All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 17, 2021 - Rudy Giuliani
58:21
Injustices by the Justice Department. Exclusive Guest, Bob Costello, Steve Bannon's Attorney
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome.
This is Rudy Giuliani with another episode of Rudy's Common Sense.
Today we are going to examine what I believe is now proven beyond doubt, that there is a distinct pattern in the Biden administration That all of these actions that you see, some of these are crises, some of these are disasters, some of them appear to be irrational decisions or incompetent decisions.
Some appear to be blatantly unconstitutional.
Some have been declared to be unconstitutional.
And the impression can be that this emerges from incompetence.
Political ideology of various kinds, some consistent, some inconsistent.
Different needs of different people.
Of course, there is some of that that's going on in any administration.
But it's my contention, and I hope to be able to prove it to you, and particularly with the penultimate and ultimate cases, That this is part now of what we suspected from the beginning, a very, very deliberate plan to undermine our form of government and to destroy our Bill of Rights.
Gosh, that's a very difficult thing to say, isn't it?
I'd better be able to prove it.
But I don't think there's any question that when you put together just a few of the most important offenses, objectives, actions of this administration.
That's the conclusion you'll come to.
And I think an exclamation point was placed on that over the last month to six weeks in three very, very significant cases, the implications of which are still playing out.
But it all began, it all began really before the administration took office where I mean, many of their speakers spoke of a fundamental
change in our government, talked about how inherently racist it is, unfair, old-fashioned,
not ready for the new world, not able to fit in with other governments around the world.
The founding fathers maligned terribly to the point where it would undermine confidence
in the scheme and documents that they created.
Because after all, the form of government we're defending is a form of government given to us.
By the framers of the Constitution and our founding fathers, starting with the Declaration of Independence and going through the preamble and the Constitution, ultimately the Bill of Rights and the amendments to the Constitution.
That's our form of government.
And the change is made by constitutional amendment.
There has been, for some time within the Democrat Party, a major offensive against certain particular parts of that Constitution.
Now it appears to be a complete offensive.
So let's get down to how it's manifested itself in the Biden administration, and then most importantly, where I want to spend my time, on the three cases that put an exclamation point on it, and then finally on the one probably most obvious and most critical one.
I mean, this all began on day one, and it lasted for two weeks.
When Biden came into office, he signed more executive orders than any president in history, in number, and certainly in scope.
By the second or third day, even though there were times he appeared not to know what he was signing—and actually, I believe, expressed that at one point—he had signed so many executive orders, ranging across The entire government, that it was fair to say we were being governed by mandate.
We were being governed by executive order.
We were being governed by a singular agency of the government, the executive, and by one person in that agency, the president.
Without going into great detail about all of them, some of these clearly needed legislation.
Some of these clearly needed public hearings.
Some of these clearly needed input from others.
And even the ones that didn't, a constitutionally elected president with a dedication to democracy would have sought other opinions before just preemptively going ahead and signing.
He removed, changed, reversed every single one of the major positions of the Trump administration with the slightest bit of public discussion of any kind.
Some were significant, really significant, like the XL pipeline, which resulted in 20,000, 30,000 jobs being lost.
And now we can trace to our energy shortage, can't we?
Or the ending of the examination of asylees in Mexico rather than letting them come across the border.
And I think maybe we can trace that to some, if not all, of the border crisis.
Well, some of the border crisis.
And certainly Bidensville that occurred in Del Rio, which was one of our great catastrophes.
And then many, many others that are being litigated.
Some have already been litigated and reversed.
Some are under litigation.
Some will be modified.
Some will be reversed.
Some possibly will pass some kind of scrutiny.
It's impossible to know what the courts are going to do completely.
But there's no doubt that the full picture of this shows an executive who basically doesn't agree with the Essential right of the people to having a limited form of government in which a president has to limit himself strictly to the powers granted him by Oracle II, has to be respectful of the powers granted to the other branches of government and to the states, and can infringe on them.
Government by mandate, government by dictate, is not the thing you expect in a democracy.
You expect government by consent, by consultation, by discussion, by debate, ultimately by compromise.
Where do you expect government by mandate and dictate?
It sort of defines itself, doesn't it?
In a dictatorship.
In a government that's being run by one or a small group of people.
How much equity do you have in your home?
50,000?
100,000?
More?
Cybercrime experts are alerting homeowners that the more equity you have, the greater the chance foreign and domestic criminals will come after you.
Title theft is one of the fastest-growing crimes.
Home Title Lock, America's leader in home title protection, is alerting homeowners they could already be a victim and not know it.
