Speaker 1: So first of all, my apologies to you guys. I
Speaker 1: sound a little I'm sick right now, so I apologize.
Speaker 1: You have to deal with a nasally Lisa, but I
Speaker 1: promise you that this interview will still be worth it
Speaker 1: to please keep listening because you've got Mike Davis here.
Speaker 1: He's the former chief council for nominations to Senate Judiciary
Speaker 1: Chairman Chuck grassle. He's also the founder and president of
Speaker 1: the article three project. Basically, what they do is defend
Speaker 1: constitutionalist judges and the rule of law as well. Uh,
Speaker 1: you know, prior to that he's done a bunch of things.
Speaker 1: He's worked for all three branches of the federal government,
Speaker 1: including for President George W Bush, the Justice Department, how
Speaker 1: Speaker New Gingrich, as well as the current Supreme Court
Speaker 1: Justice Neil Gorcich as well. So he's done a bunch
Speaker 1: of different things. He also led the outside support team
Speaker 1: for Justice Corsich as UH, successful confirmation to the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: So we're going to lean on him to really just
Speaker 1: walk us through what we need to know about this
Speaker 1: FBI raid on trump. Why did they do it? Do
Speaker 1: they have any standing? Where is this going and what
Speaker 1: does it mean more broadly for the country. So we're
Speaker 1: going to get into the big picture as well as
Speaker 1: the nitty gritty, go through the timeline a little bit,
Speaker 1: really dig in, you know, because there's a lot reported.
Speaker 1: How much of it's true? You know, what are we
Speaker 1: being told that our lives? What are we being told
Speaker 1: that's true? So we're gonna get to the bottom of
Speaker 1: it with Mike Davis, and I think he's a pretty
Speaker 1: good guy to get to the bottom of it with.
Speaker 1: So he's got a lot of experience. This is his wheelhouse.
Speaker 1: He's a good guy. If you should follow him on
Speaker 1: twitter as well, he's been tweeting out a bunch of,
Speaker 1: you know, stuff on all of this and his concerns
Speaker 1: over the abuse of power from the Federal Government that
Speaker 1: we've seen. So stay tuned. Mike Davis, all about the FBI.
Speaker 1: Raid what you need to know and what you need
Speaker 1: to know moving forward with to pay attention to Mike Davis.
Speaker 1: Stay tuned, Mike Davis. I really appreciate you coming on.
Speaker 1: You know, obviously there's been a lot of coverage over
Speaker 1: what has happened with the borlog array, but I kind
Speaker 1: of just wanted to get into what's really going on?
Speaker 1: What do people know? Kind of, you know, sort of
Speaker 1: a one oh one on what's happened so far. So
Speaker 1: I appreciate you taking the time to join the show. Yeah,
Speaker 1: thank you for having me on, Lisa, and I'm happy
Speaker 1: to talk. So what is going on here at the
Speaker 1: end of the day, is President Trump declassified his uh
Speaker 1: crossfire hurricane Russian collusion documents through a presidential memorandum on
Speaker 1: January before he left office. The Justice Department, the FBI
Speaker 1: raised alarm bills unnecessarily and said that these declassified documents,
Speaker 1: if they got out publicly, could violate the Privacy Act.
Speaker 1: That was just an excuse to drag their feet. But
Speaker 1: the trump White House, Mark Meadows, the chief of staff,
Speaker 1: issued a memorandum on January saying okay, guys, Do Your
Speaker 1: Privacy Act Review and get out these declassified records quickly
Speaker 1: after that. And of course the Biden Justice Department got
Speaker 1: on board and they never released these documents. And the
Speaker 1: reason they didn't release these documents is because they are
Speaker 1: so damning for Obama, Biden, Hillary, the FBI, the Intel community,
Speaker 1: because they show, according to news reports, that they colluded
Speaker 1: to make up the Russian collusion hoax to try to
Speaker 1: go after President Donald Trump as a candidate in two
Speaker 1: thousand sixteen, and that is an earth shattering revelation. They
Speaker 1: know that they don't want these documents out there and so, uh,
Speaker 1: they had to go get them. And so the Biden President.
Speaker 1: Biden waived executive privilege, something that every president going back
Speaker 1: to George Washingtonis hats. We can have candidate, he can
Speaker 1: have candid discussions, candid, confidential discussions with his top advisors.
