systems, we have affirmative action, we have all of these systems to quote-unquote prove that diversity is our strength.
Okay, that's all the time we have here at Human Events Daily.
I know, I see you guys down in the live chat, Getter, Rav, the live chat, you're all saying, we need more, we need more poso!
But that's all the time we have today.
Remember, as always, our promise, our oath, our solemn vow to you, be good, be brief, be gone, your homework for us.
Leave us just one, just one of your five-star reviews, and then share this out with your normie friends.
What do we talk about today?
The FBI's Mar-a-Lago warrant had no legal basis.
according to constitutional lawyers.
Next, the University of Washington, if I could talk, transgender study lied about its effects.
Third, two officers will not face charges in Rayshard Brooks' shooting.
And finally, this campus Google partners with top universities for the fellowships.
Lawyers say that racial and gender quotas are obviously illegal.
Look, we have to start pushing back on this stuff.
We have to start pushing back as a country, as a society, against people that are trying to revolutionarily change everything that we stand for, every way that we live.
Look at how they destroyed our tight-knit communities that we had when we were children.
They don't exist anymore.
If they do, it's only in small pockets.
They used to be everywhere.
They used to be literally everywhere.
And so we need to do something about it.
But before we go, it's time for today's History Break.
On this day, August 24th, 1814, during the War of 1812, Washington D.C.
invaded by British forces that burned the Capitol, the White House, and most other public buildings, along with a number of private homes.
Retaliation for the American burning of Toronto, then known as York.
Look folks, understand, this country has been through dire straits.
The War of 1812 was not exactly a win for the United States.
You have to understand what time it is.
You have to understand where we are because we've come so close to losing this country in the War of 1812, in the Civil War, so many other times.
