The following is a transcript from the Pro America Report.
Welcome, welcome. Welcome, Ed Martin here on the Pro America Report. I’m just sitting here. I don’t know if you have ever had this experience, but I am having this experience where I had a document sent to me. I asked for it and I got it sent to me. And I read it, I was reading it. It’s about 18 pages and then I printed it. And when I printed it it the print is way smaller than it was on my screen, so I’m struggling to look at the paper copies as I get ready to talk to you about today’s WYNK. What You Need to Know. By the way, go to proamericareport.com proamericareport.com, sign up for the daily WYNK. Follow me on Twitter @EagleEdMartin on Twitter, and PhyllisSchlafly.com is our website. You can contact me through the website or e-mail me ed@phyllisschlafly.com.
So, what have I been digging into? I’ve been digging into the records from the Select, the Unselect Committee on January 6th, the Liz Cheney unselect committee that spent you know close to 18 months, and it looks like I don’t know, they’re starting to add up the numbers. I I think I might be kind of combining a couple of different accounts and I might be acting like Nikki Haley. Nikki Haley, you know, announced that she raised $11 million, when she actually released the money that she raised, She had double counted, double counted and she actually had raised not 11, but something like 6 and what she had done was in the six she had raised 4,000,000 and then 2,000,000 and then four million. And she added the 2,000,000 four million and six and and and the other 4,000,000 and got close to 11 million. She double counted. Anyway. It was embarrassing for her and an indication that either her campaign wasn’t ready for prime time or they were being sneaky.
So when I say this, it looks like the unselect Committee of Liz Cheney and the crew spent somewhere around $15 million, fifteen million dollars, and one of the things that I asked for I haven’t gotten that yet. Is a breakdown of the a copy of the transcripts. Of the hearings themselves, the public hearings, as well as a breakdown of the coverage, the TV coverage, I’m not sure that’s all available, but anyway, this is my point. The reason why I’m asking. Is one of the most. One of the central tenets of our American legal system is the is the notion of due process, right? Due process and that’s a little bit amorphous, the term like if you. Went out and said. Hey you get due process, they say. Yeah, yeah, yeah. You you know, you can’t take my stuff without going through the right process. OK. That’s due process part of it, you know due process. You can’t arrest me without having reasonable reasons to arrest me, you know. You know, you have a have a have a. Have an actual warrant, you know, probable cause or or or justifications under various laws to take away my liberty by detaining me. All these things due process. When someone wants to come and take my stuff, look at my stuff, subpoenas, surveillance, due process.
And it feels. To a lot of us, like the American tradition, this this tenet of American life, due process is being denied. It’s being denied.
It’s not just when the NSA head Clapper. I think it was Clapper. At the time it. Was either Clapper or Brennan lied to Senator Rand Paul, when he was asked, are you? Do you look at, Is NSA snooping on Americans? And he lied. No, they’re not. And then later came back and had to admit I lied. So it’s not so much only like the NSA snooping, which is a problem. There’s lots of problems. It’s not just the the surveillance state which is developed as a problem. It’s not just the FBI which has enforcement agents, lawyers and others who are either redacting documents, changing testimony, distorting FISA applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court or foreign. That’s what it is. Is that? Yeah, I think that’s right. The the secret court. But all these Patriot Act things that happened that we have grown to regret more and more. It’s also some of the basics. Other parts of it.
