Speaker 1: I want you to understand the magnitude of what we're
Speaker 1: learning about the organized legal resistance to President Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: I'm talking about liberal ages conspiring to go after Donald
Speaker 1: Trump with law fair months before he became president. Yet again. Now,
Speaker 1: Democrats not only they spend years telling Americans that Donald
Speaker 1: Trump was a threat to democracy, they also told you
Speaker 1: elections were sacred. They told you voters must be respected,
Speaker 1: and they told you that when the American people speak
Speaker 1: of the ballot box, especially if it's for a Democrat,
Speaker 1: then you must accept the results. But apparently Democrat attorney
Speaker 1: generals around the country they didn't see any of it
Speaker 1: that way. In fact, they were preparing for something very different.
Speaker 1: In the new shocking allegations, months before Americans voted in
Speaker 1: the twenty twenty four presidential election, Democrat attorney general conspired
Speaker 1: together on how they would fight a second Trump administration
Speaker 1: in court if he won.
Speaker 2: Now, I want you to think about the significance of that.
Speaker 1: Donald Trump hadn't won yet, Kamwa Harris hadn't lost yet.
Speaker 1: In fact, Joe Biden was still the nominee. The American
Speaker 1: people hadn't cast their ballots even early voting yet, and
Speaker 1: Trump hadn't even taken the oath of office. Now, not
Speaker 1: only that, but Donald Trump hadn't signed a single executive
Speaker 1: order because Joe Biden was still the president. And Democrat
Speaker 1: Attorney general said, hold on a second, we got to
Speaker 1: get ready to tie up Trump if he wins with
Speaker 1: a full out legal war. Now this isn't speculation. After
Speaker 1: the fact, we now know this is what was really
Speaker 1: going on. The Democrat Attorney General's Association itself later highlighted
Speaker 1: reporting the Democratic governors and attorney generals had spent months
Speaker 1: strategized about how to respond to a potential second Trump administration.
Speaker 1: For example, the New York Attorney General, Letitia James has
Speaker 1: said that attorney generals began meeting before the election to
Speaker 1: discuss fighting Donald Trump in his second term. And after
Speaker 1: Trump won, according to subsequent reporting, now Democrat ages dramatically
Speaker 1: intensified their coordination. In other words, they were ready, and
Speaker 1: boy did they use it. Donald Trump. They said, you
Speaker 1: know what, he takes office January twentieth, and the lawsuits, well,
Speaker 1: they started flying one after another, executive orders, federal funding, immigration,
Speaker 1: environmental regulations, government restructuring, federal employees, education, health policy, even elections,
Speaker 1: and tariffs. Whatever the policy fight was, the Democrat attorney
Speaker 1: generals turned to the courtroom and they made that into
Speaker 1: their battlefield.
Speaker 2: And by April the.
Speaker 1: First of twenty twenty six, the Democrat Attorney General's Association
Speaker 1: proudly announced something extraordinary. Democrat Attorney generals had collectively filed
Speaker 1: their one hundredth lawsuit against the Trump administration. This is lawfare,
Speaker 1: and they were celebrating it. One hunderd lawsuits, not in
Speaker 1: four years, just over a year into Trump's second term,
Speaker 1: and their own political organization celebrated it. And by the way,
Speaker 1: they were wasting your tax dollars because you're the one
Speaker 1: paying the legal fees. So I think Americans are entitled
Speaker 1: to ask this question, at what point does a legitimate
Speaker 1: constitutional oversight become organized political lawfare, Because the attorney generals
Speaker 1: absolutely have a constitutional role. If a president exceeds his authority,
Speaker 1: states had the right to challenge the federal government. Now,
Speaker 1: Republican attorney generals did that with Barack Obama, and they
Speaker 1: did it with Joe Biden. But the difference here is
Speaker 1: this Democrat attorney generals did it during Trump's first administration.
Speaker 1: That is the part of the American system But this
Speaker 1: is where it becomes so much different. The second time,
Speaker 1: they were already conspiring. They were already preparing the legal
Speaker 1: machinery before Trump had even been elected, before you had
Speaker 1: even been able to cast your vote. They didn't know
Speaker 1: what actions President Trump would ultimately take.
Speaker 2: It didn't matter.
