Speaker 1: There was an extremely important meeting in Washington, d C.
Speaker 1: It was about the terrorist organization, the Muslim Brotherhood and
Speaker 1: the Muslim Brotherhood. It was about how and why they're
Speaker 1: a threat in this country, how they're growing in this country,
Speaker 1: and what the American people needed to understand about the
Speaker 1: Muslim Brotherhood. Well, what was even more shocking than the
Speaker 1: hearing itself is the fact that this hearing not a
Speaker 1: single Democrat.
Speaker 2: Elected official attended it. That's right.
Speaker 1: This was a simple national security hearing exposing the Muslim
Speaker 1: Brotherhood's efforts, in their words, to undermine the United States
Speaker 1: of America, and the stunning testimony that came from the
Speaker 1: witnesses was not political either. So why did Democrats decide
Speaker 1: to just refuse to show up? Why did they literally
Speaker 1: run away from a now 'ational security hearing about terrorists
Speaker 1: undermining America? Why would you miss a hearing that deals
Speaker 1: with ISIS and al Qaeda and their connections to the
Speaker 1: Muslim Brotherhood. Now, these are all questions that should be asked.
Speaker 1: Fox News Channel put it this way when they were
Speaker 1: reporting on the well Democrats boycotting the meeting.
Speaker 3: It was Republican Senator Ted Cruz who decided to call
Speaker 3: this hearing today to take a look at the impacts
Speaker 3: of Muslim brotherhood networks here in the US. But as
Speaker 3: you mentioned, we are expecting all five Democrats on the
Speaker 3: Senate committee to boycott this hearing today because they say
Speaker 3: it's just going to be used to scapegoat all Muslims.
Speaker 3: These are the five Democrats we're talking about here on
Speaker 3: the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Federal Courts. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse,
Speaker 3: Senator Richard Blumenthal, Senator Mea Herono, Senator Alex Badia, and
Speaker 3: Senator Peter Welch. None of them are expected to participate today.
Speaker 1: None of them did participate. They we all refused to
Speaker 1: show up. Now, there were counter terrorism experts that testified,
Speaker 1: and I'm going to play some of that for you
Speaker 1: coming up in a moment. But the question you're probably
Speaker 1: asking yourself right now is what was the reason for
Speaker 1: them not showing up? What could the fallout have been
Speaker 1: if they did hear the testimony. Well, let's take a
Speaker 1: look at one of the biggest elections that just took place.
Speaker 1: We now know that more than one hundred and fifteen
Speaker 1: thousand dollars that was given to Abdul l said, Yeah,
Speaker 1: the guy running for the Democratic nomination in Michigan came
Speaker 1: from individuals who have direct ties to terrorist organizations. According
Speaker 1: to a Fox News review of campaign finance records, al
Speaker 1: Said's campaign received more than one hundred and fifteen thousand
Speaker 1: from at least forty one individuals who worked for, previously
Speaker 1: worked for, or we've held leadership positions with the Council
Speaker 1: on American Islamic Relations known as CARE, that, by the way,
Speaker 1: is a terrorist organization, and that immediately raises some very
Speaker 1: serious questions because we're not talking about one random donor
Speaker 1: who happened to write a one hundred dollars check. We're
Speaker 1: talking about more than forty people connected professionally or through
Speaker 1: leadership positions to the same organization, contributing collectively more.
Speaker 2: Than one hundred and fifteen thousand dollars.
Speaker 1: Now, before I give you even more of this shocking news,
Speaker 1: I want to take a moment. I want to ask
Speaker 1: you to join me in prayer for the people they're
Speaker 1: suffering right now in Israel. The headlines they move on,
Speaker 1: but the heartache and terror do not. Iran and its
Speaker 1: terrorist proxies they're continuing to target Israel Hezbelah continues to
Speaker 1: attack it in the north, forcing families to live on
Speaker 1: her constant threat. Israel is not only defending her people,
Speaker 1: she has standing on the front lines against terror that
Speaker 1: threatens us all. And even when the news crews leave
Speaker 1: the International Fellowship of Christians.
Speaker 2: And Jews, they remain.
Speaker 1: Every day they are on the ground providing life saving
Speaker 1: aid near Israel's border with Lebanon. Hesblod drones recently struck
Speaker 1: the 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 2: All right, 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 treasure and national vice chair, as well as
Speaker 1: officials associated with CARE chapters across the country. Now, one
Speaker 1: CARE Michigan board member, identifying the report, contributed eleven thousand,
Speaker 1: six hundred dollars. And here's another extraordinary connection. One of
Speaker 1: the care link donors is Al Said's five in law.