So one of the aspects of due process in our system is the idea that you can get a an impartial adjudication, an impartial arbiter of The situation so that you have a chance to prove your point. And I say it like that because it actually can mean in some cases that you’re required to have a judge that is without bias. It’s not only a jury, I I I’m interested in jury. I’m gonna talk about that in a second, because what you need to know is the due process denied in this current environment that we’re living in, it it it’s it’s one of the aspects that’s being denied all of us of a certain side of the aisle, I’d say or a certain temperament, certain ideological background, the due process denied is about having an impartial, unbiased arbiter of The facts and the law for us to try to prove our case. And so you can say and I’m not doing that now you could go through how The judges in our system, too many judges are really biased. You can go into the Soros funded DA’s. And by the way, there’s Soros funded judges also, but that’s even that’s not what I want to talk about because one of the Things that feels Fundamental to American life. And of course, it’s not that common. Is the right to jury trial by a jury of your peers and the reason they say it’s not that common is not many people have to go through it. I don’t know if you could go right now and do a survey of our listeners. How many of our listeners have gone and done a jury trial? I would, been the subject of a jury trial. Say they have a say, They have a dispute with their with their. Plumber and the plumber decides to fight the dispute and you go to court and the court says, you know, we gotta figure this out. We’ll get a jury and you go to jury or someone gets in trouble with the law and has a jury. I’m not sure how many People have been through that. No, I don’t think that many. I’m not sure how many people have have served on a full jury. Many people get called and don’t end up serving, so that’s the question. That’s the wonder I have. About the. That’s the why I’m phrasing it that way about an impartial and without bias adjudicator.
But putting aside judges, let’s talk about due process denied. In the case of the Unselect committee and Liz Cheney and the gang, because what we’re seeing when you look at the, the the documents now that are coming out and some of them have been out, but as some of them haven’t been and some of them I haven’t examined until now. So putting that all together, you’re talking about looks like 10s of millions of dollars spent. In such a way to influence the public In the direction of I I guess the UNSELECT Committee and Liz Cheney would want to say it is a political argument. I don’t think they’d wanna admit it too freely because you’re not supposed to use your official efforts, your official office, your official staff. To further a political meaning, a partisan political argument. But I think they would say it’s a it was. A. A maybe? It was a a a legal argument, a public argument.
Whatever it is, they clearly positioned it as a public display to influence the people about what they believe happened, and it is a partisan effort not for one party or the other, but for one viewpoint. So it’s partial. It’s not impartial. When you look at what they showed, when you look at the video that they made available. In other words, the Unselect committee of Liz Cheney and the gang, they did not make all the video available to the media or anyone else. So and and By the way, they weren’t required to, they’re just a. Congressional committee. They were a rogue Congressional committee, but they’re not. There’s no legal requirement that you do a a, A that you do that you respect due process. As to say the right of a accused, right of the accused to confront their accuser, or for a again for a A proceeding to have true real Opposition and contentious debate over things. There’s no requirement of that.
On the other hand, when you’re spending 10s of millions of Dollars you look Up at the end of it and you say, what did they accomplish with 10s of millions of dollars? What was it that they were trying to do with 10s of millions of dollars and and Dozens and dozens, I don’t know how many 100s of hours Of prime time TV and millions and millions of social media generated contacts. What is it that they were they that they, Liz Cheney unselect committee Was trying to do?
And the answer is they were trying to persuade us, brainwash us and in particular. If it was effective on a third of the country, half of the country, in particular, it was effective on the DC residents who saw it in their hometown paper, The Washington Post, who saw it in their hometown news every day, who saw it on the national news If they watched that, who saw it everywhere about their hometown. And those are the people that are the jury of your peers, if you Go before that Jury, if you’re, if you’re Donald Trump, if he’s indicted, if you’re the January 6th defendants, if you’re going to court. That’s the reality. That’s the reality of what happened.
And now you look at the money spent and and you say to yourself, OK, 10s of millions of dollars, you know, millions and millions of dollars for this and that and the other to create this thing. And and they weren’t even trying to tell the truth. They weren’t even trying to tell the other side. They weren’t even trying to allow an opposition point of view. There was no time for anyone who disagreed with the narrative machine. As it was being put forward, there was no time for those people to object, to participate, to have any role.
Think about that. Due process denied in shaping how people understand what happened. Say it differently. As we’ve done before. Shaping what people see, and therefore what they know, and therefore what they believe and what they do. And for months and months. Aided by massive amounts of taxpayer dollars, aided by friendly media, big media, big tech. The Liz Cheney Unselect Committee was able to drive a message.