Speaker 1: Biden waved trump's claim of executive privilege. The Biden Justice
Speaker 1: Department went to this biased judge, Magistrate Judge Bruce Ryan
Speaker 1: hartdown in West Palm Beach, Florida, and they got this unnecessary,
Speaker 1: unlawful and unprecedented home raide warrants on a former president
Speaker 1: where they set in thirty FBI agents to ransack his home,
Speaker 1: his office, his wife's underwear drawer, is sixteen year old
Speaker 1: son's bedroom and they took eleven thousand documents from Marl
Speaker 1: Lock and these documents included personal records, presidential records, tax records,
Speaker 1: attorney client privileged records, medical records. It was an unlawful
Speaker 1: and constitutional general warrants. And so trump sued under rule
Speaker 1: forty one G of the federal rules of civil procedure
Speaker 1: or criminal procedure to get back these unlawfully rated records Biden.
Speaker 1: And that's where we are with cannon. A president of
Speaker 1: the United States, don't they have ultimate authority over what's
Speaker 1: the classified or not? Yes, so the president of the
Speaker 1: United States, as commander in chief, has the absolute constitutional
Speaker 1: power to declassify anything he wants, for any reason he wants,
Speaker 1: in any manner he wants, and he doesn't have to
Speaker 1: get any bureaucrats permission to do it. And that's confirmed
Speaker 1: by a nine Supreme Court case called Department of the
Speaker 1: Navy versus Ego. So trump absolutely declassified these records through
Speaker 1: his January nineteenth memo and through other measures, including his
Speaker 1: his mere action of taking these records with him. They're declassified.
Speaker 1: But even if they are classified, president trump has the
Speaker 1: absolute statutory power under the Presidential Records Act to take
Speaker 1: and maintain his records when he leaves office. Any record
Speaker 1: received by the president or his White House staff are
Speaker 1: considered Presid sidential records, and that includes classified records from
Speaker 1: various intell agencies. Those are presidential records. And then it
Speaker 1: is up to the president to decide whether those are
Speaker 1: presidential records that go to the archives and get sent
Speaker 1: back to almost certainly get sent back to his library
Speaker 1: as the former president, or if their personal records that
Speaker 1: belong to him. It's his soul determination. According to a
Speaker 1: two thousand twelve case by Obama judge in Tom Fenton
Speaker 1: in judicial watches lawsuit against Bill Clinton over eight years
Speaker 1: of highly classy classified audio tapes of his presidency that
Speaker 1: he had in his sock drawer. So not only does
Speaker 1: trump have the constitutional power to declassify, he has the
Speaker 1: statutory power to declassify and he has the statutory power
Speaker 1: under the Presidential Records Act to take and keep his records.
Speaker 1: This is again an unlawful home rate. And the reason
Speaker 1: that they're doing this is because of these crossfire hurricane,
Speaker 1: because they're not going to say that. They've leaked that
Speaker 1: in media leaks, including to Newsweek early on. But that's
Speaker 1: the reason they're doing this. This is another, another hoax,
Speaker 1: another charade to get trump. Well and according to the law,
Speaker 1: if a president was to declassified documents, are there certain
Speaker 1: steps that he has to take, or can he basically
Speaker 1: just say, you know, these are declassified. He absolutely does
Speaker 1: not have to follow the espionage act or any other
Speaker 1: statue that applies to everyone else on the planet. He
Speaker 1: is the classifier. He has the inherent constitutional power as
Speaker 1: the commander in chief. He doesn't have to get anyone's
Speaker 1: permission to this. These classified statutes, the Espionage Act, the
Speaker 1: classified Information Protecting Protection Act, government property statutes, those apply
Speaker 1: to everyone else except for the president. The two governing
Speaker 1: legal regimes that apply to the president is the commander
Speaker 1: in chief clause that he has this inherent power, along
Speaker 1: with the Presidential Records Act. Remember, there are two sets
Speaker 1: of government records. There are presidential records that that fall
Speaker 1: under the presidential records act or there are federal records
Speaker 1: that fall under the Federal Records Act. And all White
Speaker 1: House records, whether they're they're whether they're written at the
Speaker 1: White House or received by the White House, are presidential
Speaker 1: records and they are treated. They are treated completely differently
Speaker 1: from federal records. Remember, before eight when Congress passed the
Speaker 1: presidential records act and made applicable to every president, starting
Speaker 1: with whoever one in nineteen eighty, presidential records were personal
Speaker 1: property of the president. He got to take his person
Speaker 1: these records, as his own Congress changed that. Where they
Speaker 1: they become presidential records, belong to the governments, but it's
Speaker 1: up to the president to decide whether they're personal records
Speaker 1: that belong to him are presidential records that go to
Speaker 1: the governments, and he gets unfettered access. He and his
Speaker 1: designated designates get unfettered access by statute to his records,
Speaker 1: and it doesn't matter whether they're classified or not. So
Speaker 1: that how can they claim that he was in possession
Speaker 1: of classified documents if he previously, as the president, was
Speaker 1: the ultimate to classifier? They can't. And then, and not
Speaker 1: only that, but even if they are classified, he still
Speaker 1: has the right to have them under the Presidential Records Act.