Here's how it goes down.
First, cyber thieves search hundreds of public databases for high-equity homes.
Next, they pull your home's title that's online.
They forge your signature stating you sold your home, and they take out loans using your equity.
You're not covered by insurance, your bank, or common identity theft programs.
Protect your most valuable asset.
Register your address now to see if you're already a victim and receive a complete title history of your home.
A $100 value free.
Go to hometitlelock.com.
That's hometitlelock.com.
When we set up our constitution, we had just won a war of independence from a monarch, and we didn't want to replace it with a government by dictate, did we?
So we put together, our founding fathers put together, founding fathers who we still revere, a very, very intricate and brilliant form of government to prevent power residing in the hands of either one person or one branch of government.
So we have two concepts that both set up the procedures of the government and the process of the government and the structure of the government.
And you may think they're just limited to that.
That's the separation of powers and states' rights.
Separation of powers distributes the powers into three branches of government.
Consider them like little buckets.
So the legislature has given powers, and the executive, Article 2, has given powers, and the judiciary has given powers.
And then when we get to the end of the Constitution, both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the powers not given to them are given to the states and the people thereof.
And that has been read to be a limitation on the powers, meaning there are no Just floating powers that Congress or the president or the court can assume.
Only powers they have are the ones that are written in that document or are reasonable interpretations of what's in that document.
Biden's first two weeks in office completely eviscerated that.
He stepped all over co-equal branches of government and he stepped all over the states.
And sometimes when we think of separation of powers and states' rights, we think just of procedure.
More important than procedure, it's substantive.
It's the first and primary way in which they protected our rights.
It's probably the most important thing they did in terms of the structure of the government.
The structure of a government is a protection of our civil rights.
It's a protection of our civil rights because power cannot reside in one government, or one branch of that government, or one person in that branch of that government.
Everyone is checked and balanced.
The legislature checks the executive, the executive checks the legislature, the judiciary rules on whether or not the things done by them are consistent with the basic document setting up the country.
And only that, that's their only role.
They don't get to make social policy, they don't get to legislate, they don't get to be legislators, they don't get to be presidents, just like presidents don't get to be judges, and legislators don't get to be presidents, and presidents don't get to legislate.
First two weeks, completely eviscerated those principles in the name of bringing power to himself and bringing power to the central government.
Another bedrock principle of our government that he eliminated was that power should not be taken into a strong central government, because to the extent that it does, power corrupts and ultimate power, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
So the mandate, which certainly indicated almost a And enjoyment in dictating.
I'm not sure you could see it with Biden.
He's not very... his affect is extremely...
Strange and hard to read it, largely because of the impairment that he has.
But if you look at the people around him, they seemed almost giddy about the fact that they were able to assume all these powers to themselves.
Very similar to the reaction of their brothers and sisters who were the Democrat governors, progressive Democrat governors.
Strange phrase, by the way, because they're nothing but regressive.
But the progressive Democrat governors who had been for about a year now governing like potentates within their spheres, using the extended, attenuated emergency powers that had long since had any legal significance, in order to be within their jurisdiction and within certain areas, dictators.
Where they could determine if and when you go to church, if and when you go to a restaurant, if and when you go to work, how many people you can have in your house.
Wow!
How many people you can have in your house?
Didn't the king — wasn't there something the king used to do about that?
When he would just invade people's houses?
Do you have any idea, during that pandemic, how our Constitution was Thrown out the window, symbolically burned by Governor Whitmer, Governor Newsom, Governor Murphy, Governor Cuomo, all Democrats.
And did you notice the kind of joy and fulfillment they felt in that?
It's almost like it should be this way.
We should be able to say, like, oh, like the mayor of Chicago, you can't get your hair done.
Or you gotta wear a mask all the time.
And you can't have it off within six feet or something.
And then we've had, you know, you can't have more than X number of people in a restaurant have to have masks on.
And then we've had very unfortunate situations of people being arrested and people being preceded against with the strong arm of the criminal justice system.
The kind of thing that happens in a fascist country rather than in a democracy.
Maybe to underscore how attenuated this was, how really removed from science it was.
The science had long passed.
And how removed from common sense and rationality it was.
Each one of the Democrats I mentioned, and many, many more, continually violated their own rules to, of course, some degree of scorn and ridicule.
Did they do that because they're lawbreakers?
Did they do it because they're elite, much better than you are people?
They are.
I know these people, and they all are stuck up and much more important than you are, and particularly if you voted for Trump, you were deplorable.
And you don't have their intellect.
They're much, much smarter.
