8-14-25 - 8am - Adam Schiff Investigation and Speech & Debate Clause

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey, Michael, this last hour was great, but I'm hoping
we can go back to more of like the internal
office sideshow talks. Maybe you can read some of Dragon's headlines.
Those always go pretty well. Boise, Idaho elevation twenty seven
hundred three feet.

Speaker 2 (00:20):
Is he coming or going? They're both. He knows he's
in Boise, right.

Speaker 3 (00:26):
I think he's already been here, but he's got this
weird trek, so I don't know is he driving? Oh
I hope not. That would sound terrible. Come I know,
ask it to Boise, Idaho.

Speaker 4 (00:37):
Well, then he was coming here too. I've been here,
so I don't know what he's doing. I mean I
saw the emails, but I knew that I wouldn't have
time to see.

Speaker 3 (00:47):
I'm just thankful he's not in Alaska with Trump and Putin.

Speaker 4 (00:52):
So you know where that meeting is? Is it in Anchorage?
I assume it said maybe the air baser something.

Speaker 3 (01:00):
I think it's absolutely fantastic that Trump said, hey, we're
doing this in Alaska.

Speaker 2 (01:04):
A territory you used to own. That is yep, pretty good.
That is very very good.

Speaker 4 (01:11):
I don't think we've started to learn all there really
is to know about us. Senator Adam Schiff, or, for
that matter, the scope of the criminal conspiracy that he
was a part of with regard to trying to undermine
the twenty sixteen candidacy of Donald Trump. There will be

(01:35):
a need shortly, if it doesn't already exist for that matter,
for daily welfare checks on Adam Schiff. The way conspiratorial
webs spin out in unforeseen directions, you know, once you
begin to pull, it's like the thread on the cuff
of your shirt or somewhere on a piece of clothing,

(01:55):
and you start pulling it and you never know, like, oh,
dang it.

Speaker 2 (01:58):
Now it's because you get even worse.

Speaker 4 (02:02):
This week's revelations about shifts, organized and truly systematic leaking
of intelligence information, including classified documents, was all done for
the express purpose of hurting Donald Trump in the twenty
sixteen campaign and then later once Trump deal became president.

Speaker 2 (02:26):
Well, now.

Speaker 4 (02:29):
Just one threads being exposed, just a bit to public scrutiny,
and I think there's a lot more to come. I
think that, well, there is an FBI case file, and
we know that because a file number was assigned, But
what other serialized documents are under that particular FBI case number.

(02:51):
Now I'm not going to sit here and I don't
mean to be, and so don't take it this way.
I'm not criticizing Cashpitel because I understand. I'll give you
an example. So you know I've been working on the
second book.

Speaker 2 (03:04):
Well, I.

Speaker 4 (03:07):
Found a trove of documents that I need to dig through,
and so in my office downstairs, they I just have
piles and I just, oh, I just.

Speaker 2 (03:19):
Drag going through it. Well, imagine that you are.

Speaker 4 (03:24):
Cash Betel and Dan Bongino and you've discovered, you know,
this room that has boxes piled up. Well, one, you've
got to make sure that whoever you have catalog cataloging
all of that information is somebody that's trustworthy and that
they're going to be thorough and that they're going to
catalog it in such a way that you can actually
understand what's in all of those documents.

Speaker 2 (03:45):
It is truly overwhelming. And I'm talking about my little.

Speaker 4 (03:49):
Pile of stuff that people were able to well quite honestly,
sneak out of female headquarters.

Speaker 2 (03:57):
So I have them.