Speaker 1: Remember Attorney General Merritt Garland deliberated, he leaked for weeks
Speaker 1: before he ordered this unnecessary, unprecedented and unlawful home raid
Speaker 1: on a former president who also who also happens to
Speaker 1: be garland's boss's chief political enemy. If he had weeks
Speaker 1: to deliberate, why didn't he walk down the hallway to
Speaker 1: the office of Legal Counsel, or Ol C at the
Speaker 1: Justice Department to get a legal opinion on this? And
Speaker 1: the reason almost certainly is. Is that garland would not
Speaker 1: have liked the answer that o else gave him, because
Speaker 1: they always protect the presidency and that's what they should
Speaker 1: have done here. But that got in their way of
Speaker 1: going to raid president trump to get back these politically
Speaker 1: damaging documents. Think about it this way, Lisa. They Biden
Speaker 1: waited eighteen months to go get these records. Garland said
Speaker 1: he deliberated for weeks before he authorized the home raid,
Speaker 1: even after they got this home raide warrant from this
Speaker 1: biased magistrate judge who just recused on June two because
Speaker 1: of a two thousand seventeen facebook coast post bashing president trump.
Speaker 1: He recused in trump's civil lawsuit versus hilary on Russian collusion.
Speaker 1: Somehow this magistrate Judge's bias magically went away and he, Garland,
Speaker 1: went to this magistrate judge, Judge Shops I would argue,
Speaker 1: and got this home raid warrants. Why did they do this?
Speaker 1: What was the necessity? Why did they wait eighteen months
Speaker 1: if it was so dangerous to have these documents and
Speaker 1: trump's hands? Why did they not leak for eighteen months?
Speaker 1: Why did they only start leaking after the Biden Justice
Speaker 1: Department took them from trump. I mean, I think that
Speaker 1: this is o bis. I'm just trying to get the
Speaker 1: fuller picture about what they're alleging and you know and
Speaker 1: all of that. And what's strange too, is that the
Speaker 1: trump team had been I was looking through the timeline
Speaker 1: of all this, or at least what is being public
Speaker 1: or reported, and the trump team was working with them.
Speaker 1: I mean in January two they turned over fifteen boxes
Speaker 1: of documents. Yet a month later the National Archives and
Speaker 1: record administration went to the D O J asking for help,
Speaker 1: despite the fact that just a month earlier there were
Speaker 1: these fifteen boxes that were turned over. I don't understand
Speaker 1: how they can allege that the trump team was not
Speaker 1: working with them when they had clearly handed over the documents,
Speaker 1: and not only that, but they had corresponded with the
Speaker 1: FBI and met with them prior to the raid. And
Speaker 1: here's the bigger, bigger problem, Lisa, is the presidential records
Speaker 1: act does not have a criminal component to it. The
Speaker 1: Federal Records Act does, the President Presidential Records Act does not,
Speaker 1: and so there is a natural give and take between
Speaker 1: the president, who's thanks every presidential record is his, and
Speaker 1: the bureaucrats, the librarians that the national archives, who think
Speaker 1: every time a president sneezes into a Kleenex that's a
Speaker 1: presidential record that belongs to them. There is a natural
Speaker 1: give and tank. We talked about the Clinton software case. Right,
Speaker 1: Clinton one in that case, because presidents always went under
Speaker 1: the presidential records act. It's their sole determination. But what
Speaker 1: the bureaucrats at the National Archives should have done is
Speaker 1: they should have notified concress or they could have filed
Speaker 1: a civil lawsuit if they thought that there was a
Speaker 1: violation of the Presidential Records Act. They should not have
Speaker 1: gone to the Biden Justice Department and got an unnecessary, unlawful,
Speaker 1: unprecedented homerade on a former president based upon focus predicate crimes.