Speaker 1: He has also been a major financial supporter of a
Speaker 1: super pack backing Alsaeid. 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, Care,
Speaker 1: They've got a massive, controversial history, and you deserve to
Speaker 1: understand it, by the way, because the media refuses to
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 2: All right. That's something you need to understand. Now.
Speaker 1: CARE is repeatedly and emphatically denied allegations that it quote
Speaker 1: supports terrorism. Carer's history includes a significant episode involving one
Speaker 1: of the most important terrorist financing prosecutions in American history.
Speaker 1: The fact is this, in two thousand and seven, federal
Speaker 1: prosecutors named CARE as an unindicted co conspirator in the
Speaker 1: Holyland Foundation terrorism financing case. Again, what they were saying
Speaker 1: is they were laundering money to the terrorists. The Holy
Speaker 1: Land Foundation case itself, by the way, 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 designated 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.
Speaker 2: 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. Now the testimony is real,
Speaker 1: and it's shocking, and I want you to hear what
Speaker 1: was said as Senator Ted Cruz chaired the hearing.
Speaker 4: Does Abdul l Sayed's candidacy for Senator and Michigan concern?
Speaker 2: Yes, sir, it does. Why is that will?
Speaker 5: To begin with? I look at the connections that his
Speaker 5: father in law, Chaikaku Taib has the two Brotherhood linked groups.
Speaker 5: This includes being the president at one time of Care Michigan.
Speaker 5: Also his presence on the Islamic Society of North America
Speaker 5: Founders Committee, which is only for those most exclusively devoted
Speaker 5: to ISNA and provide significant amounts of funding. There are
Speaker 5: other known Brotherhood members on that committee. I would also
Speaker 5: look at Else'eed's ties to a group called m Gage,
Speaker 5: which purports to be a Muslim sort of get out
Speaker 5: the vote or candidate recruitment organization, but it has close
Speaker 5: ties to CARE. It was created by a former CARE
Speaker 5: member who at one time was on a terror watch
Speaker 5: list and was also a consultant to convicted terrorists. Samuel Arrian,
Speaker 5: do you.
Speaker 4: Believe the Islamic Society of North America or ISNA is
Speaker 4: an ongoing part of the Muslim Brotherhood network in the
Speaker 4: United States?
Speaker 2: Yes, Sir, I do.
Speaker 5: There were some HLF documents that reflected hesitation by the
Speaker 5: Brotherhood that they thought perhaps they were losing control of
Speaker 5: isn't one point that they appear to have rectified that?
Speaker 5: As far as I can tell, there are still individuals
Speaker 5: associated with the Muslim Brotherhood who are in high leadership
Speaker 5: positions with that organization, and they have never repudiated their
Speaker 5: ties to the organization.
Speaker 4: Trial Hadawad is still the executive director of CARE today.
Speaker 6: Is that right?
Speaker 2: He is?
Speaker 4: So when CARE tells this Congress it has no ties
Speaker 4: to hamas the documented record says otherwise, is that correct?
Speaker 6: That is correct?
Speaker 4: Agent Burns, if you were still an active FBI agent today,
Speaker 4: with the evidence you developed in the Holy Land Foundation prosecution,
Speaker 4: would Care be on your list of organizations warranting further investigation?
Speaker 2: It would.
Speaker 6: This is a letter that I sent.
Speaker 4: To the FBI requesting the release of non classified materials
Speaker 4: seized during the two thousand and four search of Ismaeul
Speaker 4: el Barassi's home in Annandale, Virginia.
Speaker 6: To date, I have not received those documents.
Speaker 4: This letter was sent on April sixteenth, twenty twenty six.
Speaker 6: Ms Burns, are you aware of anything.
Speaker 4: Unusual with the search of elber Rossi's home that you
Speaker 4: would like to share 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 audio tapes were, as seen in exhibits
Speaker 7: that were put forth in the Holyland Foundation trial, groundbreaking
Speaker 7: in the understanding of this Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas network
Speaker 7: here and they are key to understanding the extent and
Speaker 7: scope with this network.
Speaker 4: And am I correct that Care showed up during the
Speaker 4: search of Alberosse's home and attempted to obstruct the seizure
Speaker 4: of the documents.