Hard to explain how they do such a poor job governing, but in any event, no, here's what I believe.
I believe they did those things to a large extent by accident.
Because the things they dictated were so stupid, a person of common sense wouldn't follow it.
I mean, have only ten people at dinner, or eight people, don't have Thanksgiving?
You can't go to church, but you can go to a strip parlor.
You can't get your hair done if you keep your mask on and she stays.
And maybe you've both had COVID and you're immune.
I mean, these are...
These are irrational decisions.
They're called in the law abuses of power.
They are consistent with a dictatorship, not a democracy.
They are inconsistent with a country that's ruled by law.
And all through 2020.
Democrat governors from the East Coast to the West Coast were continually doing this, and some very infamous mayors like de Blasio and Lightfoot, Lightfoot is the one with the one to get her hair done when nobody else could, and said, oh, well, you know, I have to look good, nobody else.
That's the exception.
She has to look good, exception, which would protect her from COVID.
or the de Blasio hypocrisy of getting very angry at the Jewish community for having a funeral when they were too close and within a day of that having a big picture taken with his union supporters without a mask on.
Witness vacations, nuisance luxurious dinners, Hypocrisy across the board.
I mean, maybe the queen of hypocrisy is the somewhat functioning Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi.
She might be excused based on a similar defense that Biden would have, because I can't tell which is worse.
Biden.
I accomplished a lot in 2020 exposing the truth, establishing the relationship with you, working tirelessly for America.
And I came to know the work and value of the people at American Hartford Gold.
You see, you buy gold not only for what you know, but you buy gold for what you don't know.
American Hartford Gold is the company you can trust when it comes to buying gold.
They sell physical gold and silver delivered right to your door or inside of your IRA.
In the precious metals industry, they are the highest rated firm in our country with an A-plus from the Better Business Bureau and thousands of satisfied clients.
Give them a call and tell them Rudy sent you.
And be sure to ask them what I bought.
And if you call them right now, they will give you up to $1,500 of free silver on your first order.
Folks, these are uncertain times.
The one thing you can count on to protect what you have worked so hard for is physical gold and silver.
So don't wait.
Call them now.
Call 833-GOLD-777.
That's 833-GOLD-777.
Or text Rudy to 65532.
Again, that's 833-GOLD-777.
833-GOLD-777 or text RUDY to 65532.
Again, that's 833-GOLD-777 or text RUDY to 65532.
So that practice of government by mandate, government by dictatorship, that destruction
of the core nature of our separation of powers was already in place when Biden just very
naturally came into office and for weeks just governed by mandate and continues to do so,
including the mandate of all mandates.
Again, no science behind that.
That's arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion.
in which, and stayed, prevented from going forward, in which businesses of a hundred
or more must all be vaccinated.
Everyone must be vaccinated.
Again, no science behind that.
That's arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion.
Since many of the people in that business have natural immunity, which can be determined
by a very simple test, and it is emerging as we work our way through the lies and deception
of our Fauci science.
Bye.
What are the apparatchiks who seem to be more devoted to China than the U.S.?
As we work through their lies about science, and we look at European studies and those that are maybe affected by less corruption with regard to some of the industries, we see, like from Israel, a study that natural immunity is materially stronger than anything acquired by vaccine.
It is much more powerful.
It lasts much longer.
It has a much greater effect on preventing transmissibility.
And so far, our government can't give us an example of anyone who was reinfected after having natural immunity and died.
And there are more than a few who have had the vaccine and died.
And there are increasing numbers now.
In one case, exceeding 50% of people who have had the vaccine and gotten the illness.
So one wonders, wouldn't natural immunity have been better in the first place?
It's only 50%.
And then there is even a risk that nobody is going to really have it for too much longer since we're already working on a booster shot.
But the main thing that is irrational and I believe makes unconstitutional the mass mandate is the fact that it excludes the 40, 50, 60 million people who have natural immunity.
You're asking them to take a risk, albeit a small one, for something they absolutely don't need.
It's because they have something better than it already.
That's an arbitrary action on the part of the government.
This then proceeded to the Congress, and in Congress, how have they been trying to change the government, fundamentally alter our form of government?
Pack the court, end the filibuster, change the electoral college, change our entire voting system so it's run by the federal government, and we violate the Constitution and we deprive the state legislatures of their exclusive role in presidential elections and their shared role in congressional elections.
And all of this is part of an overall agreement on the part of the Democrat president, the Democrat governors, and the Democrat Congress to aggregate power to the central government, to create a powerful central government, to eviscerate and reduce dramatically the role of the states, and to remove or to compromise All of your basic constitutional rights, your right to vote, your right to free speech, your right to freedom of religion, your right to defend yourself, as you see playing out right now, and so many more.