Speaker 1: It is not legally possible for president trump to have
Speaker 1: violated the espionage act, the Federal Records Act or obstruction
Speaker 1: of justice related to president trump's handling or taking of
Speaker 1: residential records. It's not. It's not possible. Aren't these disputes
Speaker 1: with the National Archives Pretty Standard for former presidents? Yes, they're,
Speaker 1: they're routine. There's a routine give and take between the bureaucrats,
Speaker 1: the librarians at the archives and former presidents. Again, President
Speaker 1: Clinton had eight years of highly classified tapes of his presidency,
Speaker 1: including his discussions with foreign leaders, which would be the
Speaker 1: most classified secrets imaginable. Clinton had these in his sock
Speaker 1: drawer in the the Obama Judge in two thousand twelve
Speaker 1: said that's fine. President Clinton declared that these are personal
Speaker 1: end of story. Quick Break War with Mike Davis. And
Speaker 1: so right now you've got the Federal District Judge Eileen
Speaker 1: Cannon has appointed a special master, senior Ram, senior judge
Speaker 1: Raymond deary. He has a deadline of November. You know,
Speaker 1: kind of go through the Tiktok of what's going on
Speaker 1: right now with that. I know there's a dispute over,
Speaker 1: you know, the trump team criticizing the department of Justice.
Speaker 1: They're trying to shield classified documents from this special master's review.
Speaker 1: Kind of go through where that is right now and
Speaker 1: kind of what you're anticipating to transpire from this review
Speaker 1: of the documents by this special master. So actually the
Speaker 1: classified documents, that means the documents that are marked classified.
Speaker 1: That is actually a red herring argument. The classification marking
Speaker 1: is not even relevant. Again, Judge Cannon laid this out
Speaker 1: clearly in the special master's order. What happened is is they,
Speaker 1: the Biden Justice Department, illegally obtained eleven thousand records from
Speaker 1: President Trump, from a biased magistrate judge issuing this unprecedented,
Speaker 1: unnecessary and lawful warrants. What judge cannon is simply asking
Speaker 1: the special master to do and the Biden Justice Department
Speaker 1: to do is pause, take up breath. Let's get our
Speaker 1: arms wrapped around these eleven, eleven thousand documents and let's
Speaker 1: put them into four buckets. The first bucket or personal
Speaker 1: records that are not privileged, right personal records that are
Speaker 1: not attorney client privileged, or medical records or tax records.
Speaker 1: The second bucket are personal records that are privileged, attorney
Speaker 1: client privileged, medical records, tax records, maybe other spousal communications
Speaker 1: would be privileged. The third bucket are presidential records that
Speaker 1: are not privileged, meeting not subject to claims of executive privilege.
Speaker 1: Those could include classified records or non classified records. In
Speaker 1: the fourth bucket are presidential records that's are that are
Speaker 1: that that are privileged and that included that could include
Speaker 1: executive privilege, either classified or non classified. It doesn't matter
Speaker 1: whether they're classified. The issue is what bucket they go into,
Speaker 1: personal or presidential, privileged or not privileged. That's all judge
Speaker 1: cannon cares about and that's all she should care about
Speaker 1: under the Presidential Records Act. And then once they put
Speaker 1: those eleven thousand document it's, into those four buckets, then
Speaker 1: judge cannon can figure out where the disputes are. If
Speaker 1: if the government says no, this should be a presidential
Speaker 1: record and trump says no, it should be a personal record,
Speaker 1: this should be a privileged record. No, this should not
Speaker 1: be a privileged record. That's what the special master is
Speaker 1: supposed to do. It does not matter whether they're classified
Speaker 1: or not. The only thing that judge cannon ordered the
Speaker 1: special master to do was review the class of the
Speaker 1: documents marked classified first. So that takes away the Biden
Speaker 1: Justice Department's argument that by waiting too long it inhibits
Speaker 1: their criminal probe of trump. So candid says, okay, you
Speaker 1: can still do your national security assessments, but you just
Speaker 1: have to pause on the criminal probe until we sort
Speaker 1: through these hundred classified documents, which we're going to do first,
Speaker 1: and then you can go forward with that. But remember
Speaker 1: trump almost certainly does not have the only or the
Speaker 1: original copy of these records marked classified. They came presumably
Speaker 1: from an Intel Agency, the CIA, the D N I,
Speaker 1: one of the Department of Defense Agencies, the states department.