Speaker 6: Yes, sir, they did. If the FBI.
Speaker 4: Released the non classified documents tomorrow from the search, would
Speaker 4: the public understand this network better than 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 4: All right, mister Shidler, let's turn to you. How long
Speaker 4: have you studied the history and activities of the Muslim
Speaker 4: Brotherhood since about.
Speaker 5: Two thousand and seven, two thousand and eight, actually, with
Speaker 5: the rise of the Hollywand Foundation trial, it really piqued
Speaker 5: my interest, and it's fair to say it changed my
Speaker 5: entire career trajectory.
Speaker 4: Do you believe that there is a Muslim Brotherhood branch
Speaker 4: operating in the United States?
Speaker 6: Yes?
Speaker 4: Are there ever instances where the Brotherhood groups engage in
Speaker 4: America in acts of violence?
Speaker 2: Yes?
Speaker 5: There are. I would include individuals associated with Brotherhood linked
Speaker 5: mosques who have engaged in acts of terrorism. I would
Speaker 5: include individuals associated with Muslim students associations, dozens of which
Speaker 5: have committed acts of terrorism. I would also include the
Speaker 5: role in the promotion of rioting and civil disorder conducted
Speaker 5: by groups like Students for Justice in Palestine and the
Speaker 5: Palestinian Youth Movement.
Speaker 4: What you've described is exactly why I introduced the Stop
Speaker 4: Funders Act, which would add rioting to the RICO predicate
Speaker 4: offenses so that the Justice Department can reach the entities
Speaker 4: that fund and coordinate these riots. Do Brotherhood groups in
Speaker 4: America also participate in electoral and coalition politics?
Speaker 6: Yes, certainly do.
Speaker 4: Is that consistent with the Tom Keen framework described in
Speaker 4: the explanatory memorandum, working through existing institutions rather than displacing them.
Speaker 5: Yes, sir as, you described it as a process of
Speaker 5: settlement by which they are creating and seizing control of institutions,
Speaker 5: which they can then use to continue to build their efforts.
Speaker 6: Being with us today.
Speaker 4: And thank you for your work confronting the contemporary Muslim
Speaker 4: Brotherhood network in court. The historical record is damning, but
Speaker 4: I'd like to turn to what's being done about it today.
Speaker 4: The Muslim Brotherhood's ties to terrorism are ongoing today, not
Speaker 4: just historical.
Speaker 6: Is that right? Yes, that's right. And yet Brotherhood.
Speaker 4: Groups still meet with members of Congress and are treated
Speaker 4: as a civil rights organization.
Speaker 6: Is that right?
Speaker 2: Yes?
Speaker 4: In your litigation work, have you found that Brotherhood affiliated
Speaker 4: entities share leadership, funding, or infrastructure cross organizations that hold
Speaker 4: themselves out to the public as separate and unrelated.
Speaker 2: 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. And another example is CARE
Speaker 8: and its relationship with the Washington Trust Foundation. The Washington
Speaker 8: Trust 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 4: Well, and that's why I introduced the Sponsor Act, which
Speaker 4: would hold tax exempt fiscal sponsors liable for what their
Speaker 4: sponsored entities do. The loopholes and the manipulation of our
Speaker 4: tax code needs to end. MS Claypok Since approximately twenty
Speaker 4: twenty two, have state and federal grant programs become a
Speaker 4: primary source of financial support for significant portions of the
Speaker 4: CARE ecosystem.
Speaker 2: That's correct.
Speaker 6: I believe it was about fifty.
Speaker 8: Four million dollars in federal grant money was received by
Speaker 8: Care California. Has been testimony in other Senate Judiciary subcommittees
Speaker 8: relating to that funding and the and Care's misuse of
Speaker 8: that funding.
Speaker 4: You mentioned Care California. In twenty twenty four IRS findings filings,
Speaker 4: Care California reported distributing more than four million dollars in
Speaker 4: subgrants to thirty nine other organizations.
Speaker 6: Is that right.
Speaker 4: Yes, roughly one hundred and eighty five thousand of that
Speaker 4: went to California chapters of the Muslim American Society, an
Speaker 4: organization that George Washington University's Program on Extremism identifies as
Speaker 4: a Brotherhood legacy group.
Speaker 6: Is that right?
Speaker 2: That's right?