But it's in the last four weeks, That it's really surfaced, oh my goodness, so clearly.
And it's with the absolute now proven fact that our administration of justice has been completely destroyed under Merrick Garland.
It is no longer even a joke to call it the Department of Justice.
It's a department for prosecuting Biden's chosen enemies, ideological or political or visceral.
The Garland letter, a complete corrupt deal with a Democrat, big contributing organization that secretly worked with the White House for two to three weeks.
To phrase and write the letter that Garland just, in five days, put his finger on.
This is a Department of Justice that for two and a half years hasn't gotten around to investigating Joe Biden for the millions that he took in bribes, or Hunter Biden for the gun that he purchased illegally, or Hunter Biden for the child pornography that's on his hard drive, or Hunter Biden and Joe Biden for the money laundering transaction that comes out of one document on that hard drive.
Oh, and then they follow it right up with a letter from Garland that basically combines the letter from the National Association of School Boards in Garland and basically what it says, and the message is clear.
You parents, stay the hell out of the school boards because we're going to prosecute you.
And then they use words that are words of terror, you know, words like, you'll be a domestic terrorist.
Or you'll be under the Patriot Act, you know, for the Taliban.
And then he doesn't apologize.
The people sending the letter apologize for having not had a proper basis for it.
And the arrogant Attorney General, who should be called something else, doesn't have the dignity, the grace, the decency or the honor to apologize to American parents, who he terrorized.
Resign?
You're a disgrace!
How could you have been a judge?
And then the Veritas raids?
At dawn, you go to the home of James O'Keefe and two reporters, and you rip their homes apart?
For a diary?
For a diary of the president's daughter that she claims was stolen?
Hey, it could have been lost, Mr. Garland.
I have some experience with the fact that the Biden family loses a lot of things that contain highly incriminating evidence that you are covering up.
So what do you think I think of you?
You raid their apartments?
Where'd you learn that?
From George III?
Where do you think you are?
Who do you think you are?
And you don't apologize for the letter to the parents suggesting they're domestic terrorists and suggesting that the Patriot Act be applied?
Oh yeah, I know.
It wasn't in your letter.
And Biden's not even the guy up here.
I'm not even sure who's the guy up here.
They were pulling your string.
You know what the name for you in the Godfather is?
Pezzo Novanti, the guy on the string.
And Biden's not even the guy up here.
I'm not even sure who's the guy up here.
It's the guy, the person up here who's got the strings on you, Garland?
The person up here is the one who tells Biden, you can't answer the questions.
You have to end it now.
When Biden says, I've been told I have to stop, they instructed me, they'll get mad at me.
That's the one pulling your strings.
And then the Bannon case.
That's the last straw.
This is a case of executive privilege.
Bannon was asked to testify with a subpoena from Congress.
We're going to have Bannon's lawyer on now because I'm going to have him explain this ultimate proof of the double standard of the Justice Department and your destruction of the Justice Department.
as a true law enforcement organization.
It's a political enforcement organization.
So we're going to talk to Robert Costello, who's the attorney for Mr. Bannon.
You should know he's also my attorney, and he's been my colleague and friend for Oh, goodness.
I'll count up the years as we get him on the phone.
But we were together in the U.S.
Attorney's Office.
We've worked together on many, many cases, and he's presently representing me.
But he's also representing Mr. Bannon.
So we will talk to Bob Costello right after the break.
Not long ago, Mike Lindell, the inventor of MyPillow, and his team fit me for my very own MyPillow.
They also introduced me to their wide assortment of other incredible products, like their mattress topper, their sheets, towels, slippers, and more.
Sleep is incredibly important to me, and I can assume for all of you.
It's time you give MyPillow a try and see for yourself.
Listeners have helped build MyPillow into the incredible company it is today, And Mike Lindell wants to give back to all of you.
You can get great discounts on MyPillow products by going to mypillow.com right now and seeing each of the specially priced items, including those in the Radio Listener Special Square.
You're going to see rotational offers up to 66% off on products like their pillows, mattress topper, Giza sheets, but also new products like their slippers, weighted blankets, robes, and waffle blankets.
All MyPillow products come with a 60-day money-back guarantee.
Enter promo code Rudy for these great specials.
That's mypillow.com.
I have on the line with me a very busy man.
I told you, Robert Costello is an attorney in Manhattan.
He's one of New York's finest attorneys.
He's, I should tell you for the purposes of full disclosure, he's my attorney and has been for some time.