Speaker 1: So they would be classified there, they would have a
Speaker 1: class that they would have the copy there. So it's
Speaker 1: not like trump has the only copy. He has a copy.
Speaker 1: Isn't the whole point of the fourth amendment to protect
Speaker 1: people from search warrant that they used against trump and
Speaker 1: this overly broad fishing expedition that included just boxes next
Speaker 1: to the documents that they were trying to find? APPS
Speaker 1: if you go into anyone's home and you come out
Speaker 1: with eleven thousand documents, that is a pretty good sign
Speaker 1: that that is an unconstitutional, illegal general warrants. Under the
Speaker 1: fourth amendments, the warrants have to be limited in time
Speaker 1: and place and manner and scope. When you go in
Speaker 1: and get eleven thousand documents, you have got you have
Speaker 1: almost certainly not done any of those things. This is
Speaker 1: clearly an unconstitutional, illegal home rate on the face of
Speaker 1: the warrants, and it's even more illegal because a biased judge,
Speaker 1: a biased judge under the US code and the judicial
Speaker 1: canons signed off on this warrant when he should not have.
Speaker 1: What do you think legally happens then? I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: what's sort of the sequencing of the next few steps
Speaker 1: with this? What should we be looking out for? What
Speaker 1: I think will happen? What should happen is they're gonna
Speaker 1: put these documents into the four buckets and then trump's
Speaker 1: gonna say that these are all personal records, I've declassified them,
Speaker 1: they're all personal records that belong to me. Give all
Speaker 1: eleven thousand back. or He could say that looks these
Speaker 1: are the personal records. Here the presidential records, but under
Speaker 1: the Presidential Records Act I have unfettered access, and so
Speaker 1: do my designees under the Presidential Records Act, to all
Speaker 1: of these presidential records, regardless of how they're marked, classified
Speaker 1: or non classified. He trump should absolutely get back eleven
Speaker 1: thousand documents after this is over. Do you think he's
Speaker 1: facing any legal liability or he shouldn't be facing any
Speaker 1: legal liability? If they actually followed the law, he could
Speaker 1: the Biden Justice Department could try to indict him for
Speaker 1: for for these nine crimes. I think that you could
Speaker 1: get some uh. You know, D C is nine Democrat
Speaker 1: and the five percent of Republicans are trump deranged rhinos.
Speaker 1: So there's a very good chance that if you went
Speaker 1: to a D C uh jury, that the jury is
Speaker 1: going to fight him guilty and that the D C
Speaker 1: unit party judge would convict. There's a good chance that
Speaker 1: they would go to the D C circuit and they
Speaker 1: would have formed that convention conviction. But there's, I think,
Speaker 1: no chance that the Supreme Court, including even Democratic Point
Speaker 1: at justice is like Justice Kegan, would allow this conviction
Speaker 1: to stand because this is so much bigger than Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: This is about the presidency and the separation of powers
Speaker 1: and this president would destroy the presidency. So how long
Speaker 1: would that process take from where we are now? Obviously
Speaker 1: the review that's transpiring transpiring currently and that if it
Speaker 1: was to go to the Supreme Court, I bet that
Speaker 1: is what they betting at. Taking this in D C,
Speaker 1: indicting him with biased, you know, judge and all of that.
Speaker 1: So how long would this process take between now and
Speaker 1: potentially reaching the Supreme Court? I would think that the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court would hear this quickly, considering that president trump
Speaker 1: is a likely presidential candidates so they can't let this
Speaker 1: hang out there. So I think they would make it
Speaker 1: a very high priority, and they should right, and so
Speaker 1: they would. They would. They would probably order expeditious review
Speaker 1: by the D C circuit and then review that case
Speaker 1: depending on how the D C circuit rules. Now. Did
Speaker 1: the fact that the FBI decided not to investigate Hillary Clinton?
Speaker 1: Does that set any sort of precedent for trump's team
Speaker 1: to turn to, even though she did not have ultimate
Speaker 1: authority like President Trump did? Well, and Actually Hillary Clinton's
Speaker 1: case is much, much worse, much much worse. Actually, president
Speaker 1: trump violated no lass. Hillary Clinton was the president and
Speaker 1: she'll never be the president. So therefore she doesn't have
Speaker 1: the inherent constitutional power as commander in chief to declassify
Speaker 1: anything she wants. She doesn't have the power under the
Speaker 1: presidential records act to take presidential records because she's not
Speaker 1: the president. So the Espionage Act, the classified Information Protection Act,
Speaker 1: all the other acts applied to her, as does the
Speaker 1: as does the Federal Records Act. And remember when Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton had her illegal home server with our most classified
Speaker 1: secrets as the secretary of State, it was hacked by
Speaker 1: our enemies. They they hatched this server right and then
Speaker 1: when she was caught, she blitch bleach Bidd it the
Speaker 1: server and took a hammer to the cell phones. Right.