Speaker 8: And federal prosecutors also called the Muslim American Society the
Speaker 8: overt arm 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: terrorists and terris funders instead of telling the truth, which
Speaker 1: is they have no place in their party.
Speaker 2: I want you to.
Speaker 1: Understand the magnitude of what we're learning about the organized
Speaker 1: legal resistance to President Donald Trump. I'm talking about liberal
Speaker 1: ages conspiring to go after Donald Trump with law fair
Speaker 1: months before he became president. Yet again, now, Democrats not
Speaker 1: only they spend years telling Americans that Donald Trump was
Speaker 1: a threat to democracy, they also told you elections were sacred.
Speaker 1: They told you voters must be respected, and they told
Speaker 1: you that when the American people speak of the ballot box,
Speaker 1: especially if it's for a Democrat, then you must accept
Speaker 1: the results. But apparently Democrat attorney generals around the country
Speaker 1: they didn't see any of it that way. In fact,
Speaker 1: they were preparing for something very different in the new
Speaker 1: shocking allegations months before Americans voted in the twenty twenty
Speaker 1: four presidential election, Democrat attorney generals conspired together on how
Speaker 1: they would fight a second Trump administration in court if
Speaker 1: he won. Now, I want you to think about the
Speaker 1: significance of that. Donald Trump hadn't won yet, Kamala Harris
Speaker 1: hadn't lost yet. In fact, Joe Biden was still the nominee.
Speaker 1: The American people hadn't cast their ballots even early voting yet,
Speaker 1: and Trump hadn't even taken the oath of office. Now
Speaker 1: not only that, but Donald Trump hadn't signed a single
Speaker 1: executive order because Joe Biden was so the president and
Speaker 1: Democrat Attorney general said, hold on a second, we got
Speaker 1: to get ready to tie up Trump if he wins
Speaker 1: with a.
Speaker 2: Full out legal war.
Speaker 1: Now this isn't speculation after the fact, we now know
Speaker 1: this is what was really going on. The Democrat Attorney
Speaker 1: General's Association itself later highlighted reporting the Democratic governors and
Speaker 1: attorney generals had spent months strategizing about how to respond
Speaker 1: to a potential second Trump administration. For example, the New
Speaker 1: York Attorney General Letitia James has said that attorney generals
Speaker 1: began meeting before the election to discuss fighting Donald Trump
Speaker 1: in his second term, and after Trump won. According to
Speaker 1: subsequent reporting, now Democrat ages dramatically intensified their coordination. In
Speaker 1: other words, they were ready, and boy did they use it.
Speaker 2: Trump.
Speaker 1: They said, you know what, he takes office January twentieth,
Speaker 1: and the lawsuits, well, they started flying one after another,
Speaker 1: executive orders, federal funding, immigration, environmental regulations, government restructuring, federal employees, education,
Speaker 1: health policy, even elections and tariffs. Whatever the policy fight was,
Speaker 1: the Democrat attorney generals turned to the courtroom and they
Speaker 1: made that into their battlefield. And by April the first
Speaker 1: of twenty twenty six, the Democrat Attorney General's Association proudly
Speaker 1: announced something extraordinary. Democrat Attorney Generals had collectively filed their
Speaker 1: one hundredth lawsuit against the Trump administration. This is lawfair,
Speaker 1: and they were celebrating it. One under lawsuits, not in
Speaker 1: four years, just over a year into Trump's second term,
Speaker 1: and their own 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 law fair? Because the attorney
Speaker 1: generals absolutely have a constitutional role. If a president exceeds
Speaker 1: his authority, 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 acts President Trump would ultimately take. 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. They knew one thing.
Speaker 1: If Trump won, they were going to be ready to
Speaker 1: sue him, to stop him in court on anything he did.
Speaker 1: In other words, they said, if the American people choose Trump,
Speaker 1: we're going to undermine the will of the people. We're
Speaker 1: going to undermine their vote, We're going to undermine the country.
Speaker 1: We're going to undermine free and fair elections. We're going
Speaker 1: to undermine at all to stop the agenda that the
Speaker 1: American people actually voted for. That is what all of
Speaker 1: this coordination was really all about, which brings me to
Speaker 1: the big point here. This wasn't merely a reaction into
Speaker 1: something Trump did. This was a setup of a resistance
Speaker 1: infrastructure weaponizing our government through the Democratic Party and the
Speaker 1: Attorney generals to stop the will of the people. Democrats
Speaker 1: spent four years saying Republicans need to respect election results. Okay, well,
Speaker 1: Donald Trump won the election in twenty twenty four. He
Speaker 1: wins the electoral College, he wins the popular vote, Republicans
Speaker 1: win control of Congress. The voters gave Trump another term,
Speaker 1: they gave him a mandate.
