Hans Von Spakovsky - Senior Legal Fellow, Heritage Foundation Joins Houston's Morning News

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
All right, So again, Tulca Gabber, the Director of National Intelligence,
says Barack Obama led the way in manufacturing and politicizing
evidence to use against President Trump that he knew was
not true. Hans von Spakowski is the senior legal Fellow
at the Heritage Foundation. Hans, good morning, Good morning, Bob,
So thank you for the time. What was your reaction

(00:22):
to the revelations by Tulsa Gabbert.

Speaker 2 (00:26):
Well, she's just pouring concrete into things that we already knew.
You know, we had heard from prior reports about meetings
at the White House that the president vice president attended,
and this gives substance to all of that. And what
people need to understand is just how dangerous this is. Look,

(00:47):
the FBI is the most powerful law enforcement agency in
the country. They can destroy you as an individual if
they go after you. It is very hard to stand
up to the government. And what these documents show is that, uh,
it was not only with the president and Vice President
wall in this, but James Clapper, the d n I

(01:09):
was involved in it. John Brennan, the head of the CIA,
and James Comby of the FBI were all involved in
this conspiracy and and the short the short of it
is that the intelligence assessments prior to the election showed
the Russians had neither the capability nor the interest in
interfering in the election. But all of these individuals got

(01:33):
together and decided to use their government authority. They decided
to abuse their government authority to basically manufacture a false
story that Donald Trump had been elected because of Russian
interference in the election and that he was an ally
of Vladimir Putin. And they knew it was false.

Speaker 1 (01:57):
And that's the key, of course. First of all, it
was information. Not only did they know as false, they
are the ones who falsified it. They're the ones who
manufactured this, which appears to be why D and I
Gabbert is using the word treason. Greg Jareded suggests that's
a little bit too strong. You're never going to get
anybody on treason. What can they get them on?

Speaker 2 (02:17):
Well, I think you can get them on. He also
talked about a conspiracy against rights. That's a federal criminal
statute when two or more people get together to deny
someone their rights under federal law or the constitution and
clearly participating freely. An election campaign is protected by both

(02:44):
the First Amendment of the fourteenth Amendment. By the way,
you could tell how dangerous these materials are that we're
turned over, because immediately as soon as this news came out,
I don't know buff you saw this, but a Democratic
representative from Connecticut, Jim High, immediately went out on x
to say that, oh, this was utter nonsense. Now think

(03:05):
about the fact that he came out and said that
before he had even had any opportunity to review any
of the documentation that Gabbart had sent over to the
Justice Department. So in other words, he's condemning what she
did without actually looking at ant of the evidence. And
I think actually that's an indication of how scared Democrats

(03:30):
are about the evidence that she has turned up.

Speaker 1 (03:34):
Well, clearly the default position of the Democrats is going
to be denial of anything anybody says, you know, in
particular you know the DN. I So I'm not surprised
by that, Hans. What I really want to know is
where do you think this ultimately ends up? Because conservative
Republicans have been begging for accountability for handcuffs I mean

(03:54):
going back some time, I mean even to Hillary and
her unsecured server in the exposure of classified information to
form bad actors. All the way through, we never seem
to get any action. We have a lot of noise,
but it signifies nothing. Do you think ultimately anyone will
be held accountable in the list of names you just went.

Speaker 2 (04:13):
Through, Well, let's say you the biggest problem here is
the federal statue limitations on most federal criminal laws is
five years. And as you know, all this happened a
long time ago. They might be able to get them
on perjury because remember, all of these same individuals like

(04:36):
John Brendan and others were asked testified before Congress about
this and all of them said are claimed that nothing
like this had happened, so that their testimony was much
more recent. So potentially, you know, there's actions there. But
even if the statue limitations has run, the fact that

(04:59):
they are are finally being exposed is a good thing
for the American people because you know what it means
is that hopefully these individuals will never ever hold a
position of public trust in the government.

Speaker 1 (05:12):
Again, amen to that. That is crucial in all of this.
Hans von Spakowski, Senior legal Fellow at the Heritage Foundation,
Thank you for the analysis. Hans, we'll follow it and
hopefully we'll check in again.

Speaker 2 (05:24):
Yeah, thanks for having me