Speaker 1: They didn't know precisely what regulations would be issued.
Speaker 2: Again, it didn't matter.
Speaker 1: They didn't know which executive orders would survive the internal
Speaker 1: policy process.
Speaker 2: And yet again it didn't matter.
Speaker 1: They knew one thing, if Trump won, they were going
Speaker 1: to be ready to sue him, to stop him in
Speaker 1: court on anything he did. In other words, they said,
Speaker 1: if the American people choose Trump, we're going to to
Speaker 1: undermine the will of the people. We're going to undermine
Speaker 1: their vote. We're going to undermine the country. We're going
Speaker 1: to undermine free and fair elections. We're going to undermine
Speaker 1: it all to stop the agenda that the American people
Speaker 1: actually voted for. That is what all of this coordination
Speaker 1: was really all about, which brings me to the big
Speaker 1: point here. This wasn't merely a reaction to something Trump did.
Speaker 1: This was a setup of a resistance infrastructure weaponizing our
Speaker 1: government through the democratic party and the attorney generals to
Speaker 1: stop the will of the people. Democrats spent four years
Speaker 1: saying Republicans need to respect election results. Okay, well, Donald
Speaker 1: Trump won the election in twenty twenty four. He wins
Speaker 1: the electoral College, he wins the popular vote. Republicans win
Speaker 1: control of Congress. The voters gave Trump another term, they
Speaker 1: gave him a mandate. And what do they do. The
Speaker 1: Democratic Attorney general said, we're waiting at the courthouse door,
Speaker 1: and we're going to stop everything you want to do
Speaker 1: that the American people voted for. Now, Democrat ags have
Speaker 1: won injunctions and other favorable rulings in many of these
Speaker 1: cases early on. Much of it, by the way, is
Speaker 1: then overturned by the other courts after they get out
Speaker 1: of the activist judge's way. And then Democrats are now
Speaker 1: saying they're never going to stop.
Speaker 2: This is their new policy.
Speaker 1: They want to freeze anybody out who is elected by
Speaker 1: the American people they don't agree with. I want you
Speaker 1: to hear what Senator Ted Cruz had to say about
Speaker 1: all of this, and what a threat this is truly
Speaker 1: to this country and our democracy in general.
Speaker 2: That's who he is.
Speaker 1: Finally, I want to get to this other story, and
Speaker 1: it deals with AGS conspiring to go after Donald Trump's
Speaker 1: months ahead of his reelect. Let's tell people what we
Speaker 1: found out.
Speaker 3: Well, another story that broke its headlined Democrat AGS planned
Speaker 3: to sue Trump nearly seven months before he was re elected.
Speaker 3: There it is nearly two dozen state attorneys general banded
Speaker 3: together as early as April twenty twenty four to plot
Speaker 3: litigation against President Donald Trump, long before he was re elected.
Speaker 3: According to a confidential document attained by The Center Square,
Speaker 3: the document was signed approximately three months before President Joe
Speaker 3: Biden exited from the race and Vice President Kamala Harris
Speaker 3: became the Democratic nominee for president. It was signed nearly
Speaker 3: seven months before Trump was reelected by two point three
Speaker 3: million more votes than Harris, almost nine months before he
Speaker 3: was inaugurated. State attorneys general has sued the Trump administration
Speaker 3: nearly one hundred times since January twenty twenty five. The
Speaker 3: coordinated effort appears to have a nickname quote the Project
Speaker 3: for Federal Accountability. Not all of the lawsuits have been
Speaker 3: joined by each attorney general, and some offices take a
Speaker 3: lead on different cases. At the last count, California Attorney
Speaker 3: General Rob Bonta has participated in eighty two lawsuits. Colorado
Speaker 3: Attorney General Phil Wiser has joined at least seventy five lawsuits.
Speaker 3: Washington State Attorney General Brown has joined seventy lawsuits. Arizona
Speaker 3: Attorney General Chris Mays has joined forty six lawsuits. At
Speaker 3: a news conference on Tuesday, Montes stated the lawsuits are
Speaker 3: a political yeah.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 3: He announced the lawsuits have cost California taxpayers nineteen million
Speaker 3: dollars and he will continue to file them as needed.