Represents me.
He's also someone I know from the day he was in law school because we worked together in the U.S.
Attorney's Office.
I've seen his development.
And this is both a superior lawyer and a very fine and very intelligent human being.
And he just happens to be representing Mr. Bannon, in what I consider to be a very, very crucial case as to whether or not we're going to have an equal system of justice, and also a case that I think proves that we don't.
But let's listen to him, because he knows the facts a lot better than I do.
I gave you sort of a general outline of the facts.
That Mr. Bannon had been subpoenaed by the committee to produce documents on himself with regard to January 6, the insurrection without anyone firing a shot, and was told, was instructed by the former President of the United States to invoke executive privilege, which he has done.
He hasn't refused to testify.
An executive privilege just so happens is being litigated right now, and a stay has been granted to the president.
So I don't know how that all fits in, but it seems very, very strange that Congress would go and decide to get a criminal case, which they almost never do, with all these complicated facts.
But let's see if he can unravel it for us.
Bob, how are you?
Yes, I'm great.
Thanks, Rudy.
So, Bob, can you explain?
This has to be very complicated for our listeners.
And with all the complications of the Rittenhouse trial, I think everybody in America should go to law school.
I don't know how you follow the news now without having a master's degree in law, because I get confused.
But explain to us—I probably got that a little wrong.
I tried to simplify it.
But explain to us where Steve Bannon is.
First of all, we should remind people, we all know, but Steve Bannon was the chief of staff to the president when President Trump first went into the White House.
He was, and I can say this more than anyone else because I was part of that team, a very intricate part of it, I think he was one of the primary people that elected President Trump in 2016.
He's a political genius.
He's been a journalist for many, many years.
He invented the Breitbart Report.
He has one of the most successful radio podcasts in the world right now, broadcast all over China.
And he is a strong, partisan for Donald J. Trump and is more than happy to tell
the whole world that.
So that's who he is. And he's probably one of the most influential people in the Trump movement,
if not the. And that introduction explains why he has become the target of this select committee.
Let me begin by telling you that when the select committee reached out to me to see
whether we accept service to the president, Steve Bannon agreed to it right away.
Does that sound like somebody who's planning on being contemptuous?
Absolutely not.
We received the subpoena, which Call for 17 categories of documents as well as testimony.
And when I say testimony, I think the general public is misled by that term by the Select Committee because it's really secret deposition testimony.
What do I mean by secret deposition testimony?
The only person that can be present at the deposition is Mr. Bannon's private counsel.
In this particular case, since you have executive privilege, which belongs to the president and not to Mr. Bannon, the representative of the president is prohibited from being present in order to protect the president's privilege.
Now, apparently, unlike the staff of the committee or the committee members themselves, some of whom are lawyers, I read on some cases and some opinions from the Office of Legal Counsel The Office of Legal Counsel, generally known as OLC, is that select group of lawyers in the Justice Department who are assigned to advise the Attorney General of the United States and the President of the United States on particularly thorny issues.
And what they do is they digest everything and then they write opinions.
And those opinions, and this is important, are binding upon the executive branch of government.
They're not binding upon the courts.
A court could disagree with the opinion, but they are binding on the executive branch.
And the U.S.
Attorney's Office and the Department of Justice are part of the executive branch of government.
Naturally.
We looked at the opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel.
Bob, let me just have you explain to the people how important that is.
The Office of Legal Counsel is almost a semi-court, really, for the executive branch.
In the absence of a court opinion, the Office of Legal Counsel tells the executive branch what's legal and what's not legal, what to do, what not to do.
And it's followed that way.
So until a court will rule that they're incorrect in their interpretation of the Constitution, Absolutely correct.
will follow it. And often these opinions are supported by OLC opinions from both Republican and Democrat administrations,
as is the case here. Absolutely correct, except for the statement that the
executive branch will follow those opinions because in the case of Mr. Bannon,
they are not following those opinions.
But up until now, up until now, I mean, you know, obviously I spent a lot of my life in the Justice Department, up until now it was almost invariably the case that you would follow them unless you changed them, no matter if they came from a Republican or Democrat administration, in order to give the Justice Department continuity.
That's absolutely correct.
So now let's turn to Mr. Bannon's situation.
respect opinions of a prior administration unless you laid out the reasons for why you
weren't going to do it.
JOHNSON That's absolutely correct.
So now let's turn to Mr. Bannon's situation.
We get this subpoena which calls for lots of conversations and documents with just about
everybody under the sun.