Now, pause for a second and say to yourself. Were they good at it? Did they succeed at it? Well, it didn’t succeed in my mind when they had that they had a smoking gun. Like Ohh, look what we found. We now see that there was this conspiracy or that sedition. I think that failed. But you’d be foolish. I’d be foolish to think that the people who do this at this level, you know, people who are doing this kind of communicating at the level of the US Congress, the United States Congress, the most powerful nation on the Earth in the history of time, the most powerful body political body ever. Ever the US Congress, the most powerful government, the US government, ever. To think that they wouldn’t be good at this, really good at it, knowing what works, knowing what messaging, knowing how to package it up. I mean, it’s true that they hired prime time, you know, ABC producers and things, and you look and there’s been some coverage of this, the this the the money spent to these expert consultants and these things and and you know at the level that we’re talking about, you know, the senior staff members for top level elected officials, these are talented people. These are not the these are not the C team, right? These are people that know how to do this really well, and that’s what they did. That’s exactly what they did. They went through systematically and they built up this case. And so now back to my point.
What does it mean when one of the pillars of American justice, the idea of due process. The idea of a jury of our peers is undercut like this. And where is the outcry? Due process denied when it comes to jury trials, when it comes to more broadly the notion of having unbiased tribunals in which you can adjudicate your the claims against you. That’s so fundamentally American. I mean, it’s it it it’s not. This is not these people throw around Banana Republic all the time in this context, they say, oh, this Banana Republic. Banana Republic, I mean it’s it’s a, it’s a nonsensical phrase to throw out in the sense that can mean anything to anybody, but what it ultimately what it what it —
To me what it means. Let’s just say that, is a lot of those places that you refer to, banana republics, they have a system of justice that is just pure power based, right and and whatever they have to do to make the system look like they want it to look, they’ll do. And a lot of banana republics, they won’t even bother to try to hide it. They just say, here, I have power. You don’t. And swallow it up. You know, swallow up the the opposition, they swallow up. And and make it disappear and that happens. But in a more sophisticated way you have this situation where. In America, due process and and you know you can say and I hear people say it was never good enough, right? It was never good enough. The system was never good enough. I got. I get that. I’m not saying there wasn’t a problem with, I don’t know, jury nullification or even corruption or whatever. But generally the system was working and generally when it didn’t work or we found out it didn’t work, we objected.
Right in front of our eyes. Right in front of the nation’s eyes, right in front of the legal bar, the legal community’s eyes, right in front of the media’s eyes. We see an egregious, unbelievable breach of the trust, the public trust. About how we should have our legal system work, how we should have our due process when it comes to a jury of our peers, unbiased tribunals in which to adjudicate a claim.
And we’re watching it. And who’s objecting? I mean, I think some of the commentators are objecting on the right, some of them, but most of the time, even the conservatives end up saying, well, the system which we respect so much, which we revere so much, which we are a part of, it will work out. It it looks like it’s breaking not from the inside, by the way. I’m not making that critique now. There is a critique to be made that the system is breaking from the inside. Not only Soros prosecutors, or judges who are not doing their jobs and other things I’m not even making that argument now. I’ll make it another day.
What I’m saying is. When you have, I’m looking at the pages now with tiny tiny print. Look at the pages of 10s of millions of dollars going to all these people. Going to to, to, to professionals going to put together the the brainwashing, the propaganda. But the propaganda aimed in such a way and someone says someone I was telling someone about this argument. They said you can’t know that. And I said, you’re right. I can’t read their minds. I haven’t found the memo where they said if we poison the waters in the community completely for the next 18 months, it’ll make it impossible for them to have a jury trial. I can’t find that memo. I haven’t seen it yet. But the impact is still the same. You can describe the impact. You can describe as clear as can be. That the reality. Of what’s happening is having that impact. That there’s no chance you have a jury trial of any serious fairness. There’s no chance you have a a a tribunal in which you can adjudicate the claims against you, that you feel that it is unbiased. It doesn’t. It doesn’t make sense. And yet. Where’s Liz Cheney and Benny Thompson and the select un committee Where are they being pulled before a body to say, why did you do this? Why did you damage America like this? Major problems.
All right. That’s what you need to know and. We will take a break. Be right back. It’s Ed Martin. Here on the Pro America Report, back in a moment.