Speaker 1: So clear unquestionable espionage act violation, clear unquestionable destruction, theft
Speaker 1: of government property, clear obstruction of justice, and not a
Speaker 1: damn thing happens to her because she's Hillary Clinton. And
Speaker 1: we have two systems of justice in America right, one
Speaker 1: for the ruling UNIPARTY and one for everyone else. How
Speaker 1: do you get back to a place where people regain
Speaker 1: trust in the rule of law in America? Well, I
Speaker 1: think that there needs to be a complete house cleaning
Speaker 1: of the leadership of the FBI, along with the leadership
Speaker 1: of main justice. And instead of having an FBI where
Speaker 1: there's only one politically appointed director who's appointed for a
Speaker 1: ten year up to a tenure term, they need to
Speaker 1: have a the top, at least the top three layers
Speaker 1: of the FBI need to be presidentially appointed and Senate confirmed,
Speaker 1: and so they're accountable to the president and they're accountable
Speaker 1: to the to the Senate and to the House for
Speaker 1: real oversight and accountability, because what happens now is when
Speaker 1: Democrats are in charge, they put in left wing FBI
Speaker 1: directors to run the show like coming and then when
Speaker 1: Republicans are in charge we get cowed into putting week
Speaker 1: week Uniparty FBI actors like Chris Ray, and then the
Speaker 1: FBI runs Chris Ray instead of ray running the FBI.
Speaker 1: So we need to have serious reforms. If Republicans take
Speaker 1: back the Senate, which is looking more likely, my former
Speaker 1: boss Chuck Grassley will become the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman again.
Speaker 1: There's No one who does better oversight than Chuck Grassley.
Speaker 1: He's been doing it for decades and he's been onto
Speaker 1: the FBI's games for decades. If Republicans take back the
Speaker 1: House and the Senate, there will be serious structural reforms
Speaker 1: to the FBI into main justice, and that's exactly what
Speaker 1: needs to happen. This is not an attack on the
Speaker 1: rank and file members of the FBI. There's are those
Speaker 1: are good men and women at the fifty six field
Speaker 1: office around the country. This is about the rotten to
Speaker 1: the core political leadership at at the main justice and
Speaker 1: at the FBI headquarters in DC. What do you think
Speaker 1: should happen to the I mean should we abolish the FBI?
Speaker 1: Is the FBI, you know, beyond repair at this point.
Speaker 1: I don't need to think it needs to be abolished
Speaker 1: because they do important work, but the whole national security
Speaker 1: counter espionage apparatus needs to be ripped apart and rebuilt
Speaker 1: and make sure that there are key plays, there are
Speaker 1: key checks and balances in place. We made a huge
Speaker 1: mistake after nine eleven by passing the Patriot acts, and
Speaker 1: it's just what the civil I was for it at
Speaker 1: the time. I was young and stupid. It was just
Speaker 1: what the Civil Libertarians worried about, that they would that
Speaker 1: people would take over these intel agencies, both domestic and international,
Speaker 1: and they would weaponize them, politicize them against their enemies,
Speaker 1: and that's exactly what has happened in the last six years,
Speaker 1: starting in the Obama Administration, and that needs to be changed.
Speaker 1: There needs to be a church commission to look at
Speaker 1: the FBI from top to bottom and to rip the
Speaker 1: leadership apart and rebuild it. I mean, I think the
Speaker 1: concern now is just, you know, our federal government is
Speaker 1: just so corrupt. I mean you look at the weaponization
Speaker 1: of government against president trump more so than anyone, but
Speaker 1: even going after parents at these school board meetings. We
Speaker 1: look at the collusion between the federal government and big
Speaker 1: teck to silence opposition. I mean, we've really just reached
Speaker 1: this very scary place where the federal government has so
Speaker 1: much power and it's being wielded against half of the country. Absolutely,
Speaker 1: and they're not even pretending anymore. I mean they'll let
Speaker 1: people illegally threaten and intimidate Supreme Court justices and their
Speaker 1: families outside of their homes, leading to a one a
Speaker 1: m assassination attempt against justice kavanaugh's wife, Ashley, and their
Speaker 1: two daughters, and Merritt Garland and FBI Director Chris Ray
Speaker 1: don't do a damn thing. They say that this is
Speaker 1: somehow their first amendment right to harass and intimidate federal
Speaker 1: judges at their homes, and absolutely is not. When the house? When? When?