Speaker 4 (03:58):
I've got you know, hard and boxes and boxes and
boxes of stuff so far as I can tell, and honestly,
I've not read through all of the reporting on the disclosure,
But what was released earlier this week was four FBI
form three O two's. Those are interview forms that the

(04:22):
FBI uses to when they conduct interviews. Now, I want
to specify that a three to oh two is generally
used with someone that you're interviewing that more likely than
not is going to be a witness in a case,
which is why they have a particular form for it. Well,

(04:44):
there were four of these three oh two interviews with
a whistleblower. That whistleblower happens to be a former House
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence staffer. The subject of those
particular interviews was the truly kind of orchestrated process of
leaks to the Cabal by that committee. It's again it's

(05:08):
the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence HPEC SCI hp SCI.
I'm just gonna refer to as hp SCI. The interviews
were in August and December of twenty seventeen, November and May,
I'm sorry, November of twenty nineteen, and then May of
twenty twenty three. But there was also on October eighteen,

(05:30):
twenty seventeen. Between these different three to o twos, there
was an electronic communication created. Now, an EC electronic communication
reflects an internal communication between FBI personnel so that they

(05:50):
can share information. It's like an internal memo. Remember the
old envelopes that you would have in an office setting
where you might put something in that fifteen people need
to look at and it goes to the first person
and then somebody takes it to the next office, or
you take it to the next office and everybody signs

(06:11):
the outside of the envelope. Remember those, Well, this is
the electronic version of that. Well, as I look through it,
here are a few observations about this. Before I get
into the substance of the three to oh twos, here
are just a few observations. The use of a form
three oh two signifies that the information is testimonial, because,

(06:34):
as I said, the person being interviewed is a potential witness.
The second observation I would make is that the FBI
conducts interviews in this manner only after a case file
has been opened, which is why I point out that
we have a case file number, So that three to
oh two that results from an interview has to go somewhere,

(07:00):
and it goes into that file that has that case number.
It may be paper, it may be electronic. I think
in this case they were probably mostly electronic because they
have an electronic communication created. So they've created that folder
that I was describing. The case file is normally opened

(07:23):
with an opening electronic communication. That's kind of a task,
you know, a supervisor sends it out. Open a file.
Here's the factual predicate. Here's what I want you to
start investigating. Now, between the two, there should be records
that reflect all the different kinds of investigative activity that

(07:44):
takes place. Now, if a grand jury subpoena was requested,
there should be in the file a copy of the
request of the of the grand jury subpoena, a copy
of the subpoena that if it's actually issued. That should
all be serialized. Now, when I say serialized, they all
get a Bates number. That's just a fancy word that
lawyers use. That every page gets numbered so that you

(08:08):
because that number may differ from the page number.

Speaker 2 (08:13):
So if you got a.

Speaker 4 (08:14):
Five page email, five page document, it'll have page one
two three four five. But if that's part of a
group of documents, there'll be a Bates number that may
not correspond to page one, two, three, four five. It
may be Bates number two sixty seven, two sixty eight,
two sixty nine, two seventy two, seventy two. So that's

(08:36):
what I refer to as a Bates number. But they'll
they're all going to be numbered. This is all serialized.

Speaker 2 (08:43):
Now.

Speaker 4 (08:44):
If there is a case file, which based in everything
I'm read reading, there is a case file, which means
there was a number signed to it. The person who's
in charge of that can change over time. So here
are the questions that I have about Adams and this
investigation based on just these kind of observations I've made
so far.

Speaker 2 (09:06):
I want to know what was.

Speaker 4 (09:08):
The predict for opening the case the FBI. Now, obviously
they're going after Donald Trump, right, we're talking about twenty sixteen.

Speaker 2 (09:19):
So you open a case.

Speaker 4 (09:20):
File because you have whether it's legitimate or not, you
have a predicate, you have a reason that you think
you're eventually going to file criminal charges.

Speaker 2 (09:30):
But what was the.

Speaker 4 (09:31):
Predicate for opening this case that involves Adam Schiff? The
second question I would have is the first three h
two the first interview she was dated August two, twenty seventeen.
How long before that particular interview, what did you did

(09:51):
the FBI open a case file? And then what if
anything was done between the opening electronic communication and that interview?
Is this case file number on every single document? Or
huh is there more than one case file? How many
serialized documents are in the case? How thick is this case?