And a few days before we're supposed to produce documents, I get a call from Justin Clark,
who informs me that he is counsel to former President Trump and that former President
Trump is going to be invoking executive privilege.
Not just with respect to Mr. Bannon, but there were three other individuals, including Mark
Meadows, the former chief of staff, to President Trump, that he was going to invoke executive
privilege.
So he said, we'll be sending you a letter in the next day or so.
I think it was a day and a half later, I got a letter from Justin Clark putting forth in writing that he was, on behalf of President Trump, invoking executive privilege.
And he had been counseled to the Trump campaign, you know, six months ago, a year ago.
So he was a person that was well known in the Trump orbit.
Right.
The letter wasn't specific as to exactly what item on the requested documents or items that the president was invoking executive privilege to.
He just said, we're invoking executive privilege as applicable.
That's a little bit nebulous.
That left us in a bit of a guessing game.
So we had to guess and err on the side of the president and his privilege.
So I wrote to Betty Thompson.
Who is not a lawyer, but is the chairman of that so-called select committee.
And I told him that we have been instructed that President Trump was invoking executive privilege.
And therefore, since the privilege belonged to him and not Mr. Bannon, we were not going to be able to comply until such point in time when they either reached an agreement with President Trump or they took it to court and some court of final word Decided one way or another whether or not President Trump could invoke executive privilege and to what extent he could invoke it.
We thought that was a reasonable position to take and in fact, it is the same position that Mr. Bannon took on four previous occasions.
Of course, the Select Committee doesn't want you to know about this, because on four previous occasions, Mr. Bannon has received subpoenas that call for testimony and documents.
At one time, it was before the Mueller Commission.
And once they worked out the executive privilege issues between the Mueller Commission and President Trump, Mr. Bannon... Of course, I remember that.
Yeah.
In addition, there was an appearance before the Senate Intelligence Committee and twice before the House Intelligence Committee.
and keep your eye on the House Intelligence Committee and here's why.
Because guess who the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee is?
Adam Schiff. Adam Schiff is also on this select committee.
So Adam Schiff sat on that committee knowing full well that when Mr. Bannon says I've been
instructed not to testify or provide documents because of executive privilege that once that is
worked out he testifies and that's exactly our position here. Adam Schiff of course remained
silent because he didn't want to reveal that twice.
before his own committee, Mr. Bannon.
Well, that's an improvement because normally he would lie.
Well, okay.
Well, by silence he's lying because they gave the impression
that Mr. Bannon was simply being contumacious, that he was defying the subpoena.
We weren't defying anything.
We simply said, listen, this battle over executive privilege
is more properly between President Trump and the committee.
Once you work that out, either by agreement or by litigation, we will abide by the final
ruling, the final word there.
So separately then, Trump brings a lawsuit, right, to get this resolved?
In the process, we're going back and forth with the committee.
They're sending us letters making false statements in the letters signed by Benny Thompson.
I'm replying, pointing out all the false statements that they're making and saying, you know, they have these people appearing on CNN and MSNBC who are making statements of law that are simply incorrect.
For example, they say things like the former president cannot invoke executive privilege.
That's simply wrong.
There are case law that says that he can.
They also say, well, Mr. Bannon has no legs to stand on because he wasn't a government employee at the time of the conversations in December and January of 2021.
That, too, is wrong.
So they're wrong on their basic facts, but that doesn't stop them from playing this narrative on CNN and MSNBC to make it look like Steve Bannon is simply being consummatious.
They don't ever say that Steve Bannon has encountered this problem four times before.
and responded four times before exactly the same way and once the problem was resolved he testified.
So now I'm doing some research looking at all these opinions of the office of legal counsel because our friends down there at the select committees that take the position well you should have shown up and invoked executive privilege.
The fact that you didn't even come means you're really being consummations.
Once again they're wrong because I read an opinion by the office of legal counsel In 2019, that said, in a situation where the House has subpoenaed an individual and executive privileges on the table, that if they have a rule that prevents the representative of the executive, counsel for President Trump, from being present at the deposition, the Office of Legal Counsel determined that that action is unconstitutional, rendering the subpoena
Illegal and unenforceable either civil or criminal proceedings.
This was not my opinion.
This is the opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel, which is binding on the executive branch and should have been binding on the Office of the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia.
We brought that to their attention.
And they said that they didn't agree with our interpretation of that opinion, which is pretty straightforward.
And, of course, I said, what do you mean you don't agree with my interpretation?
How am I wrong?
Tell me, and maybe we'll make an adjustment.
They refused to tell me how they thought I was wrong.
And I'm not wrong.
And I think they know that I'm not wrong.