Speaker 1: When Republicans take over the house, they must impeach Garland
Speaker 1: and Chris Ray for what they've done. How they have
Speaker 1: weaponized the Justice Department, including the FBI, and it's unacceptable.
Speaker 1: We could not let this happen. Even if the Senate
Speaker 1: does not remove them, the process is the punishment here.
Speaker 1: They need to feel a they need to pay the
Speaker 1: price for allowing this to happen. Quick break stay with us.
Speaker 1: I think what laid the ground for personally, it was
Speaker 1: covid and we just allowed the government to obtain so
Speaker 1: much power and people just rolled over and then it
Speaker 1: was sort of on from then. I think that's when
Speaker 1: they really stopped hiding anything. Yeah, I mean I agree
Speaker 1: with you. I mean I I certainly wasn't quiet, as
Speaker 1: evidence by my getting kicked off with twitter five times
Speaker 1: during covid. But I've Said said this from day one.
Speaker 1: We are letting Tony FAUCI and the biomedical state, colluded
Speaker 1: with Big Tech and collude with big government to censor, silence,
Speaker 1: Deep Platform Uh people for questioning the science and even
Speaker 1: doctors and scientists questioning the science and FOUCI, even Senator
Speaker 1: Ran Paul, a medical doctor, was a U S senator,
Speaker 1: getting kicked off of Youtube for for questioning Tony Fauci
Speaker 1: for a scientific debate. Before, three years ago it was
Speaker 1: perfectly acceptable to have scientific debates. That was the scientific method.
Speaker 1: But with the UH. You know, this is not Lisa,
Speaker 1: this is not our parents, are grandparents, Democrat party anymore.
Speaker 1: These are not liberals who love America and just disagree
Speaker 1: with Conservatives on the best way to get to the
Speaker 1: to get to the to the best result for all Americans.
Speaker 1: These are leftist, these are Marxists, these are people who
Speaker 1: hate America and they want to destroy America. They want
Speaker 1: to divide in Carquer America. This is this is what
Speaker 1: we need to go into this fight, these elections, Eyes
Speaker 1: Wide Open. We're in a different ballgame. After is it
Speaker 1: possible to go back to pre covid days where we
Speaker 1: as Americans had more individual rights? And I mean obviously
Speaker 1: the federal government was a threat, but not to the
Speaker 1: same degree that it is even today. Is it possible
Speaker 1: to go back? It is possible and it must happen,
Speaker 1: and what we need to start doing, frankly, is the
Speaker 1: federal judiciary needs to start dismantling these federal agencies that
Speaker 1: are not enumerated in the constitution. Right if, if the
Speaker 1: our our constitution is a loan agreement between we the
Speaker 1: people and our government's right we loan the federal government
Speaker 1: and state government's specific, Limited, divided, enumerated powers. Right, and
Speaker 1: if we do not loan the government these powers, they
Speaker 1: do not have the power. We the people are the
Speaker 1: sovereign in America's radically different from Europe, from the United
Speaker 1: Kingdom from which we fled. Back then, the crown, the monarch,
Speaker 1: was the sovereign. The power came from God to the
Speaker 1: monarch and the monarch lent power to its people through
Speaker 1: like the Magna Carta. In America it's different. Power comes
Speaker 1: from God to we the people, and we loan power
Speaker 1: to the government. It's it's not the other way around,
Speaker 1: and we have lost that in this country and I
Speaker 1: these federal judges need to start stepping up and peeling
Speaker 1: back federal power, and they've started to do this. Like
Speaker 1: this Judge Mazel Down in Florida should be championed as
Speaker 1: a hero. She's the one who struck down the C
Speaker 1: D C s science, free law, free mindless mask mandates
Speaker 1: on planes and trains, and the left went banana saying
Speaker 1: that she's gonna kill everyone by doing this. She made
Speaker 1: the right move, that the CDC does not have this
Speaker 1: power under the constitution, under statute at all, yet they
Speaker 1: use this power to, you know, try to control every
Speaker 1: our movements. For two years of COVID judge mizell struck
Speaker 1: this down and she was right. We need more courageous
Speaker 1: judges like judge Myzell to step up. Well, you know
Speaker 1: now you even have the president admitting that the pandemic
Speaker 1: is over, when in reality it was never the pandemic