(10:15):
How big is it whether it's paper or electronic or combination?
How big is this file? Are the three to o
twos that reflect the interviews with anybody other than the
original whistleblower? Who else did they talk to? Now, there's
something called a prose memo that is prepared for transmittal

(10:35):
to the Department of Justice if they're seeking prosecution a
prose memo memo, Well, did you do one for Adam Shift, or,
for that matter, anybody else other than a whistleblower? Because
I would bet you, I'd bet you my kingdom that
there probably was a prose memo about Adam Shift? And

(10:58):
then what's the close date on the electronic communication? And
what was justification for closing the file? Now, if you're
not aware, Back in twenty sixteen, Republicans controlled the House.
The chairman of the hp HPSCI was Devin Nunyaz. He

(11:21):
started the chairmanship back in twenty fifteen. He became the
chairman at the start of his third term on the
committee his seventh term in Congress. Overall, I point that
out because Devin Nunez has been so vindicated by everything
that he and Cash Battel were saying about how this

(11:45):
was a targeted fake investigation based on fake intelligence, and
everybody just eviscerted Kevin Devin Nunyaz, and he's been fully vindicated. Now,
Adam Schiff was elected to Congress two years before Noonyez.

(12:09):
He joined that committee four years ahead of Nunyez, and
then prior to running for Congress, Shift spent four years
as a California State Senator. Senator He represents the Santa
Monic which is an ultra liberal part of California. Nunya
is represented the Central Valley of California, the Inland area,

(12:31):
which is a very ultra conservative agricultural area. This is
all important to understand because there's a lot going on
here that the cabal is trying to weave around and
not tell you the truth about. Before Shift, I bet

(12:52):
I would be shocked if anybody in this audience knew this.
Do you know that before Adam Schiff ran for office
as a state senator and then ultimately as a congressman
that of course then became a US Senator Dyield. He
was the assistant US attorney in Los Angeles for eight years.

Speaker 2 (13:10):
Now, Nunyaz was not.

Speaker 4 (13:14):
He ran his family's dairy farm, and he's not a lawyer.
He doesn't have a professional background in any form of intelligence.
Adam Schiff does, so he knew. This gets to a
point I make later on. I believe that Adam Schiff
knew he was violating the law because he.

Speaker 2 (13:37):
Had the background.

Speaker 4 (13:38):
He had the clearances prior to even becoming a member
of Congress. As an assistant US attorney, he knew about
intel and classification. Cash Ptel joined this special Intelligence Committee
as a staffer in April twenty seventeen, and he worked
directly for Nunyaz. So the three O twos get released

(14:03):
this week, and the whistleblower was a member of that
intelligence committee for twelve years. So everything you hear in
the cabal about oh oh, this whistle blower was somebody
that Trump appointed here or they're wait a minute, they're leaving.
You know, this is these This is where the cabal

(14:26):
engages in acts of oh.

Speaker 2 (14:27):
Mission by not telling you the whole truth.

Speaker 4 (14:30):
Yes, he's been reappointed, as you know, a member of
the administration, but he was a member of this committee
staff for twelve freaking years, going all the way back
to when I was in DC. And his background is
in intelligence in the military. Now it seems to me

(14:52):
it may be on the technical side, but nonetheless he
has a background in intelligence. The FBI met with this
whistle bl lower in twenty seventeen at a very well
known bar in DC called Bullfeathers. The interview is fired.
The three to oh two is five pages. There's some

(15:13):
interesting things in that three to two. In the fall
of twenty sixteen, the Democrat staffers on the Intelligence Committee
expected that Schiff would be named director of the CIA
if Clinton won the twenty sixteen election. It was absolutely

(15:35):
certain Adam Schiff was going to be the director of
the CIA. Now, after the election, Schiff became a true
believer in the Russia hoax claims. He truly believed that
Trump won only because of help from Putin and Russia.
So Schiff saw the countries being in this constitutional crisis

(15:56):
he kept yelling about, and that could only be solved
in Adam Shift's brain by driving Trump out of office.
Then you started getting the leaks from the Intelligence Committee
that were actually orchestrated by Adam Schiff. The whistleblower didn't
have any specifics, but he was of the opinion that

(16:17):
if Adam Shift was not providing actual instructions, he was
tacitly approving instructions by allowing them to take place without
taking any steps to stop them. In other words, Adam
Shift was acting just like the cabal. Oh, I see
what they're doing. I'm going to step back and not
say a word. Then February twenty seventeen, a senior Minority

(16:42):
staff member said that during a staff meaning that he
wanted to drive the Russia collusion issue in the media
to the level that would lead to a joint Congressional
inquiry similar to the nine to eleven Commission, and he
directed the Minority staff to use any resource they can
find the intelligence community, including information that could be leaked

(17:04):
to the media. This guy's an absolute comebay, absolutes comeback.