Speaker 3: If Trump doesn't want to get sued, all he has
Speaker 3: to do is follow the law. Bonta said, I don't
Speaker 3: think our cases are likely to be dismissed. Trump shows
Speaker 3: no sign of slowing down, so we will continue to
Speaker 3: sue him. This is an example where the deep state,
Speaker 3: in the Democrat machine that they like to talk about.
Speaker 5: We support democracy. They beat their chest, we're four Democrat.
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Yeah, today's Democrats hate democracy. And I don't mean to
Speaker 3: be provocative in that statement, but if they actually respected democracy,
Speaker 3: they would say, you know what, the voters get to
Speaker 3: choose who the president's.
Speaker 7: Going to be.
Speaker 3: We're gonna have an election November twenty twenty four, and
Speaker 3: they're going to choose either Donald Trump or initially it
Speaker 3: was Joe Biden. But then when they realized Joe Biden
Speaker 3: was deep into dimension was no longer capable of winning,
Speaker 3: they threw Joe Biden overboard. They tossed him into a
Speaker 3: shark pit and immediately inserted Kamala Harris, who nobody had
Speaker 3: voted for. Yep, And when Trump won, they do not care.
Speaker 3: They're using law fair to destroy him. And understand, these
Speaker 3: Democrat ags joined together to do so seven months before
Speaker 3: he was elected president because they don't care what the
Speaker 3: voters say. They want power and they're willing to abuse
Speaker 3: the system to get it.
Speaker 1: So how big of a deal is this moving into
Speaker 1: the midterms. It's a massive deal. You need to know
Speaker 1: exactly who's on the ballot. You need to understand what
Speaker 1: the Democrats are going to continue to do moving forward.
Speaker 1: They've made it clear Lawfair is part of their strategy.
Speaker 1: They've made it clear that they're going to continue to
Speaker 1: elect and they're going to continue to re elect any
Speaker 1: individual that's willing to use their position of power to
Speaker 1: silence and shut down the American people and their will.
Speaker 1: Make no mistake, this isn't just an attack on Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: This is an attack on the American voter. And what
Speaker 1: the Democrats are now saying is if an American voter
Speaker 1: votes for someone they don't like, not only will they
Speaker 1: go after that person, but they will go after their
Speaker 1: agenda using lawfair they will do whatever they can to
Speaker 1: stop the will of the American people. This is so
Speaker 1: much bigger than Donald Trump. This is about America's freedom
Speaker 1: and democracy and the will of the people being silence
Speaker 1: by radicals on the left who are abusing their power
Speaker 1: each and every day. There was an extremely important meeting
Speaker 1: in Washington, d C. It was about the terrorist organization
Speaker 1: the Muslim Brotherhood and the Muslim Brotherhood. It was about
Speaker 1: how and why they're a threat in this country, how
Speaker 1: they're growing in this country, and what the American people
Speaker 1: needed to understand about the Muslim Brotherhood. Well, what was
Speaker 1: even more shocking than the hearing itself is the fact
Speaker 1: that this hearing not a single Democrat.
Speaker 2: Elected official attended it.
Speaker 1: That's right, This was a simple national security hearing exposing
Speaker 1: the Muslim Brotherhood's efforts, in their words, to undermine the
Speaker 1: United States of America. And the stunning testimony that came
Speaker 1: from the witnesses was not political either. So why the
Speaker 1: Democrats say I to just refuse to show up?
Speaker 2: Why did they literally run away from a.
Speaker 1: National security hearing about terrorists undermining America? Why would you
Speaker 1: miss a hearing that deals with ISIS and al Qaeda
Speaker 1: and their connections to the Muslim brotherhood. Now, these are
Speaker 1: all questions that should be asked. Fox News Channel put
Speaker 1: it this way when they were reporting on the well
Speaker 1: Democrats boycotting the meeting.
Speaker 6: It was Republican Senator Ted Cruz who decided to call
Speaker 6: this hearing today to take a look at the impacts
Speaker 6: of Muslim brotherhood networks here in the US. But as
Speaker 6: you mentioned, we are expecting all five Democrats on the
Speaker 6: Senate committee to boycott this hearing today because they say
Speaker 6: it's just going to be used to scapegoat all Muslims.