But perhaps they were under a lot of pressure to make an example out of Steve Bannon.
And why do I say that?
You might remember that when this committee voted to hold Steve Bannon in contempt of court, they decided to turn this into a television appearance, where all committee members sat up at the dais, and they voted unanimously to hold Mr. Bannon in criminal contempt, to recommend to the House.
You know, Steve, I— They had interviewed both Benny Thompson and the so-called Republican representative on the committee, and both of them said— Who is the so-called Republican member?
Ms.
Cheney.
I agree.
I mean, everybody on the committee is a Democrat.
You finish that, because to me there's an excellent argument that this committee is
a completely phony waste of the taxpayers' money and should be paid for by the Democratic
National Committee.
I agree.
I mean, everybody on the committee is a Democrat.
It's chaired by Betty Thompson, who has sued, personally sued, President Trump, and somebody
else who's on this phone call.
Me?
He sued me.
Yes, he did.
I don't believe he's dropped it yet.
Somebody's gonna make him drop it, but not yet.
I don't know that it has anybody.
But here's the point.
They went out of their way to turn this television spectacle into an announcement that they were going to make an example out of Steve Bannon.
Now why would they pick Steve Bannon?
Because they look at Steve Bannon as the toughest hombre in this possible.
And if they can break Steve Bannon, the rest of the truth will fall on them.
Good luck on that.
They will go back.
All about executive privilege.
And they will go in there because they want to protect their own rear ends.
They do not want to get indicted, even though the charges are really ridiculous.
And by the way, here's a note for CNN and MSNBC.
These charges are misdemeanors.
You've never heard that word on CNN or MSNBC.
So they're going through this process that hasn't been used in 40 years.
Over a misdemeanor when they, over the 40-year period, consistently failed to use it in the case of mostly Democrats but some Republicans, where there were egregious violations like Holder, where the violation was perjury.
And the Congress voted 250 to 40 to hold him in contempt, something like that.
It's a little different, but 250 to 40.
And nothing was done with it.
So we have 40 years of this statute never being enforced.
I believe it's only been enforced successfully once or twice, at all.
And this is a minor case.
This is not a case of giving false testimony.
You could almost see this as a scheduling case.
Right now, President Trump is challenging in federal court, in the District of Columbia, the very existence of the Select Committee, arguing that there Unconstitutionally formed because they're usurping the authority of the executive branch.
What they're doing, the Congress, is investigating just for the sake of investigating.
What are they investigating?
They're going to pass a tax law?
They're investigating the events of January 6th.
What they're really doing is trying to find out what President Trump's advisors were talking to him about with respect to election fraud issues which were front and center on the table on January 5th and 6th of 2021.
That's really where they're going.
So they're conducting a criminal investigation allegedly of the riot.
Who were the people behind But they've been doing a criminal investigation of the riot for eight months, and they got a couple hundred people in jail.
Right.
Without bail, when murderers are let out on bail in most of America now, in Democratic cities.
Oh, exactly.
And, you know, people like Hunter Biden are running around, and he hasn't been indicted, but Steve Bannon has.
Gosh almighty, he hasn't even been investigated, or like Veritas and me, had his home invaded.
But the reality is this is a mere misdemeanor case.
It hasn't been prosecuted this way for years, rarely prosecuted this way.
And somehow they bring in the criminal justice system.
But don't all of the opinions of the Justice Department basically argue against bringing this case?
Absolutely correct.
It's not only that, but here's the irony.
The legislative branch here, the House of Representatives, the Select Committee, which is actually doing, trying to do work of the executive branch.
Investigating criminal offenses is the bailiwick of the executive branch, not the legislative branch.
But that's what they're trying to do.
So they usurp the authority of the executive branch in conducting this investigation.
But then when they meet somebody like Steve Bannon, Who's not going to cooperate with their silliness.
They have to run to the Justice Department, which is part of the executive branch, to try and beef up their position and try and hurt people who are refusing to cooperate.
So they're going to the executive branch to try to enforce powers that belong only to the executive branch and not to the legislative branch.
And the executive branch, the U.S.
Attorney's Office, is being foolish enough right now to assist them.
Well, of course, it is a U.S.
attorney's office appointed by Biden, correct?
Well, yes, there is a new U.S.
attorney down there appointed by Biden.
And there is a good argument to be made that our beloved Justice Department has become the Biden Enforcement Agency?
In this case, there's no question about it.
I mean, I told them that they would be violating all of their precedents if they go ahead and indict Steve Bannon.
All of their precedents they'd be throwing out the window.