Speaker 5 (17:11):
Now.

Speaker 4 (17:11):
After reporting some of this to the Security director on
the committee, the whistleblower said, you, I started to get
marginalized by the Democrat staff Gee.

Speaker 2 (17:21):
I wonder why Good morning, Michael and Dagons.

Speaker 1 (17:24):
This is your favorite Gee uber say hello from j Bella,
come here, come here, honey, Sorry anyway, Mike? Is it
me or is it?

Speaker 2 (17:37):
Do you have way more commercials on the weekends. You're
talking about your weekend show that I was listening Bella,
come here, Bella, come good girl and my farder to
more commercials on then the regular times you guys have
a great day.

Speaker 4 (17:53):
Actually, or I think based on what I see with
because I don't hear the commercials because that being done
in Los Angeles, I don't hear them. But based on
the length of the podcast file that gets uploaded, I
actually think there are fewer commercials on the weekend.

Speaker 2 (18:13):
Are you you look like you're looking at something.

Speaker 3 (18:16):
I'm gonna try and look it up here. See roughly
the same, the same, Yeah, but they're they're spaced out
differently than they are.

Speaker 4 (18:24):
Yes, we have a totally different clock on the weekend
than we do here, so that might that it may
be that you, because you hear commercials more often, you
may think they're more.

Speaker 2 (18:35):
And it is.

Speaker 3 (18:36):
It's a naturally syndicated show, so it is much more
stuck to a harder clock, oh, yes, than what we
have here.

Speaker 4 (18:43):
Yes, So you know, like Dragon will sometimes say like
a you know, it's time to take a break. No,
I'm told take a break, right, Yeah.

Speaker 2 (18:53):
Yeah.

Speaker 4 (18:53):
I have to watch my clock very closely on the
weekend because we have all those affiliates and they you know,
they have certain tone go down the wire that says
being you gotta go to the commercial. One more thing
that I want to swerve into the speech and debate
clause about Adam Shiff, because that was an issue that
was raised earlier in the week and I've done some

(19:15):
digging into it. But to paint the picture, there's really
no question in my mind that Adam Schiff had the knowledge,
the experience, everything to know that what he was doing
was a violation of the law. But there's also another
political side to this, because there's another name to watch

(19:37):
here that just happens to be in one of these
three O two's, in one of these interview sheets other
than the whistleblower, and it just happens to be another
Democrat of the Senate Special Intelligence Committee who knew about
what Adam Schiff was doing, and that was Congresswoman Jackie

(19:59):
Spear also of California. She was elected to Congress in
two thousand and eight. She was put on this special
Investigative Committee Intelligence Committee in just her second term in
January of January of twenty eleven. Now think geographically for

(20:19):
a moment. Adam Schiff represented coastal West Los Angeles. Jackie
Spear represented northern San Mateo County and parts of South
San Francisco. Think about SFO, the airport in the Bay Area.
Nancy Pelosi represented most of the city of San Francisco.
That's the district directly to the north of Jackie Spears district.

(20:44):
Nancy Pelosi handpicked the northern California politician who would be
her so called neighbor in representing the entire Metro San
Francisco area in Congress, including parts of Silicon Valley. Adam
Shiff was not acting as a lone ranger, which I
don't think he was. Then there are probably communications between

(21:08):
Adam Shiff, Jackie Spear, and I believe even up to
an including Nancy Pelosi, who throughout often on during this
time just happened to be number two in line to
the Presidency of the United States, the Speaker of the House,
and if Adam Shiff was going to be the CIA

(21:32):
director during Hillary Clinton's presidency. You absolutely know that Nancy
Pelosi was right in the smack dad middle of that.
Then you think about if all roads from John Brennan,
James Clapper, and the CIA lead to the Obama White House,

(21:55):
then all roads from Adam Shiff and the Committee, including Jackie.