Speaker 6: These are the five Democrats we're talking about here on
Speaker 6: the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Federal Courts. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse,
Speaker 6: Senator Richard Blumenthal, Senator Mesa Herono, Senator Lapadia, and Sender
Speaker 6: Peter Welch. None of them are expected to participate today.
Speaker 1: None of them did participate. They all refused to show up. Now,
Speaker 1: there were counter terrorism experts that testified, and I'm going
Speaker 1: to play some of that for you coming up in
Speaker 1: a moment. But the question you're probably asking yourself right
Speaker 1: now is what was the reason for them not showing up?
Speaker 1: What could the fallout have been if they did hear
Speaker 1: the testimony. Well, let's take a look at one of
Speaker 1: the biggest elections that just took place. We now know
Speaker 1: that more than one hundred and fifteen thousand dollars that
Speaker 1: was given to Abdul l said, yeah, the guy running
Speaker 1: for the Democratic nomination in Michigan, came from individuals who
Speaker 1: have direct ties to terrorist organizations. According to a Fox
Speaker 1: News review of campaign finance records, al Said's campaign received
Speaker 1: more than one hundred and fifteen thousand from at least
Speaker 1: forty one individuals who work for, previously work for, or
Speaker 1: have held leadership positions with the Council on American Islamic
Speaker 1: Relations known as CARE, that, by the way, is a
Speaker 1: terrorist organization, and that immediately raises some very serious questions
Speaker 1: because we're not talking about one random.
Speaker 2: Donor who happened to write one hundred dollars check.
Speaker 1: We're talking about more than forty people connected professionally or
Speaker 1: through leadership positions to the same organization, contributing collectively more
Speaker 1: than one hundred and fifteen thousand dollars. Now, before I
Speaker 1: give you even more of this shocking news, I want
Speaker 1: to take a moment. I want to ask you to
Speaker 1: join me in prayer for the people they're suffering right
Speaker 1: now in Israel. The headlines they move on, but the
Speaker 1: heartache and terror do not. Iran and its terrorist proxies
Speaker 1: they're continuing to target Israel. Hezbolah continues to at in
Speaker 1: the north, forcing families to live on her constant threat.
Speaker 1: Israel is not only defending her people, she is standing
Speaker 1: on the front lines against terror that threatens us all.
Speaker 1: And even when the news crews leave the International Fellowship
Speaker 1: of Christians.
Speaker 2: And Jews, they remain.
Speaker 1: Every day they are on the ground providing life saving aid.
Speaker 1: Near Israel's border with Lebanon, Hesblood drones recently struck the
Speaker 1: home of Yolina. She was unfortunately widowed earlier this year.
Speaker 1: She's now living alone and she was trapped inside by
Speaker 1: the blasts. Now, thankfully she was not injured, but she
Speaker 1: remains displaced. As she described it, it's hard these days,
Speaker 1: but I don't want to leave, and why should she
Speaker 1: have to? As Christians were called to stand with God's
Speaker 1: people and pray for those defending Israel and protecting the
Speaker 1: freedoms that.
Speaker 2: We all hold.
Speaker 1: So dear so I want you to join me and
Speaker 1: the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews and praying for
Speaker 1: peace of Jerusalem and for the soldiers, their families and
Speaker 1: the civilians carrying the burden of this fight right now.
Speaker 1: If you want to know who to pray for and
Speaker 1: what is needed right now in prayer, go to pray
Speaker 1: IFCJ dot org. That's prey, pr ay IFCJ dot org
Speaker 1: and join me in praying for the people of Israel.
Speaker 4: All right.
Speaker 2: I want to get back to this report again.
Speaker 1: Massive amounts of money coming in to the Democrat campaign
Speaker 1: of a man who says, again, this is a man
Speaker 1: you're gonna hear his name for a while, Al Sayid, okay,
Speaker 1: he is the Democratic nominee now now. According to the report,
Speaker 1: donors included people who have served as CARES National Board chair,
Speaker 1: national board treasurer, and national vice chair, as well as
Speaker 1: officials associated with CARE chapters across the country.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 1: One CARE Michigan board member identifying the report contributed eleven
Speaker 1: thousand and six hundred dollars. And here's another extraordinary connection.