Speaker 2: And what do they do.
Speaker 1: The 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 favoral 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 4: Well, another story that broke its headlined Democrat ags plan
Speaker 4: to sue Trump nearly seven months before he was re elected.
Speaker 4: There it is nearly two dozen state attorneys general banded
Speaker 4: together as early as April twenty twenty four to plot
Speaker 4: litigation against President Donald Trump, long before he was re elected.
Speaker 4: According to confidential document attained by The Center Square, the
Speaker 4: document was signed approximately three months before President Joe Biden
Speaker 4: ex from the race and Vice President Kamala Harris became
Speaker 4: the Democratic nominee for president. It was signed nearly seven
Speaker 4: months before Trump was re elected by two point three
Speaker 4: million more votes than Harris, almost nine months before he
Speaker 4: was inaugurated. State attorneys general has sued the Trump administration
Speaker 4: nearly one hundred times since January twenty twenty five. The
Speaker 4: coordinated effort appears to have a nickname quote the Project
Speaker 4: for Federal Accountability. Not all of the lawsuits have been
Speaker 4: joined by each attorney general, and some offices take a
Speaker 4: lead on different cases. At the last count, California Attorney
Speaker 4: General Rob Bonta has participated in eighty two lawsuits. Colorado
Speaker 4: Attorney General Phil Wiser has joined at least seventy five lawsuits.
Speaker 4: Washington State Attorney General Brown has joined seventy lawsuits. Arizona
Speaker 4: Attorney General Chris Mays has joined forty six lawsuits. At
Speaker 4: a news conference on Tuesday, Montes stated the lawsuits are
Speaker 4: a political yeah rightnounced the lawsuits have cost California taxpayers
Speaker 4: nineteen million dollars and he will continue to file them
Speaker 4: as needed. If Trump doesn't want to get sued, all
Speaker 4: he has to do is follow the law. Bonds has said,
Speaker 4: I don't think our cases are likely to be dismissed.
Speaker 4: Trump shows no sign of slowing down, so we will
Speaker 4: continue to sue him. This is an example where the
Speaker 4: deep state in the Democrat machine that they like to
Speaker 4: talk about. We support democracy, they beat their chest, We're
Speaker 4: four democracy. Yeah, today's Democrats hate democracy. And I don't
Speaker 4: mean to be provocative in that statement, but if they
Speaker 4: actually respected democracy, they would say, you know what, the
Speaker 4: voters get to choose who the president's going to be.
Speaker 4: We're gonna have an election November twenty twenty four, and
Speaker 4: they're going to choose either Donald Trump or Initially it
Speaker 4: was Joe Biden, but then when they realized Joe Biden
Speaker 4: was deep into dimension was no longer capable of winning,
Speaker 4: they threw Joe Biden overboard. They tossed him into a
Speaker 4: shark pit and immediately inserted Kamala Harris, who nobody had
Speaker 4: voted for. YEP. And when Trump won, they do not care.
Speaker 4: They're using lawfair to destroy him. And understand, these Democrat
Speaker 4: ags join together to do so seven months before he
Speaker 4: was elected president because they don't care what the voters say.
Speaker 4: They want power and they're willing to abuse the system
Speaker 4: 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 vote voter. And
Speaker 1: what the Democrats are now saying is if an American
Speaker 1: voter votes for someone they don't like, not only will
Speaker 1: they go after that person, but they will go after
Speaker 1: their agenda using law fare. They will do whatever they
Speaker 1: can to stop the will of the American people. This
Speaker 1: is so much bigger than Donald Trump. This is about
Speaker 1: America's freedom and democracy and the will of the people
Speaker 1: being silenced by radicals on the left who are abusing their.
Speaker 2: Power each and every day. Well, keep following this story.
Speaker 1: I can promise you that we've got a lot more
Speaker 1: that's going to happen the days ahead. So make sure
Speaker 1: you don't forget Grab our podcast, the Ben Ferguson Podcasts
Speaker 1: wherever you get your podcasts as well. Hit that subscriber
Speaker 1: or download buttons so you don't miss any of the
Speaker 1: breaking news.