Speaker 2 (22:01):
Spear, all those roads lead likely.

Speaker 4 (22:04):
To Nancy Pelosi. Now is Adam Shift's speech or debate defense.
Is that actually law and constitutional? Or is that just politics?
Because all of those unclassified FBI memos and three to

(22:25):
two s that I just told you about tell a
story that is very damning and very instructive. They describe
it this whistleblower who was a career intelligence officer, loyal
to the Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee, who began
warning the FBI in twenty seventeen that Adam Schiff was

(22:49):
instructing his staff to lead classified information to try to
what derail Donald Trump. The whistle blower, again, a loyal
Democrat and a career staffer, which is not contradictory. A
lot of my staff when I was there as the

(23:09):
undersecretary were Democrats and they were loyal to the Democrats,
and I had to watch my p's and q's about
everything because ultimately they were what they were, loyal Democrats.
This guy, this whistleblower, objected that the leaks were illegal

(23:30):
and even treasonous. Now, Schiff's answer, as reported in the Cabal,
was to assure his staff that the Constitution's Speech and
Debate clause would protect them. There's nothing to worry about here.
And that's the problem. Schiff was not a naive lawmaker.

(23:50):
He wasn't misreading the Constitution. A former US attorney, a
California state senator the Congress now ultimately became a US
senator and in line to be the CIA director, and
he's trying to tell his stay, I don't worry about
the Speech and Debate clause. He's going to protect you.

(24:12):
He's also a lawyer. Let's all forget the vary base
that that he's a lawyer, and he was chairing the
very committee responsible for safeguarding classified intelligence that is transmitted
to the Congress for their oversight responsibilities. So if he's
going to claim that the speech and Debate clause, which
you know, maybe I've stumbled, maybe I ran over this

(24:34):
too fast. The Speech and Debate clause protects members of
Congress from libel and slander or from any criminal or
civil penalties for things they say as as a member
of Congress. In other words, if they're debating in a

(24:57):
committee hearing, or asking a question in a committee hearing,
or they're in the well of the House or the
Senate and they're debating, you know, their fellow senators or
fellow congressman. All that's what that clause protects. Now, if
he's going to claim that the clause offered legal protection
for leaking it to the press, that's not from ignorance.

(25:18):
That was a calculated falsehood, likely grunted in the expectation that, oh, well,
the Democrats control the FBI, the Democrats control the Justice Department,
the Democrats control the Cabal, so I'm never going to
be prosecuted now, to see the mind, this is a deception.

(25:38):
Let's go back specifically to the Speech and Debate Clause
Article one sections Article one, section six says for any
speech or debate in either house, they shall not be
questioned in any other place. How'd that get into the Constitution.

(26:00):
It comes from the English Bill of Rights of sixteen
eighty nine. That was a law that protected against the monarchs,
the king or the Queen punishing Parliament for things they
would say in legislative sessions. So the framers decided to
adopt that to ensure that members of Congress could perform

(26:21):
their functions without intimidation by the executive or the judicial
branches and courts have interpreted very very broadly, protecting not
only speeches on the floor but all quote legislative acts,
meaning committee work, committee reports, official investigations. But the breadth

(26:45):
of that clause is also contained by very clear boundaries.
The speech and debate clause only covers acts integral to
the legislative process, a political act, constituent services, public relations,
or most relevant here, communication with the press is not

(27:08):
protected by the speech and debate clause. The Supreme Court
drew that line in numerous cases. I'll give you an example,
Hutchinson versus Proxmier, a senator's floor speech was privileged, but
when he issued press releases and newsletters, those are not protected.
In another one, Gravel versus us when the senator started

(27:31):
reading the senator Gravel started reading the Pentagon papers in
a committee, that was protected, but then when he arranged
for the Pentagon papers to be published by the New
York Times. That was a private publication and that is
not protected by the Speech and Debate clause. And the
reasoning is pretty simple. Informing the public may be valuable,

(27:52):
but that is not legislating. This distinction completely eviscerates shifts
purported legal reasoning that, oh, whatever I did was covered
by the Speech and Debate clause.