Speaker 1: One of the care link donors is Alsaide's father in law.
Speaker 1: He has also been a major financial supporter of a
Speaker 1: super pack backing Alsaid. So the question is actually not
Speaker 1: just who donated. The bigger question is what political network
Speaker 1: is linking up behind the Democratic nominee for Senate Michigan
Speaker 1: and why and why are they directly connected to terrorists? Well,
Speaker 1: care They've got a massive, controversial history, and you deserve
Speaker 1: to understand it, by the way, because the media refuses
Speaker 1: to tell you the story.
Speaker 2: So I'm going to do this, all right.
Speaker 1: Care has been designated in several different states as a
Speaker 1: terrorist organization, and in other parts of the world they
Speaker 1: have declared them terrorists as well. Now, right now, the
Speaker 1: Trump administration is actually looking at designating care as a
Speaker 1: terrorist organization from the United States federal government. All right,
Speaker 1: that's something you need on understand now. CARES repeatedly and
Speaker 1: emphatically denied allegations that it quote supports terrorism. But carer's
Speaker 1: history includes a significant episode involving one of the most
Speaker 1: important terrorist financing prosecutions in American history.
Speaker 2: The fact is this.
Speaker 1: In two thousand and seven, federal prosecutors named Care as
Speaker 1: an unindicted co conspirator in the Holyland Foundation terrorism financing case. Again,
Speaker 1: what they were saying is they were laundering money to
Speaker 1: the terrorists. The Holyland Foundation case itself, by the way,
Speaker 1: was enormously consequential.
Speaker 2: The Justice Department prosecuted.
Speaker 1: The Holyland Foundation and its leaders for providing financial support
Speaker 1: to Hamas, which the United States had designates a terrorist
Speaker 1: organization as well, and in two thousand and eight, a
Speaker 1: federal grand jury convicted the Holyland Foundation and five of
Speaker 1: its leaders on charges involving material support to Hamas, and
Speaker 1: they went to jail for a very long time. Now,
Speaker 1: the Justice Department's words after the verdict were unforgettable, saying, quote,
Speaker 1: money is the lifeblood of terrorism. Well, welcome to Care
Speaker 1: and the organization. They understand that as well. Now, to
Speaker 1: be clear, this was a federal terrorism financing prosecution and
Speaker 1: it actually ended with real convictions. All right, I want
Speaker 1: to play for you just some of what was heard
Speaker 1: at this hearing. Again, the Democrats weren't there, the Republicans were,
Speaker 1: But this is testimony that every American needs to hear.
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 1: I want to get some of your phone calls in
Speaker 1: here on this as well. So we're going to open
Speaker 1: up the Patriot Mobile dot com phone lines one eight
Speaker 1: hundred four seven four nine seven three to two. One
Speaker 1: eight hundred four seven four nine to seven.
Speaker 2: Three to two.
Speaker 1: The Patriot Mobile dot com phone lines are open. We'll
Speaker 1: get your phone calls in here. Your reaction into all
Speaker 1: of this. Now, the testimony is real and it's shocking,
Speaker 1: and I want you to hear what was said as
Speaker 1: Senator Ted Cruz chaired the hearing.
Speaker 3: Does Abdul l Sayed's candidacy for Senator and Michigan concern.
Speaker 5: Yes, sir, it does. Why is that?
Speaker 4: Well? To begin with, I look at the connections that
Speaker 4: his father in law, Chaikaku Taib has the two Brotherhood
Speaker 4: linked groups. This includes being the president at one time
Speaker 4: of care Michigan. Also his presence on the Islamic Society
Speaker 4: of North America Founders Committee, which is only for those
Speaker 4: most exclusively devoted to ISNA and provide significant amounts of funding.
Speaker 4: There are other known Brotherhood members on that committee. I
Speaker 4: would also look at El Sayeed's ties to a group
Speaker 4: called m Gage, which purports to be a Muslim sort
Speaker 4: of get out the vote or candidate recruitment organization, but
Speaker 4: it has close ties to CARE. It was created by
Speaker 4: a former CARE member who at one time was on
Speaker 4: a terror watch list and was also a consultant to
Speaker 4: convicted terrorist Samuel Arian.