Speaker 1: that they were uh, you know, abusing power over. It
Speaker 1: was just an excuse to abuse power, unfortunately. But I
Speaker 1: really think the only path forward for our country, if
Speaker 1: it's to survive, is just, UH, getting Republicans in Congress
Speaker 1: and hopefully a Republican president that has the guts to
Speaker 1: reign in the federal government and dismantle as much of
Speaker 1: it as humanly possible and legally possible. I agree with
Speaker 1: you if it essentially if we didn't have this government
Speaker 1: agency before FDR, get rid of it, send it back
Speaker 1: to the states and to the people. Right. That's that's
Speaker 1: a pretty good line. It's it's the wicker case, the
Speaker 1: commerce case, the weak case, where the Supreme Court switch
Speaker 1: in time. That saved nine. It was before that case
Speaker 1: the supreme the Supreme Court, the lower courts were striking
Speaker 1: down these new deal government programs, saying the federal government
Speaker 1: does not have the power to do what you claim
Speaker 1: it has to do. FDR threatened to pack the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court and so the Supreme Courts switched their votes and
Speaker 1: started allowing the federal government to do anything they want, essentially,
Speaker 1: and what we have done is turned the constitution from
Speaker 1: a shield that protects we, the people, from from the
Speaker 1: Federal Government into a sword that the federal government uses
Speaker 1: against the people. And it just it needs to change.
Speaker 1: This is not sustainable. It's not sustainable when President Biden
Speaker 1: can get on national TV and declare seventy four million
Speaker 1: Americans dangerous to democracy. It's not sustainable when you can
Speaker 1: do home raids on a former president and your chief
Speaker 1: political political rival, along with his top White House AIDS
Speaker 1: and now even, you know, hundred, you know hundreds of
Speaker 1: his supporters. This is not sustainable. This is what they
Speaker 1: do and Third World Marxist hell holes before they fail.
Speaker 1: I mean, I feel like that's where we're I mean
Speaker 1: even during covid there's a poll where almost half the
Speaker 1: Democrats wanted to put people like me who didn't get
Speaker 1: vaccinated and you know, government camps. So and I think
Speaker 1: that would apply for, you know, just being a you know,
Speaker 1: having supported trump and and being a, you know, a
Speaker 1: conservative as well. How much power does a president have
Speaker 1: to dismantle government on his or her own? Uh, you
Speaker 1: can use executive orders to limit the power, while you're
Speaker 1: the president, but it. I just don't think the political
Speaker 1: branches will have the will to do this. There's always
Speaker 1: pressure on the political branches to build more government and
Speaker 1: more government and more government. I really do think it's
Speaker 1: gonna come down to courageous federal judges who say, okay,
Speaker 1: Biden or whoever is the president at the time, where
Speaker 1: in the constitution, where specifically in the constitution do you
Speaker 1: think you have the power to do this? And if
Speaker 1: you can't point to it in the constitution, you can't
Speaker 1: do that. That's that's what needs to happen and until
Speaker 1: that happens, nothing's going to change. Well, you know, thank
Speaker 1: God under trump we got a lot of judges approved
Speaker 1: and confirmed, so hopefully we have more brave people step up.
Speaker 1: Mike Davis, I appreciate your voice and for joining the
Speaker 1: show and explaining all this to us. It was very helpful.
Speaker 1: I really appreciate your time. Thank you for having me. Lisa,
Speaker 1: that was my Davis. I don't know about you, but
Speaker 1: I found that extremely helpful, just to kind of go through,
Speaker 1: give the Tiktok, give an honest review of what's actually
Speaker 1: going on with the raid. What we need to know. Uh,
Speaker 1: and then just, you know, getting into a little bit
Speaker 1: more of the federal abuse that we're saying. So I
Speaker 1: appreciate his time. Appreciate your time for listening to the show.
Speaker 1: When I thank my producer, John Cassio, for putting it together,
Speaker 1: please leave us a review on apple the greatest five stars.
Speaker 1: Let us know what you think. Every Monday every Thursday
Speaker 1: new episodes, but you can listen throughout the week. Thanks
Speaker 1: so much. Take care.