Speaker 2 (28:04):
And I'll explain whyness on the twelve.

Speaker 5 (28:06):
Year old boys that Michael b Bran and dragging Red
Beard are What if on the Democrat ticket you had
Anthony were running with Eric Holder, what would posters look like?

Speaker 2 (28:24):
Or you could reverse it?

Speaker 5 (28:25):
Eric Holder, Anthony Wider very interesting.

Speaker 3 (28:30):
I don't know what you're talking about me either, And
so the Supreme Court takes a lot of sense.

Speaker 4 (28:36):
So these Supreme Court cases that I just described about,
for example, releasing the Pentagon papers when you headed off
to the New York Times, that's not protected by the
Speech and Debate clause. And the cases that reject the
overbroad readings of the clause are pretty important. For example,

(28:57):
in US versus Brewster, the Supreme Court refused to protect
the senator from bribery charges because the bribe related to legislation.
You know, taking a bribe is not part of being
a member of Congress. Likewise, leaking to the media is
not part of legislating, even if the leak does concern
matters under review by a committee.

Speaker 2 (29:19):
The clause protects acts, not motives.

Speaker 4 (29:23):
It does not license or approve or allow crimes if
those crimes just happen to be adjacent to or next
to the legislation you're dealing with, And nor does it
extend to aids. Go back to the Gravel case the
Pentagon Paper's case. H are protected only in so far
as their work would Their work would be protected if

(29:45):
performed by the member. So if the aid is doing
the same thing a member would do, then it would
protect it would protect the staffer. But in this case,
the Speech and Debate clause does not protect the member.
So therefore the whistleblower and the others are not protected either.
So it's settled law. It's not a what if kind

(30:08):
of deal. So if Adam Schiff believes that the Speech
and Debate clause is going to protect him or his
staff if the leagues are proven to be true, well
the most plausible reading is that he didn't believe he
didn't believe that anyone in authority would ever test him.
The mimbos indicate that the DOJ officials really didn't show

(30:31):
any interest in pursuing the allegations, so that silence is telling.
Shift's defense worked not as a matter of law. He
was using it as a matter of political convenience. And
this is where the case against Shift becomes clear. He's
a skilled lawyer, long serving legislator. He knew the clause's history,

(30:56):
its limits, or should have. He knew the courts had
consistently few us to extend it to acts like what
he was doing leaking classified documents to the media. Yet
he invokes it anyway, not to withstand, not because he
thinks he can withstand a judicial challenge, but trying to
reassure his staff, trying to deter investigators, and trying to

(31:17):
get a dumbass cabal on his side. Now the calculation,
I have to admit a shrewd, But in the charged
atmosphere of Russia Gate and the DOJ leadership aligned politically,
I you know what, I don't think he has a
chance in hell of winning any of this. The Shift

(31:42):
episode is really a case study and how constitutional provisions
can be simply misrepresented for political cover. And I think
that Adam Schiff has a very good chance of being indicted.
And I think for a guy that has gone out

(32:02):
there and espoused the Russia Russia Russia hoax, and we
had Devin Nunez be vindicated, Cash Betel vindicated, and we
know that it was a hoax, and of what Trump
kept saying all along turns out to be, oh, well, yeah,
actually that was true. Democrats need to be held accountable,

(32:24):
if for no other you know, let me be petty
here for all the crap they put Trump through. I
want a little revenge. I want Democrats to have a
little taste of their own medicine. I want democrats to
realize that there is a new sheriff in town. And
if you want to call it law fair, I don't care.

(32:45):
But if you can actually show that he violated the
law and he actually unlawfully released classified information regardless of
his motive, I don't care about it. I know what
his motive was. He wanted to, you know, euphemistically kill Trump.
Others wanted to literally kill Trump. Here, he wanted to
euphemistically kill Trump, and so he broke the law doing it.

(33:09):
Let's start recognizing what I have said for decades, and
that is these people, these members of Congress, members in
the deep state, administrative state, are no different than you
and I, and they should be held to exactly the
same kind of standards that we are so shift to shift.

(33:33):
If you violated the law, suffer the consequence