Speaker 3: Do you believe the Islamic Society of North America or
Speaker 3: ISNA is an ongoing part of the Muslim Brotherhood network
Speaker 3: in the United States?
Speaker 5: Yes, Sir, I do.
Speaker 4: There were some HLF documents that reflected hesitation by the
Speaker 4: Brotherhood that they thought perhaps they were losing control of
Speaker 4: is not one point that they appear to have rectified that.
Speaker 4: As far as I can tell, there are still individuals
Speaker 4: associated with the Muslim Brotherhood who are in high leadership
Speaker 4: positions with that organization, and they have never repudiated their
Speaker 4: ties to the organization.
Speaker 3: Trial Hadawad is still the executive director of CARE today.
Speaker 5: Is that right? He is?
Speaker 3: So when CARE tells this Congress it has no ties
Speaker 3: to hamas the documented record says otherwise, Is that correct?
Speaker 5: That is correct?
Speaker 3: Agent Burns, if you were still an active FBI agent today,
Speaker 3: with the evidence you developed in the Holy Land Foundation prosecution,
Speaker 3: would CARE be on your list of organizations warranting further investigation.
Speaker 3: It would This is a letter that I sent to
Speaker 3: the FBI requesting the release of non classified materials seized
Speaker 3: during the two thousand and four search of Ismaeul Elberossi's
Speaker 3: home in Annandale, Virginia.
Speaker 5: To date, I have not received those documents.
Speaker 3: This letter was sent on April sixteenth, twenty twenty six.
Speaker 3: Ms Burns, are you aware of anything unusual with the
Speaker 3: search of Elberosse's home that you would like to share
Speaker 3: with this committee.
Speaker 7: The search of Elberosse's home revealed a massive amount of
Speaker 7: documentation what we call the archives of Hamas and the
Speaker 7: Muslim Brotherhood in the United States. It was the documents
Speaker 7: and video and all audio tapes were as seen in
Speaker 7: exhibits that were put forth in the Holyland Foundation trial,
Speaker 7: groundbreaking in the understanding of this Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas
Speaker 7: network here and they are key to understanding the extent
Speaker 7: and scope with this network.
Speaker 3: And am I correct that care showed up during the
Speaker 3: search of Alberosse's home and attempted to obstruct the seizure
Speaker 3: of the documents.
Speaker 7: Yes, sir, they did.
Speaker 3: If the FBI released the non classified documents tomorrow from
Speaker 3: the search, would the public understand this network better than
Speaker 3: it does today.
Speaker 7: I believe that the release of those documents, which would
Speaker 7: provide the ability for those of us who understand this
Speaker 7: network to conduct a full analysis, that we could use
Speaker 7: that to provide education to the general public about what
Speaker 7: this network really is.
Speaker 5: All right, mister Shider, let's turn to you.
Speaker 3: How long have you studied the history and activities of
Speaker 3: the Muslim Brotherhood?
Speaker 4: Since about two thousand and seven, two thousand and eight, actually,
Speaker 4: with the rise of the Hollywand Foundation trial, it really
Speaker 4: piqued my interest, and it's fair to say it changed
Speaker 4: my entire career trajectory.
Speaker 3: Do you believe that there is a Muslim Brotherhood branch
Speaker 3: operating in the United States?
Speaker 4: Yes?
Speaker 3: Are there ever instances where the Brotherhood groups engage in
Speaker 3: America in acts of violence?
Speaker 5: Yes?
Speaker 4: There are. I would include individuals associated with Brotherhood linked
Speaker 4: mosques who have engaged in acts of terrorism. I would
Speaker 4: include individuals associated with Muslim students associations, dozens of which
Speaker 4: have committed acts of terrorism. I would also include the
Speaker 4: role in the promotion of rioting and civil disorder conducted
Speaker 4: by groups like students for Justice in Palestine and the
Speaker 4: Palestinian Youth Movement.
Speaker 3: What you've described is exactly why I introduced the Stop
Speaker 3: Funders Act, which would add rioting to the RICO predicate
Speaker 3: offenses so that the Justice Department can reach the entities
Speaker 3: that fund and coordinate these riots. Do Brotherhood groups in
Speaker 3: America also participate in electoral and coalition politics?