Not only that, but this OLC opinion makes it clear that this subpoena was, as we say in the trade, void ab initio.
It was dead on arrival.
It had no legal force or effect.
Steve Bannon did not have to appear, did not have to genuflect in front of the Select Committee.
He simply had to rely upon his counsel writing a polite letter explaining to them That we were waiting for the decision to be made between counsel for President Trump and the Select Committee.
And once a final arbiter decided whether executive privilege is appropriate here, and if so, how far it went, we would abide by that ruling.
That hasn't taken place.
And they're battling that out in the Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia.
And whoever loses that battle will appeal to the Supreme Court.
So just to sum up, from Mr. Bannon's point of view, he followed the rule of the Justice Department, which after all is the agency that would guide him since he's a former executive employee, that he shouldn't testify if he's not allowed to bring an attorney who can protect the former president's executive privilege.
Right.
You and his lawyers advised him of that as well as he could read that himself.
Exactly.
But then the worst thing is Congress disrespected it, but the Justice Department, the U.S.
attorney, was bound by it.
So he has no basis on which to indict.
I agree.
Well how does this get resolved, Bob?
Well, normally it would be resolved by rational people sitting down and having a conversation
We tried that route.
That didn't work.
So, the next route will be, we'll file a motion to dismiss the indictment.
Which, by the way, just to show you they're overkill, they indicted Bannon for two counts.
There's only one subpoena here.
That subpoena called for testimony and documents.
That is not two offenses.
That's one offense.
It's one subpoena that he didn't appear for.
They're going to try to get two years instead of one?
We're gonna try to get two years instead of one You can bet all of the other people lined up behind him
received subpoenas their knees will start knocking and they'll come
Thank you so much.
Thank you.
any questions whether they include executive privilege or not because they're going to
want to protect themselves.
That's just human nature.
Well thank you for explaining it Bob and good luck.
Steve is a patriot and so are you.
God bless you.
Thank you.
I appreciate that.
Well that's quite a story of an America that I never knew when I went to law school or
started practicing law or was U.S. Attorney.
Attorney or Associate Attorney General or worked for Ronald Reagan or Gerald Ford or Attorney General Levy or Attorney General Smith.
This is so foreign to me and it evokes a fascist government.
In a government of laws you follow the rules.
In a fascist government you make up the rules.
The rule says that Bannon is not to appear but with a lawyer for the president or the former president.
He followed the rule.
He's being penalized for not following the rule and therefore he should follow instead An illegal, unauthorized dictate from a committee that is clearly a farce.
I'm sorry I didn't ask Bob more questions about that, but let me conclude by telling you, when we talk about this committee, we really shouldn't even call it a committee.
We should call it something else.
It's made up of only Democrats.
No Republican would join it, because Republicans consider it a completely illegitimate Nancy Pelosi political committee just to do damage.
It's clearly an opportunity or an attempt to try to keep January 6th insurrection alive, because the president, Pelosi, and the entire Democratic Party is being destroyed on their express train to socialism agenda, where he's down to disapproval numbers that I don't know any new president has ever seen.
And his vice president's worse, and Pelosi's worse than that.
So they had to come up with something to try to revive this fraud that there was a big insurrection in Congress.
Of course, I mean, you begin with the fact that this was the only insurrection in the history of the world where nobody was shot, except an innocent woman who was shot by one of them, who they're covering up for.
Innocent woman, unarmed, police officer not in bodily harm, shoots and kills her and they won't release the report.
What does that tell you?
In any event, the reason I focus on this case is not only it's one we've got to continue to follow because very important rights are involved here.
But doesn't this tie the ribbon on the tragic fact that we no longer have a Justice Department?
We no longer have a system of justice.
We have a double standard corrupt system in which Republicans and those close to Trump have their homes raided early in the morning by what appear to be stormtroopers.
And Democrats commit child pornography, money laundering, illegal possession of a gun.
Distribution of proceeds from Red China in the amount of millions.
Commitments in the amount of billions.
Bribe payments, half of which are given to officeholder Biden over 30 years, admitted on tape.
All of that ignored.
And Republicans, who they are attempting to put in prison because they didn't show up for a hearing in which there are legal reasons that are being decided by the courts this very moment that prevent it.
And if there was an ounce of decency or fairness left, you'd await that decision.
But if you want to make a point and change the agenda because your corrupt administration is sinking and you're corrupt, this is what you do.
It's a tragedy, what's happened to our justice system.
And the only way we're going to fix it is by bravely calling it out, challenging it, trying to change it now, making sure we change it in 2022.
▲
Export Selection