Speaker 5: Yes, certainly do.
Speaker 3: Is that consistent with the Tom Keen framework described in
Speaker 3: the explanatory memorandum working through existing institutions rather than displacing them.
Speaker 4: Yes, sir as you described it as a process of
Speaker 4: settlement by which they are creating and seizing control of institutions,
Speaker 4: which they can then use to continue to build their efforts.
Speaker 5: Being with us today.
Speaker 3: And thank you for your work confronting the contemporary Muslim
Speaker 3: Brotherhood network in court. The historical record is damning, but
Speaker 3: I'd like to turn to what's being done about it today.
Speaker 3: The Muslim Brotherhood's ties to terrorism are ongoing today, not
Speaker 3: just historical.
Speaker 5: Is that right? That's right?
Speaker 3: And yet Brotherhood groups still meet with members of Congress
Speaker 3: and are treated as a civil rights organization.
Speaker 5: Is that right?
Speaker 8: Yes?
Speaker 3: In your litigation work, have you found that Brotherhood affiliated
Speaker 3: entities share leadership, funding, or infrastructure cross organizations that hold
Speaker 3: themselves out to the public as separate and unrelated.
Speaker 5: That's correct.
Speaker 8: For example, the Islamic Association for Palestine, after it was
Speaker 8: shut down after being sued and a judgment of one
Speaker 8: hundred and fifty six million dollars entered against it, shut
Speaker 8: down with the same leaders and created a new organization
Speaker 8: called American Muslims for Palestine. Another example is CARE and
Speaker 8: its relationship with the Washington Trust Foundation. The Washington Trust
Speaker 8: Foundation is actually it was back in nineteen ninety four.
Speaker 8: It was originally incorporated as CARE, and now the Washington
Speaker 8: Trust Foundation serves essentially as a real estate holding entity that,
Speaker 8: per its own nine nineties exists for the purpose of
Speaker 8: supporting the Care Foundation today.
Speaker 3: Well, and that's why I introduced the Sponsor Act, which
Speaker 3: would hold tax exempt fiscal sponsors liable for what their
Speaker 3: sponsored entities do. The loopholes and the manipulation of our
Speaker 3: tax code needs to end.
Speaker 5: MS claypok.
Speaker 3: Since approximately twenty twenty two, have state and federal grant
Speaker 3: programs become a primary source of financial support for significant
Speaker 3: portions of the CARE ecosystem.
Speaker 2: That's correct.
Speaker 8: I believe it was about fifty four million dollars in
Speaker 8: federal grant money was received by Care California. There has
Speaker 8: been testimony in other Senate Judiciary subcommittees relating to that
Speaker 8: funding and the and Care's misuse of that funding.
Speaker 5: You mentioned Care California.
Speaker 3: In twenty twenty four IRS findings filings, Care California reported
Speaker 3: distributing more than four million dollar subgrants to thirty nine
Speaker 3: other organizations. Is that right, Yes, roughly one hundred and
Speaker 3: eighty five thousand of that went to California chapters of
Speaker 3: the Muslim American Society, an organization that George Washington University's
Speaker 3: Program on Extremism identifies as a Brotherhood legacy group.
Speaker 5: Is that right?
Speaker 2: That's right?
Speaker 8: And federal prosecutors also called the Muslim American Society the
Speaker 8: overarm of the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States.
Speaker 1: Now again, you ask yourself the simple question, how is
Speaker 1: it possible that Democrats would not show up for this
Speaker 1: type of national security event. The answer, unfortunately, is pretty clear.
Speaker 1: The reason why they didn't show up is because they
Speaker 1: know the same people that were being named at this
Speaker 1: hearing are the donors that are giving money to their
Speaker 1: candidates that are winning elections and reelections. That is why
Speaker 1: everybody should be concerned, and the Democrats are more than
Speaker 1: willing to put your national security at risk stand with
Speaker 1: Terriss and Terriss funders instead of telling the truth, which
Speaker 1: is they have no place in their party. Don't forget
Speaker 1: we do this show every day, so make sure you
Speaker 1: hit that subscribe or auto download button so you don't
Speaker 1: miss any of the interviews we do, especially with members
Speaker 1: of the administration. And I'll see you back here tomorrow morning.